Despite all these amendments, which have been won by clear arguments put by Labour Members in the House of Lords and the Cross Benchers who supported them, I am still concerned about having a Bill that is fit for purpose.
Lords amendment 1 provides a new requirement that the report made by the Secretary of State will make clear the"““objective intended to be achieved””"
by the disposal of shares in Royal Mail. I have followed this issue very closely so I know that everything else falls on that. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the secretary of the Communication Workers Union liaison group of MPs in this House and have been so for more than a decade. Despite all the Minister's warm words, it is not clear what this is meant to achieve that can be achievable under this privatisation model as structured.
Does the ““objective intended”” include maintaining Royal Mail as an organisation able to deliver to all parts of the UK for a single charge or two varying charges? The Bill and the amendments provide no guarantees that that is the case. Will that be covered in the report given each year by the Secretary of State to the House in order to show just how far the failure has been progressed, and how far my concerns and those of other Opposition Members have been realised? If we were to fragment the Royal Mail—it is entirely possible that that will happen as there is nothing to prevent it under the Government's privatisation model—a Scottish regional mail delivery service could be given responsibility for meeting that objective under this model. That provider might then find that that particular part of the United Kingdom—the same could happen in places such as Cornwall and elsewhere in the south-west—the sparsity of the population and the diversity of the communities mean that it is not possible to make a profit. This process is about a privatisation and about giving organisations the right to run Royal Mail as an organisation that must make a profit. The Bill would allow them to come back to ask the Secretary of State to allow them to get rid of that universal service obligation.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Michael Connarty
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
529 c327 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:13:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_747599
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_747599
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_747599