| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In the past few moments, we heard that last week the Prime Minister said that there was no alternative. That was before today’s amendments. There we are; it is a closed mind and no doubt we have heard, “There is no alternative”. People have said that in the past. It was known as “TINA” at the time: There Is No Alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, understands the attitude of people and the feelings of private shareholders.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is straight to the point and does not go round China to get to Chatham. He came straight out with it and gave us a little telling-off for making Second Reading speeches. When a number of amendments are grouped together like this, it is not possible to stick to one avenue of argument. The noble Lord said something that resonated with me as an old working-class socialist. He said that he does not think that we should be bullied. He also wants two commitments from the Government as we go through the rest of the Bill. I wish him the very best of luck. If they find favour with me, I will troop through the Lobby with anyone who seeks to protect our wonderful, valuable Post Office.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle gave voice to the problems of TNT once again and spoke about the clarification of the £3 billion. Throughout five days of Committee, Second Reading and today, we still do not know what they are talking about in terms of the money that they need. We know that what has been suggested was a sale to TNT, if the newspapers are correct; but I do not believe much in them anyway. My noble friend talked about the siren voices of the Opposition. That is what they are there for. That is their policy. You cannot blame the siren voice of someone seeing an opportunity to get their policy on the back of a Labour Government’s proposal.
My noble friend Lord Christopher addressed the ownership question in his amendments towards the end of the group. He asked whether British people would stand for poorer deliveries. They have stood for
11 May 2009 : Column 838
My noble friend also mentioned modernisation. I did not mention the CWU/Royal Mail modernisation agreement. I will put it on the record, since it has been mentioned in the debate, that 50,000 jobs have gone since the infamous Postal Services Act 2000. In the past few moments, we heard again about inefficient management, where we will have to bring people in who have expertise. Expertise in what—sacking more people? The modernisation agreement has already penetrated more than 90 per cent of the whole of the operations of Royal Mail. To listen to some people today, you would think that Royal Mail has failed miserably. There are still more than two years of that agreement to run. I do not know whether it is too long an agreement, or whether it should have been shorter. I did not negotiate it, but the people who did so did a good job, and they honoured it. As my noble friend Lord Christopher said, 50,000 jobs disappeared—that is 50,000 duties and posts, but only one compulsory redundancy. Does that smack of obduracy, obstruction and difficulties? Or does it say that there was common-sense working to get this agreement through in various places? I am the first to admit that there are some areas where it is difficult for people to vote to lose their own jobs or to change their own jobs. That is not easy.
My noble friend Lord Christopher also mentioned differences in the European Union. I said so much in Committee to prove that this country of ours has a postal service as good as you will get anywhere, especially for the price. That is often forgotten. This is the cheapest country in Europe for post at the basic rate or the first step up. Some of the competitors that we hear about already have a monopoly for those letters posted at the basic rate.
The Secretary of State said that private companies are faced with these different proposals. He said that he would not be drawn on the references to TNT, but why not? Are the British people not entitled to know that that firm has a rotten record of industrial relations, a rotten record of increasing its postage and a record of reducing its service? Are the British people not entitled to know that that is the company some people want to get into bed with? It is not good enough and we should be able to say it. Later on someone mentioned one ardent critic—surely that is not referring to me. I do not suppose that TNT is worried about an ex-postman from Hampstead. It is more worried about the money that it will invest and the returns that it will get when it starts stripping the company that it wants to get hold of.
We did not receive a clear answer on GLS focus. The Government should tell us clearly that GLS, as a profitable parcel service that is serving Europe, with
11 May 2009 : Column 839
The global recession was mentioned. Hooper started in 2003 and in 2002 I was telling the Government that the main problem was the loss of revenue due to the unfair and biased regulator, which thankfully, later in the Bill, is being replaced by Ofcom. Not before time, Postcomm will get its marching orders, although not before the £100 million a year lost by the Post Office in the past 10 years on top of the money that had to be paid into the pension scheme.
It is easier to talk about pensions and regulations in the abstract. As a former trustee of the Royal Mail and Post Office BT schemes, I know exactly why the Government have the responsibility for any deficit. It is quite clear that the regulation that allowed them to take a pensions holiday for all those years was the same regulation that allowed them to suspend payments because they would be responsible for the deficit. I remember going to the lawyers on behalf of my colleagues to say that it was unfair. We were still paying 6 per cent of every member's money into a pension scheme and the employers were doing nothing.
We are told that the Government did not have the courage, but what courage is needed to renege on a conference decision? You just cock a snoot to those people who diligently went along to the policy forum of the party and sat down and argued the case at what is known as the Warwick agreement and understood that there would be a wholly publicly owned Post Office. It does not need courage.
We talked about bringing in other expertise, but I could rattle off a list of names of decent people who were got rid of by the Post Office—people such as Brian Thompson, Jerry Cope and Brian Roberts. They could not manage because political interference at the time would not allow them to manage as some people would have wanted them to. There were people who could have solved these problems and it is not good enough to blame union agreements and obduracy in a couple of areas for all the problems.
I am shocked that the Prime Minister could say last week that he rejects any alternative when there is a sensible alternative, although not necessarily mine. We will find out in a few moments whether it has any support. Certainly, my noble friend Lord Christopher has spent hours trying to understand how we can get out of this impasse—the Government have painted themselves into a corner. I have no pleasure in saying that I will divide this House, and I may be the only one. I think we have to have two.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Does anybody want to volunteer with my noble friend Lord Hoyle and me, my Lords? I shall be proud to go through that Lobby. I do not want it on my conscience for the rest of my life, although I do not know how long that will be. I am not going to acquiesce to the bullying that is going on. I hope that some noble Lords—not necessarily a majority because party organisation is not like that—will see that we have a Post Office worth fighting for. Having
11 May 2009 : Column 840
4.31pm
Contents 25; Not-Contents 228.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Bilston, L.
Boothroyd, B.
Bragg, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Browne of Belmont, L.
Campbell of Surbiton, B.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. [Teller]
Cobbold, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L. [Teller]
Jordan, L.
Laird, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
McDonagh, B.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Palmer, L.
Rogan, L.
Sawyer, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Addington, L.
Adonis, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Bates, L.
Best, L.
Bew, L.
Blood, B.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Borrie, L.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brett, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Bridges, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Cathcart, E.
Chidgey, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Courtown, E.
Craigavon, V.
Crawley, B.
Crickhowell, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Denham, L.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Dykes, L.
Eames, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Falkender, B.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fearn, L.
Filkin, L.
Fookes, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fowler, L.
Freeman, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Geddes, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Glasgow, E.
Glentoran, L.
Golding, B.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grocott, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
11 May 2009 : Column 841
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Kilclooney, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Levy, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lipsey, L.
Listowel, E.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Mandelson, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Mitchell, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Murphy, B.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Neville-Jones, B.
Northover, B.
Pannick, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Puttnam, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Sheldon, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Southwark, Bp.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Tanlaw, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tenby, V.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Uddin, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vadera, B.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warner, L.
Warnock, B.
Whitaker, B.
Wilcox, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
4.44 pm
Clause 2 : Meaning of “Post Office company”
11 May 2009 : Column 842
3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Post Office board of directors
The Secretary of State must appoint a board of directors for each Post Office company.”
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 63 in this group. I apologise somewhat to the House for tabling Amendment 3 at this stage. I should probably have done so in Committee, but afterthought is a great thing. The amendment concerns a small point and I suspect that, when he responds, the Minister will give the answer set out on page 41 of the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. There, they state clearly that there will be a new board for Post Office Ltd with a non-executive chair to provide a new level of support and challenge for the Post Office’s management team.
When we reflected on the Bill following Committee, it seemed important to include in it the commitment that Post Office Ltd will have a separate board of directors. If a minority investment is to be brought into Royal Mail, it is important that Post Office Ltd has a separate management. The structure should be such that the minority shareholder should not be able to influence decisions made by Post Office Ltd, because under the reforms that the Government wish to bring in, Royal Mail and the Post Office will be separated structurally. As I said, perhaps I should have tabled this amendment in Committee but I should welcome the Minister’s opinion on whether it is necessary for that requirement to be put into the Bill.
Amendment 63 is much more fundamental, and it goes to the heart of the remarks that I made during the interesting Second Reading-type debate that we had on the previous amendment. As the Minister is well aware, as a fundamental condition of our supporting the Bill, we require significant assurances that this is a one-off opportunity to secure the independence and financial security of the post office network for the foreseeable future. We debated this at great length in Committee, and we have slightly altered the amendment here. In Committee, we suggested a figure of £2 billion in order to try to flush out from the Government what investment they thought was necessary to produce a secure post office network, but we have not put in a fixed figure in this amendment. On the other hand, we feel that, if the Bill is passed, it is critical that it should contain significant assurances about the long-term future of the post office and sub-post office network. That is our reason for tabling Amendment 63 at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, without going into what we discussed previously, I agree with the amendment. Anything that gives the Post Office a secure future has my total support. We are talking here about the possibility of increasing the figures in the future and applying them to the areas of the country that are most in need.
When we previously debated this matter, I received an assurance from the Secretary of State about planned post office closures. However, we did not get Conservative
11 May 2009 : Column 843
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24, to which my noble friend will respond shortly. I apologise for not taking part in the debates on the Bill. As noble Lords know, I have long been interested in the Post Office, and in particular in the post office network in rural areas. However, working on two Bills at once is a challenge.
The references in my noble friend’s amendment to,
- “the services the company’s post offices may provide to the public under arrangements with a government department”
underline my conviction that we need a secure post office network. Over the years, we have seen many closures. There were closures when we were in government, and there has been a horrendous number of closures since this Government have been in office.
Perhaps I may also raise with the Minister the future of postal card accounts. I have been fighting on this issue since 2000, when the Postal Services Bill went through. I am sorry if this matter was dealt with in Committee, but I could not be here. It is crucial in some areas for people to be able to access their benefits through the card account. I and many others believe that a lot of pressure has been put on individuals to receive their benefits in other ways, such as having them paid into a bank. As noble Lords know, this has had a huge effect on the profitability of sub-post offices.
I accept that it costs more to put business through the post office network; but it seems odd that we cannot find a system for the postal account that does not cost the amount quoted over the years of 99p per transaction. I understand that that is unacceptably high. I raise this because we have seen, and continue to see, many closures of rural post offices. At the same time, there are very few banks left in rural areas, so many people, particularly older members of the community and those with young children, find accessing their entitlements extremely difficult. I hope that the Minister will give me a reassuring answer about the Government’s thinking on this.
More importantly, I hope that we will free up the Post Office to find new work: that is what the Bill is about. I cannot remember the figures, but the Post Office is one of the biggest providers of foreign currency to those who travel overseas. Local authorities also
11 May 2009 : Column 844
I apologise to noble Lords for my intervention, but I am very concerned about the future of the Post Office card account, and hope that any new business will benefit not only the Post Office itself, but also those who use post offices, and particularly the most vulnerable users. I heartily support my noble friend’s Amendment 24.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for his amendment. It represents a real step towards addressing the concerns which we raised in Committee about the post office network. I shall also respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and praise my noble friend Lady Byford who has a tremendous track record in fighting for the future of post offices, the Post Office card account and to secure the future of the post office network. I thank her for her contribution, not only in her support for Amendment 24 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, but also for making her point about the need to free up post offices to provide other services which are much needed in the community.
As was said in Committee, post offices were very under-represented in the Bill. As we pointed out in the previous debate, after some 10 years of neglect, Royal Mail is being dealt with and put on the path to success. I should like to see the same amount of attention and support given to post offices. We have had some useful assurances from the Secretary of State, in particular the promise that no more programmes of closures are being planned, which is very welcome. Quite enough damage has been done to the network already by this Government.
In Amendment 23 the Secretary of State has made a very welcome move to bring forward the need for annual reports on the post office network. That was not in the Bill but we all pressed for it. The way in which this is set out in Amendment 24 could be improved but, at last, we have post offices in the Bill.
The duty to report on the network is one which we on this side hope will keep the issue of closures alive. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that not only do I want to see the existing network maintained and improved, but ideally I should like to see many of the closures reversed. I am very happy to put that on the record. For that to happen much more attention needs to be paid to the matters that my noble friend and I have raised in Amendment 24.
Our amendment seeks to extend the reporting requirement to cover the services which post offices are liable to provide. In Committee, we had a number of questions about the future of what was called post bank. Since then, we have heard a number of important
11 May 2009 : Column 845
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |