My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Razzall. It does not state that the merger shall never take place; it accepts that, in time, that may be the best thing, and the Government have put a strong case for it. I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that should happen now. Without in any way doubting his competence to manage the whole process, it is over-optimistic of the Government to expect that to happen at a time of enormous upset in the post office service and at a time when a consultation on the closure programme is underway. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that that process is ring-fenced, however much that is the case, you cannot stop disheartened staff leaving because they do not see a future for them within a new organisation. You cannot stop the expertise leaking out.
All we are suggesting is a delay until 2010 and that Parliament will have another look at the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on this issue at Second Reading—I fully understand why she could not be present in Committee—was quite right to say that the Commission for Rural Communities had been pretty silent on this. As she will know, I opposed the setting up of that quango, which can be no more than a voice. However, it is supposed to have direct access to the Prime Minister through its rural advocate and I wonder what he has been saying recently on this issue to the Prime Minister and if it has had any effect at all.
The amendment will provide a chance for the Post Office reorganisation, as the Government might euphemistically call it, to take place under detailed scrutiny from Postwatch, which it is best placed to deliver because it has been working on this issue for several years. No one can take its place in that regard. Our amendment offers a middle way. We are not saying that the reorganisation should never happen but simply that it should not happen at this time of enormous turbulence for the Post Office, which provides a crucial service for people in rural areas and is equally important for people in suburban and urban areas.
Finally, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised the issue of the business sector. The business sector has asked me to express its disappointment at the Minister’s response on this issue. In particular, a letter stated that, "““no detailed responses were made about the need to preserve sector-specific expertise and the representation of business interests in the postal sector””."
In rural areas, nothing is more important for small businesses than the postal sector—and that applies equally to the business sector throughout the UK.
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Consumers Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c162-3 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:50:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374489
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374489
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_374489