The hon. Gentleman serves with me on the Scottish Affairs Committee. As he will remember, we were not recommending that there should be a change to the legislation on this point. Unanimously we agreed that putting it in legislation would be too difficult, and we understood the Minister's difficulty in identifying a policy that would encompass these points. But we wanted to raise the matter again because it was raised with us on a number of occasions by people who could see how the Government's commitment could, in effect, continue to be met while there was none the less a deterioration in service.
The Minister has made the point that the contractors are independent. If somebody leaves a post office, somebody else will have to decide whether they want to take that on. After the next election, there may well be a number of Liberal Democrats looking for new jobs, and they may consider whether to become sub-postmasters. So, I am actually thinking of the Minister as much as anything else. He might wish to become a sub-postmaster in those circumstances, and, to return to a previous point, I am sure that he would much prefer a 10-year, or what might then be a five-year, guarantee with Royal Mail to one of only a few weeks. Again, it would be for his own good.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ian Davidson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
521 c343 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:19:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699657
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699657
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699657