| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the statement issued yesterday by Sir Garfield Todd. After 67 years as a citizen of Zimbabwe, he has been told that he is no longer a citizen and that he has been disfranchised. It is a very moving statement. With your Lordships' permission, I think it right to place a copy in the Library so that your Lordships may read it for yourselves. I draw attention to the fact that Sir Garfield has said that, come what may, in March he will be going to the polling station to claim his right as a very senior citizen of Zimbabwe to cast his ballot for good against evil.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I understand that the Commonwealth is able to send only about 30 observers because it has no money to send more. Is there no way in which this country could pay for many more Commonwealth observers? Even at this late stage, from the point of view of the people, observers are extremely important.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that observers are enormously important. I point out to the noble Baroness that it is not only the Commonwealth which will be sending observers. There will also be observers from SADC, who I hope will have untrammelled access to the conduct of the elections. I am unaware of any restrictions on the numbers of Commonwealth observers. Therefore, I am surprised at the noble Baroness's remark. I shall make inquiries and write to the noble Baroness with any additional information that I can supply on the question of Commonwealth observers. I point out that these will not be the only observers of what is happening during the Zimbabwean presidential election.
HSBC Investment Banking Bill [HL]
3.10 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness O'Cathain and the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consignia
3.11 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain rose to call attention to the future of Consignia, its financial problems and the services it provides; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a highly topical debate. In fact, it is much more topical than I would ever have thought when I tabled the Motion. Consignia and several serious issues concerning that organisation are commanding headlines and many column inches in our daily dose of media. The organisation's main financial problem, of course, is that it is currently losing £1 million daily and that it is just about to announce, or so we are told, significant job losses. The main issue concerning the services that Consignia provides is the very recent publication by the Postal Services Commission—known as Postcomm—of proposals to liberalise and open up Consignia to competition.
The debate's additional topicality is due to the fact that the leaders of Britain's 145,000 postal workers are meeting today to decide whether to take action, which could take the form of anything from work to rule to a national strike, as part of a campaign to win a 5 per cent pay rise. Indeed, the announcement of how the Communication Workers Union intends to react to
the overwhelming vote for industrial action is likely to be announced even as we take part in this debate. As I said, little did I know how topical the debate would be when I tabled the Motion.Morale among Consignia's staff is said to be at rock bottom, as is manifest by the recent decision of postal workers. However, the decision is not due solely to the demand for £300 per week. There is also widespread frustration that Consignia seems to have reneged on proposals in the document Way Forward to introduce five-day per week working by the end of 2001. The latter point has resulted in resentment that major sorting offices operate a five-day work roster whereas staff in local post offices who organise the collection and delivery of mail are still on a six-day roster.
The users of the postal service are deeply concerned not only about the threat of industrial action, but also that the Postcomm proposals currently being introduced, but with a relatively tight time-frame for completion, will put the service's future in jeopardy.
Almost inevitably, having been a monopoly supplier in the public sector for longer than probably any other nationalised industry ever, Consignia has an overburdened cost structure, a reluctance to modernise its work practices and a general inertia leading to a wish to continue doing things as they have always been done. To the "concerned outsider", it seems that little importance is placed on producing a radical long-term strategy for the organisation.
The National Audit Office report entitled Opening the Post, published almost three weeks ago, is a brilliant exposé on the enormity of the risks posed when a monopoly nationalised industry is effectively opened up while remaining in the public sector. A daunting task awaits. However, try as I do to be positive about the opportunities facing Consignia, my analysis of the National Audit Office report has left me believing that if the plan fails there will have to be state handouts for Consignia.
Are the Government sure that they want to go ahead along the lines proposed and within the suggested time frame? Do the Government subscribe to the view that there might have to be a "universal service support fund", as mentioned in paragraph 2.39 of the NAO report? Indeed, do the Government have confidence that Postcomm's proposals will lead to Consignia's return to profit? I ask the Minister those questions not to score political points but because of a genuine concern that the proposed changes will neither improve service to customers nor return Consignia to profit.
The Postcomm proposals have caused much concern: first, among some of us who wonder whether the universal service will suffer and whether there will be a mad rush into cherry-picking, with the inevitable consequence that a residue of non-viable services is left with Consignia; secondly, among service users, particularly in rural areas; and, thirdly, among the elderly who rely on the local post office for pension and other benefits. In small villages, post offices are sometimes combined with small shops. The proposals therefore also concern non-car drivers in rural areas
who rely effectively on their "corner shop" to obtain shopping items. Finally—although they are one of the most important groups—the proposals concern Consignia staff.Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, who has an enviable track record as an astute and successful business leader, has described Postcomm's plans as,
- "death by a thousand cuts".
My view may strike some of your Lordships as an attempt to stem the tide of progress by putting a small finger in the dike and as a display of antediluvian tendencies. Others will feel that I am ignoring the fact that much of the business that previously relied on the provision of a good postal service is now transacted at split-second speed through cyberspace. I yield to no one in my admiration for developments in electronic business, and I am a daily user of e-mails, faxes and telephones, both conventional and cell, but all those are adjuncts to daily use of the postal system, not a substitution for it.
Without an efficient postal system my personal productivity would be greatly impaired. Indeed, I think that it would be extremely difficult to find anyone who would say that they could do without the post. One has only to remember the inconvenience and upset caused by previous postal strikes to realise the importance of the issue. Sadly, one does not have to go far back in the recesses of one's memory to recall such times.
Postcomm has two main statutory duties under the Postal Services Act 2000: to ensure the provision of a universal postal system at an affordable and geographically uniform price; and to further the interests of postal users wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition. Although both aims are worthy and desirable, I worry whether they are achievable without enormous cost in terms of deteriorating service levels, particularly in relation to achieving the universal postal service obligation.
Sometimes I fear that we are guilty of seeing everything as a much hyped-up extension of our own experience. Those who live in the big cities have the expectation that their mail will reach them early in the morning, and those in rural areas have the same expectation. However, neither group really analyses the practical consequences of that expectation.
I have some experience in the sphere of statutory obligation to provide a universal service throughout England and Wales, and I know that providing such a service is not easy. When I was managing director of the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales—which is now defunct as it was ultra vires with the Treaty of Rome; I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is not in his place—I had the responsibility
of ensuring that every drop of milk produced by every cow in England and Wales was collected daily from each farm.The milk had to be tested and sold on to the dairies and creameries to provide fresh milk on the table and the raw material for the producers or processors of cheese and butter. I refer to providing fresh milk on the table to 19 million households which was a logistic exercise in itself. There, I am afraid, the similarity ends in so far as there were only some 30,000 or so dairy farms, not 21 million establishments waiting eagerly for their mail. But that experience has given me some inkling of the highly complex nature of the logistics of postal collection and distribution.
Under the Postcomm proposals, opening up competition to the most profitable sectors of Consignia—namely, bulk mail above 4,000 items—from this year is probably just a matter of weeks away. Following that, the next most profitable part of the market—namely, bulk mail of smaller weight—will be opened up and then by 2006 the whole market will be free to all comers. It does not take the brain of a nuclear scientist to conclude that if an organisation is deprived of about 60 per cent of its most profitable market the remaining 40 per cent could be seriously non-viable financially.
I should like to ask the Minister with his great experience in issues of marginal costings whether he believes that it is possible to cream off the best revenue-producing services and still maintain a profitable universal service. Postcomm states that Consignia,
- "should be able to withstand the introduction of competition".
A desktop exercise shows that Consignia loses money and has a less efficient postal service than many other countries. It is a fact that it loses money, but is it correct that it is a less efficient postal service than that of many other countries. Are we in danger of comparing apples with pears? How many of the more efficient postal services have Saturday delivery? Certainly, I know that nowhere in North America or, indeed, in Ireland are there Saturday deliveries.
How many of those same efficient postal services have the added complication of providing both a first and second-class mail service? I should like to ask the Minister whether any assessment has been made of the financial implications of having a two-tier postal charge. Certainly my information, gleaned from people employed by Consignia, indicates that there is a massive on-cost associated with two-tier pricing. I refer to additional sorting, placing second-class stamped mail to one side, going out delivering the first-class mail, coming back and then going out later to deliver the second-class mail and retracing the same journeys. Why not have just one price stamp? I am sure that even I could come up with a suggested price which
would result in a similar revenue but involve much lower costs. It is interesting that the NAO report states at paragraph 24, on page 9:
- "For most customers of postal services the quality of the service they receive is more important than the price".
I am sure that every single one of your Lordships has ideas about how the postal service should be and could be improved, but I wonder whether there are long-standing rules and regulations which hamper Consignia in its drive for greater efficiency. I give just one example. How is it that in every other major city in the developed world, apartment blocks have banks of individual post-boxes in the entrance area where residents pick up their post? In London I have just moved into a newly built apartment block which is divided into four cores on 12 floors. The postman has to deliver to each individual apartment in each of the cores. There is no cross access between the cores so he uses four lifts stopping at each of the 12 floors four times—he stops four times at floor one, etcetera—to finish his round. It is no wonder that my mail is not delivered until 10.30 a.m. at the earliest! Does the Minister know whether there are regulations prohibiting the installing of banks of individual post-boxes in apartment blocks? If there are such regulations, does he think that they could be amended? It may seem a simple, stupid suggestion but it could make all the difference to the productivity of the service in large areas of major cities.
Of course, I am conscious that the individual customer is nothing like as vital as business customers, but with the commitment to the universal service they are important. The issue of rural post offices has been aired many times in your Lordships' House and I shall not prolong my speech by reiteration. There is just one aspect of the rural post office that is important and should not be overlooked. The post office in small hamlets, villages or towns provides a category of social service in addition to facilities covering benefits, pensions, TV licences, and so on. It can be the centre of a community. Lonely people catch up there on the local news. For example, action is taken if someone has not appeared for his or her pension. Could they be ill alone at home and need help?
For all kinds of reasons, many small communities are being turned into dormitory areas and second home enclaves. But there are many people living out their final years in fairly isolated circumstances for whom the local post office cum small store is a lifeline. I hope that that point will be taken into account in the headlong rush to introduce competition into the postal service.
I look forward to hearing all the contributions to the debate and thank in advance all those who are to speak. This is a very important subject as well as being very topical. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for initiating this debate. It is an important time for Consignia and it is right that we should discuss these matters at this juncture. I look
forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lord Clarke who had distinguished careers in the Post Office on the management and union sides respectively.My brief contribution will be focused on a report produced last August by a body that I had the privilege of chairing with Mr Nicholas Underhill QC and Mr Ian Borket. The report examined the unstable state of industrial relations at the Royal Mail and the effects of that on service delivery. All those who take an interest in this industry are aware of its generally unstable industrial relations. Noble Lords may find one figure helpful in that regard. In the year to 2001, 66,000 employee days were lost to the business through unofficial industrial action. That is clearly unacceptable and something needed to be done about that.
We visited six mail centres, four of which were regarded as failing mail centres due to the high level of unofficial industrial action and two of which were regarded as operating satisfactorily with limited or no industrial action. We indicate in the report that an old-fashioned and outdated management style is adopted in the business. That style is authoritarian, directive and controlling. Many postmen and postwomen say that their managers and business leaders adopt a bullying attitude. "Bullying" is a strong word but it is often used to describe the management style in the Post Office. We found that the union response to that management style is as one would expect; that is, it is adversarial. The unions oppose that management style and want something different. Consequently, the unions often deploy restrictive practices. In general, an adversarial system of industrial relations exists in the business.
The issue that had the greatest impact on my colleagues and I conducting the independent inquiry was the complete collapse of trust between the management and the unions. That is a serious situation. Any organisation or business in which trust between the management, the workforce and the trade unions has collapsed is bound to encounter difficulties in trying to perform successfully. It seems to me that that is the biggest single issue in industrial relations terms that the business needs to resolve.
Our report contains two main recommendations. The first is to bring to an end unofficial industrial action. We consider that to be absolutely fundamental. If the business continues with high levels of industrial action business confidence and the ability of the business to be successful will continue to decline.
The second main recommendation was that management and unions should move away from adversarial or confrontational industrial relations and towards the partnership working that we see in many successful businesses and industries. We demanded big change from the management in our report, but we also demanded big change from the unions. What that boils down to is that we are looking for a new culture in the Post Office that values and respects people and
which gives people, whatever the level they work at, an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the business.Our report was received by both sides in August last year, and it was accepted by both sides. They immediately agreed to place a moratorium on all unofficial industrial action. Noble Lords might think that that was a matter only for the trade unions, but industrial action is often caused by authoritarian management attitudes. The moratorium was implemented by both sides and is now seven months old. Since the report's publication, there have been hardly any incidents of unofficial industrial action in the business.
Consequently, the service levels in the business have risen from 86 per cent to 90 per cent and the standards have stayed above 90 per cent since August last year. That is not clearly in the public domain because people are anxious that such success will not be maintained—if we start to celebrate it prematurely, it might end and the celebrations would have been unwarranted. However, I say, "Well done, that is an important step forward and we need more".
Management and unions have also embarked on detailed work through working parties to try to implement the rest of the report. They are considering partnership boards, management training and behaviour, how to implement agreements and procedures in an employee-friendly way and how to improve communications in the business. All of that is being done below the line, as it were, and not in the public spotlight. However, all of those matters are essential if we are to make long-term improvements in the way in which the business is managed and run.
I have seen managers at training colleges learning to respect and manage postmen and postwomen in a different, more inclusive way and the so-called union militants sitting round the table trying to work out constructive ways of building a partnership with managers. I do not say that the business is anywhere near being problem-free, but some of what we asked for in the report has been attempted. The people who are doing that need to be encouraged and supported.
We have a long way to go—we shall no doubt hear more about that in this debate. I refer to the cuts of £1.2 billion that we heard about when the chairman attended the Select Committee, the pay dispute that has already been mentioned this afternoon and which I hope will go to mediation and be resolved without a strike—a strike over pay is the last thing that the business currently needs—and the consequences of last week's statement by the regulator. The opening of bulk mail to the market has not yet been pronounced on by management, but that is a serious blow to the business. When management and unions come to terms with all the problems, we shall have more pain rather than less. My message to both sides is, "Keep going, build trust and partnerships, work together and respect each other. You have got the future of this business in your hands. You will meet competition but you can beat it if you work together rather than against each other".
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall discuss services to rural areas in particular. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on securing this debate. It allows me to expand a little on the comments that I made in relation to my Question last Wednesday in your Lordships' House. I was surprised by the Minister's Answer to my Question because it suggested that the Government now have sloping shoulders with regard to accepting responsibility. They should accept responsibility for the overall communications that rural areas—indeed, all areas—receive. However, my brief is rural areas and I live in a rural area. Rural areas are particular in that communications are more vital to them. People who live in rural areas either have to travel far or use a good communications system. When there are threats to that communications system, people in rural areas feel that particularly deeply.
I do not believe that the postal service we receive is a problem. It is of course difficult that my post sometimes does not arrive until midday but I greatly appreciate the fact that the service is reliable, secure and—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, touched on this—personal. That means much to the people in the village in which I live and to those in many rural areas.
When the regulator opened up the postal service to competition, I wonder whether he considered some of the services that the Royal Mail currently provides. I refer, for example, to the use of post buses. People use that service to travel round the countryside in places such as Exmoor. That service might disappear if the business was strictly commercial. I suspect that Postcomm has not considered that.
On the Post Office network, there was a moment when the Government could have seized the glory. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me that that moment has not passed. The rural White Paper contained some very good ideas about a pilot study, which has been conducted in Leicestershire. I remind the Minister, although I am sure that he does not need reminding of this, of some of the Government's aspirations for that pilot study. The White Paper stated:
- "The pilot will give older people, families and children a specially tailored information and transactions service in their local post offices, not only by face to face access across the counter, but also using Internet kiosks, web phones, telephone links, help-lines and surgeries. These will provide new health services, and general community and educational information".
I have already raised with the Minister the issue of broadband access for people in rural areas. The service is very patchy and does not appear to be set to get much better. Indeed, in today's newspapers, noble Lords will read of the difficulties of NTL and Telewest—I refer to their huge debts and the problems that they face. That does not suggest that they will extend any more of their cabling into a commercially difficult area.
If we are to have a difficult postal service, in which we are regarded as second-class citizens compared with businesses and those in urban areas, we should be increasingly reliant on extremely good Internet access. That is where the future may lie. However, the Government are doing little to secure such broadband access. They passed on that responsibility to the regional development agencies. The Government should consult those agencies further on whether they feel that they have sufficient finance to progress cabling in those areas. The Minister will no doubt reply that that is a matter for the private sector. I remind him that unless there is sufficient start-up use of that network for it to make the business worth while for cable companies, it simply will not happen. To date, the Government have not put their backing behind the provision of such facilities through, for example, post offices.
Furthermore, I believe—I am sure that other noble Lords will be better placed to comment on this—that the Government should ask themselves what the role of the regulator is. Is it to take a narrow view of the service and see what can be done about it, or is it to take a broad view in consultation with government of how an entire service can be improved? I fear there is a long way to go.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for raising this important topic. Should ownership of the Post Office be public or private? A perfectly good case can be made out either way. At present, we have an arrangement which seems to achieve the worst of both worlds—a private company with a single government shareholder and with Ministers in the background ready to interfere but not to accept responsibility.
The arguments for the privatised model include, among others, that it should enable the organisation to make maximum use of the markets so that it can provide the full range of new services that will be needed during the years ahead of fast-developing technologies; the reality of European liberalisation that will open Britain to outside competition; the fact that in other countries where full privatisation has been attempted, it seems to have been rather successful; and, perhaps above all, that competition is likely to force change in a stagnant and not very well managed business and force management to think of its customers' requirements rather than its own apparent convenience.
In that context I want to address the specific idea, which was reported in the Financial Times and which Consignia is said to be considering, of giving priority
to business over residential customers. It is believed that most of the latter leave their homes by 8 a.m. and therefore do not care whether a letter arrives at 9 a.m. or 3 p.m.What clearer indication could there be that Consignia's management has lost touch with the real world outside its own headquarters? Huge numbers of small businesses are run from home. A large number of businesses—I am chairman of one public company that does this—encourage some of their workforce to work from home using the new technologies rather than occupy large, expensive offices in the middle of town. A large number of people have multiple occupations; indeed, looking around the Benches in this House today, I suspect that I see a good many to whom that applies. And there are those who run, or raise money for, charities. One could go on; there is a host of such cases. In any event, what constitutes a business? Is it an individual earning a living, a public company, a private company or a partnership? I simply do not know how one defines "a business".
The time at which mail reaches a home depends very often on the ability of the individual postman. For a long time, we had a remarkable postman in my own part of Battersea, who seldom failed to have the mail in my letter-box before 10 in the morning; and often it was earlier. For many months, his successor practically never delivered our mail before lunch. That caused a good deal of inconvenience, despite the marvellous geniality of his smile when he finally arrived. I suppose that it was also a useful experience for me to deliver so many other people's mail which had been delivered incorrectly through my letter-box. I believe that the fact that Consignia is considering the proposal to divide the mail in this way suggests that something is badly wrong with the company.
However, one aspect of the mail delivered to my door may be part of the problem; that is, the huge weight and bulk of wholly unwanted mail, 80 per cent of which swiftly goes into my rubbish bin and helps to create a major environmental problem. It takes many shapes: a huge number of often duplicated mail order catalogues; unwanted solicitations; several invitations a week for gold, platinum, diamond or other credit cards; and an extraordinary number of frequently repeated charitable appeals. One sometimes wonders whether charities realise that if they repeat their appeals very frequently to those who have just given, it may be a rather unproductive exercise.
I noted that my noble friend argued against having two classes of mail. But, if we are to split the mail service, I wonder whether it might be a good idea to have a second-class delivery of the bulk mail which we do not want and would not mind if it did not arrive until the afternoon. I want the mail which is important and which I want to read to reach me early in the morning before I leave home.
In Wales I do not necessarily expect my mail to arrive before 9.30 a.m. Certainly my neighbours who live in remote roads could not expect that. But the universal delivery to my neighbours and to all of us in the countryside is of immense importance. If that
service were abandoned, it would be a further disastrous blow to an already hard-hit countryside. Therefore, if we are to have competition, I believe that it must be genuine competition that imposes similar obligations on all who provide the service. We have a regime in the independent television sector that imposes obligations, and it can be made to work. I believe that it would be a disaster to cherry-pick the very best and leave Consignia only with the obligations.My noble friend Lady O'Cathain reminded us that Postcomm has responsibility for ensuring that the universal service remains. I wish that I had more confidence in the ability of financial regulators to get it right. Our experience in other industries has not been altogether encouraging. Therefore, I view the possibility that it will manage the affair by means of cherry-picking as a real threat.
My own conclusion is that we probably do need more competition, but it must be fair competition. That can only be achieved if one goes down the road of full privatisation combined with obligations. The worst option is a system in which the Government play an unhelpful role—they have not exactly been brilliant in replacing the chairman—but pretend to have no responsibility. I say to Ministers that if the universal service goes and the delivery service continues to decline, I believe they will learn that responsibilities exist. I believe that they will also learn that the electorate, not least in the countryside, feels fairly strongly about these issues. Those responsibilities cannot be dodged; if they are, they will pay a heavy political price.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her exquisite timing for this debate. Britain has one of the leading post offices in the world. As a member of its superannuation scheme, I declare some interest in its future.
As we debate the Post Office today, its future potential as one of the main players in a liberalised postal service in Europe is in the balance. I suggest that our shared concern should be that it emerges as one of the winners, providing benefit to the nation, to the workers and to the business. They must all perceive benefit. The Post Office is on the threshold of that new world following two years during which, by common consent, things have gone badly. And it is the custom of our nation to stand back and ask who is to blame.
I have it on very good authority from a Motion presented by the Conservative Party to the other place on 29th January that,
- "the Government's total mismanagement . . . has created the crisis that is facing the Post Office today".
What happened? Who went? It was the chairman. The chairman's lot is not a happy one. Dr Bain rendered a service and led the Post Office into its new plc status. We ought to thank him for his role.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the Government in seeing that we get our letters at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time. Responsibility for that lies essentially with the lads and lasses who deliver the letters and the managers who help it to happen. However, the Government have a significant role. I shall identify four areas in which I look to the Government to discharge their role effectively.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said when commenting on the chairmanship, the Government's first and overriding responsibility is to ensure that the Post Office has a strong board. Dr Bain has gone and we have an interregnum. That is not what one would have chosen and we are very fortunate that Allan Leighton has taken the job. The Government must get the long-term appointment right. They have no more important responsibility in that respect at the moment. For goodness sake, they must remember that if they want somebody world class, they will not get them for coppers. The Government have to face up to the reality that they must reward good performance. If they find—and if the new chairman agrees—that the board needs strengthening in some areas to enable it to be effective in a newly competitive world, they should be prepared to make another part-time appointment if need be. That is the Government's prime responsibility.
The Government's second responsibility is to make it their business to give a brisk response when they receive the proposals from the Post Office on its new strategic plan at the end of March. So often in my day, the proposals disappeared into Whitehall. The quickest that I ever got a decision on a major investment was one year.
In recent times the record has been much better, but there is an awful tendency for all the lads in Whitehall to gather round the corpse and get their pickings. This is not a time for that; this is a time for the Government to approach the issue as a merchant bank would harness resources to dispatch the business effectively and quickly.
My third point of concern, which has already cropped up in the debate, relates to Postcomm's proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to its duties: to ensure that there is a universal service, but to promote competition between postal operators in the interests of consumers wherever possible. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that Postcomm intends to get on with it. However, it intends to do so much more briskly than Europe as a whole. That is what worries me. We are opening up our markets to the Germans, the Dutch and the French. Look what happened with the water and electricity industries. It is right to open up the market to competition—it will be a wake-up call and will cause
the business to be revisited and recreated—but, my goodness, we must not give the business away. There are risks.If the statutory duties are not right, it is our fault because we passed the legislation. Unlike some previous statutes, it does not require Postcomm to have regard to the national interest in all respects. It says, "Go for competition, lads". That is not enough. There is a wider national interest and it is the Government's duty to see to that.
My final humble request to the Government is not to continue to treat the Post Office as a cash cow. Look what has happened to the Tube and the railways through the denial of investment. We all lose out. There may be battles to be fought with the Treasury on dividend policy and a capital structure, but Ministers must fight them if need be, because it is in the public interest that they do so.
Those are my requests to the Government. The essence of the battle has to be won not by the two sides in the Post Office fighting each other, but by fighting the competition. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, whose beneficent influence is found throughout the Post Office today. We needed a catalyst to tell those involved, "Come on, you silly b's, there are better games to be played than confrontation". They can only succeed by collaboration and looking for new ways.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to the "distinguished" contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and myself. Happily they are now extinguished. As yesterday's men, we have something to look back on with pride. I do not have time to give the House the comparative figures for quality of service and price, but, particularly above the 30 gram cut-off point, our Post Office compares very well with most other post offices in the world. We have something that could become one of the winners in the continental game of competing post offices. We must stop arguing about yesterday and who is to blame. There is something to be won. Postal volumes per head in the United States are twice those per head in this country. It is not a business of yesterday; it is a business with a future, if only we can make it together. We must.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in thanking—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page