Postal Services Bill

I welcome the debate. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), I do not want to see the privatisation of the Post Office at all, but if it happens the new clause will ameliorate its effects. Does anyone really believe that the Post Office, going out into the world of competition, would be able to survive against some of the competitors it would be up against? The case for going outside has not been made, but if it does go outside the Post Office should be protected. I am not quite sure where the Liberal Democrats are coming from—there is nothing unusual in that—but they seem to think that European Union law stops us passing this new clause. We have had no evidence to demonstrate that, and I do not believe that any evidence was shown in Committee either. I hope that the Minister will explain exactly what rule in European legislation prevents an inter-business agreement. Everybody else who appeared before the Committee seemed to think it was a good idea. George Thomson of the National Federation of SubPostmasters said:"““On separating Post Office Ltd from Royal Mail, it is unprecedented and we have to get it right, which is why we need a 10-year inter-business agreement… We need security for sub-postmasters; they have £2 billion of their own money invested in this business. If you were a company investing £2 billion in a PFI… you would get a 21-year contract. I am not asking for a 21-year contract, but… for a 10-year IBA contract.””––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2010; c. 29, Q70.]" He was not alone. Paula Vennells, managing director of Post Office Ltd, who ought to know as she was part of the new management, said that"““we have a very strong commercial relationship with Royal Mail and that is something that both businesses would want to continue, so as we transform the post office network we will make it into something that Royal Mail will want to use.””" Moya Greene, the chief executive, concurred, stating that it was"““unthinkable that we would not have a very long-term relationship with the Post Office.””––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2010; c. 17-18, Q42.]" Even Richard Hooper, who brought forward the original report, said in the updated report that he believed that the"““importance of the inter-business agreement should not be underestimated””.––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 11 November 2010; c. 114, Q228.]" It is a shame that those three people did not say that they wanted the IBA to continue in the way the amendment suggests. If we do not have that in black and white, we shall experience a rerun of what we witnessed in the Chamber between 12 and 12.30 pm today, when the Prime Minister repeatedly replied to questions by saying, ““We hope that this can happen””, ““We wish this to happen””, or ““We are looking into ways of making this happen.”” If privatisation takes place in the way that is being proposed, when the contract goes outside people will eat it up. I spent 30 years in the trade union movement trying to unravel agreements and contracts or renegotiate agreements with organisations. I would say, ““That must be there in black and white. If it is not in it, you cannot win it.”” If we do not provide protection for Royal Mail and the Post Office that works in the way in which the IBA has worked so far, the service will clearly not be saved. I appreciate that members of the Government are naïve amateurs who are doing their best to make things work, but that is not good enough. We need to ensure that services are supported. We are told that European Union rules are preventing that, and I hope that the Minister, who has now returned to the Chamber, will be able to explain exactly how they are doing so. When Corus was threatened with closure on Teesside, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and I were constantly told that EU rules prevented Government intervention. We were told that the Germans and the Dutch used those rules, and that the British must play by the rules. We were losing out. Unless we have real, clear evidence that this cannot be done under law, the Government's case will not hold water.