UK Parliament / Open data

Postal Services Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, particularly for her last few sentences; clearly we may well come back to the matter on Clause 4. However, I did not find the rest of what she said very reassuring. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to the legal difficulties on the inter-business arrangement. However, there are different legal opinions on it. If it is primarily the Government’s view that an ongoing agreement would run up against both state aid and competition laws, before we complete consideration of the Bill it would be helpful to have an opinion that spells that out in writing. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely pertinent to this. If a legally defensible agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd could not be sustained in law, how can that be compatible with the Government’s very clear—and, frankly, very political and public—commitment to maintaining a post office network of roughly this size? I do not think it is possible to square that circle, which raises deeper alarms than I had when I tabled the amendment. I am certainly not arguing that the inter-business agreement in its present form should last for ever, but both Houses of Parliament will need to be reassured as to which principles of that agreement the Government will see sustained through the ongoing relationship between the two parts of what is currently the Royal Mail Group. I hope that we get greater clarification when we move further into the Bill but, if anything, this short debate has alarmed me more. I have also been alarmed more on the assets; I am not sure that the Minister alarmed me, but the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, definitely did. She effectively said, ““We can’t set out in the report to Parliament””—the trigger for giving the go-ahead to the Secretary of State—““what assets we are and are not privatising””. In previous privatisations, on occasions there have been huge schedules about that. We do not have such a schedule attached to the Bill, and I do not propose that we do. There may be some obscurities attached to that schedule, in which case some footnotes may be needed.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

726 c73-4 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top