Postal Services Bill
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Nia Griffith
Nia Griffith
I shall take your advice on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe that the hon. Lady should stick to the amendments on the Order Paper.
This first group of amendments concerns the sell-off of Royal Mail and the splitting up of the Royal Mail Group into a privately owned postal service and a publicly owned network of post office counters. It is against that background that we should consider Lords amendment 1, which requires that when the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a report on the disposal of a Royal Mail company, it should include
“information about the expected commercial relationship…between the Royal Mail company in question and any Post Office company”.
We genuinely welcome the inclusion of such information in the report, but no one should be under any illusion that this in any way constitutes an inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and the post office network. Hooper recommended in his report that there should be a long-term agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has asked for an IBA of a minimum of 10 years. We have repeatedly called on the Government, at all stages of the Bill, to include an inter-business agreement in the legislation, and have tabled amendments to that effect.
One third of Post Office Ltd’s revenue comes from Royal Mail. Without that revenue, Post Office Ltd would be unable to keep many post offices open. With the greatest of respect to Moya Greene, the current chief executive officer of Royal Mail, who has talked about a privatised Royal Mail continuing to use the post office network, it is no good simply having fine words. Those fine words need to be translated into a proper bankable contract—a proper agreement. Other countries manage to put agreements into their legislation, but the real difficulty in this case is an intense obstinacy on the part of the Government, who have set themselves against enshrining any protection for the post office network in legislation.
A profit-hungry privatised Royal Mail will be looking to cut costs and maximise profits. That could result in Royal Mail drawing up an agreement for part or even all of its services with providers other than the post office network, such as a supermarket chain or a high street store. A privatised Royal Mail may well wish to continue to have some sort of agreement with Post Office Ltd, but that agreement could be for a much reduced service from that which the Post Office currently provides. It could involve just a small proportion of the current network of Post Office branches. That could give rise to the surreal spectacle of some post offices being places where people could hand over their parcels or register their letters, with other post offices not offering postal services. It sounds a bit like a children’s riddle—“When is a post office not a post office?”—but it would be no joking matter for our post office network or for the public, who want easy access to postal services, if such services were available at only some of the current post office branches.
Nia Griffith
Lords amendment 17 requires that, when having regard to the requirement for a postal service to be financially viable, Ofcom should include the need for a reasonable commercial rate of return for the universal postal service. We argued this very determinedly in Committee. The provision of the universal postal service constitutes a considerable financial burden and we have seen how, in recent times, the opening up of opportunities for competitors to come in and cherry-pick some invitingly profitable parts of the postal delivery service, leaving Royal Mail to provide the universal postal service, has led to some considerable controversy about the price charged for the final mile. Royal Mail feels that the price set by Postcomm is too low, while the competitor providers would quite naturally always want the price kept as low as possible.
We welcome the fact that—as is made clear elsewhere in the Bill—Royal Mail will continue to be the provider for 10 years after privatisation, not just three. This will provide some much needed stability for the service and make it worth Royal Mail investing sufficiently in the necessary infrastructure. But crucial to the success and stability of the service is the need for the postal service to be financially viable. It would be immensely disruptive and damaging if a privatised Royal Mail got into difficulties and had to be bailed out. That is one reason it is essential that the regulator, Ofcom, should understand the need for a reasonable commercial rate of return for the universal postal service and make its judgements and interventions accordingly. This is common sense, so we shall support this amendment.
Lords amendments 16 and 18 provide clarity that the requirement for efficiency would apply after a reasonable amount of time and provide a definition of that reasonable period as a period beginning on the day that the provisions of the Bill come into force and which Ofcom considers to be reasonable. These amendments also help to improve the Bill and we shall support them.
Lords amendment 19 is an extremely important amendment. In Committee, we tried very hard to persuade the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the post office network was used to provide the network of access points, and we were very disappointed that the Minister chose to turn down the opportunity to show any real commitment to the post office network and refused to accept our amendment on using the post office network to provide the access points to the postal service.
This Lords amendment does not safeguard the post office network. It does, however, provide some protection for the public, and some reassurance that the Secretary of State may direct Ofcom to take action to ensure that sufficient access points are provided to meet the interests of the public. It is not, however, anything like as specific or forceful as we would have liked. It does not specify, as legislation in some other countries does, the number of access points or their geographical distribution. This is done elsewhere either by specifying a precise number of outlets, as in the German model, or by insisting on specific access criteria, as in the Australian model.
This amendment is much more subjective and leaves it as a matter of opinion for the Secretary of State to decide what is meant by sufficient access points to meet the interests of the public. Will the Minister clarify the thinking behind this, and specify the number of access points? We understand that the access criteria, as laid down in the document “Securing the post office network in a digital age”, could be met by a network of some 7,000 or 8,000 post offices. When we were in government we put in money to keep open a network of 11,900 post offices, and the present Government are doing likewise. What number of access points is the Secretary of State likely to designate as sufficient to meet the interests of the public? Will it be as many as the current network of post offices, or will it be fewer? If it is the latter, some post offices could cease to be access points for postal services and not only would they lose the third of their income that comes from the Royal Mail work that they do but they would stand to lose a lot more income, as they would lose footfall.
Access points would not, of course, have to be post offices. We have already seen some very adverse public reaction when post offices have been moved into the upstairs of some high street chains, making them difficult to find and time-consuming to access. Will the Minister clarify the number of access points he envisages meeting the interests of the public, and whether the Secretary of State might also have criteria for the accessibility of access points so that we do not end up with access points that are hard to access?
Access points does not just mean counter services, but can also include post boxes. Will the Minister give us any indication of what number of post boxes the Secretary of State would consider sufficient to meet the interests of the public? Would it be the same number as now, or are we likely to see post boxes removed or boarded up? I say that as someone who has only recently had to fight for Royal Mail to restore a post box at Brynteg in my constituency, and I can well envisage that a profit-hungry privatised Royal Mail would look to reduce the number of post boxes in order to cut down on collection costs. That could mean people losing their local post box and no longer having one within walking distance of their homes. We welcome the amendment because it could improve the chances of a better service to the public, but we would have liked a much stronger amendment to give a stronger guarantee of a comprehensive network of access points.
We welcome Lords amendment 20 and the consequential amendments 15 and 25, because they enable Ofcom to impose a notification condition on any person providing, or intending to provide, a service within the scope of the universal postal service. Again, this is important for the rational management of the universal postal service, and we should support it. Lords amendment 21 makes a significant change to Ofcom’s review of the costs of the universal service obligation. Whereas previously the Bill specified that Ofcom would have to wait three years from when the Bill came into force before it could carry out a review of the costs of the universal service obligation, the amendment increases the period to five years, unless the Secretary of State intervenes and directs Ofcom to carry out a review. We have not sought amendment 21. Will the Minister clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene before the five-year period is up?
On Lords amendment 22, we have consistently pointed out that the universal service provider incurs very large costs and needs to have as much certainty as possible about its future obligations so that it can plan long term and make the necessary investment in the latest technology. We therefore welcome the amendment, which means that Royal Mail will continue to be the universal service provider for the next 10 years, rather than just the next three years. This is a significant improvement. We know that significant modernisation has taken place within Royal Mail over the past few years. In the evidence sessions, the chief executive, Moya Greene, expressed her pride and delight in the world-class facilities that Royal Mail has in some of its depots, but she also pointed out that there are still areas awaiting modernisation. If Royal Mail is to continue to invest, the certainty of knowing that it will remain the provider of the universal service for the next 10 years will provide a much better basis for doing so than a mere three years. This is very important to create the necessary stability and justify the necessary investment. We therefore welcome the amendment.
Lorely Burt
This final string of amendments is another testimony to how the Government have listened to colleagues on both sides of the House. I greatly welcome a number of the amendments, particularly those that make the duties of Ofcom stronger than under Postcomm. I want to ask the Minister about amendment 19, which specifies that the Secretary of State can override the regulator on access points. We need to be wary about setting up an independent body but saying, “Never mind, the Secretary of State can override it”. We want to be sure that that could be done only to the benefit of the consumer. Bringing politics into the matter concerns me a little, so will my hon. Friend confirm that he cannot envisage any circumstances in which the Secretary of State could intervene, perhaps to specify that we do not need as many access points as now?
I particularly welcome amendment 17. Royal Mail has found it difficult to make a profit given the constraints under which it has had to work. The previous situation was impossible, so I am delighted with the amendment. We had to address the appalling decline in profitability, which was due to the ceiling imposed by the previous Government, who were unwise in their overzealous interpretation of the European legislation. If we can do it now, why could we not have created a more competitive environment for Royal Mail in the past? No one can make a profit with one hand tied behind their back. I particularly welcome Lords amendment 22, which guarantees that Royal Mail will remain a USP for 10 years, thereby removing any lurking uncertainty, which is particularly helpful.
Finally, Lords amendments 20, 15 and 25 require pre-notification to Ofcom of the planned commencement or expansion of a letters business on a specified scale. That will allow Ofcom to evaluate the potential impact beforehand, not after the stable door is opened and the horse has bolted. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little more about the circumstances in which he would envisage the provisions applying. Opposition Members have rightly raised the spectre of lots of other organisations wanting to come in and expand their letter delivery services, so how will the provisions work to ensure that Royal Mail’s commercial interests remain viable?
Promotion of Women in Business
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Nia GriffithWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her excellent opening speech and on securing the debate. I thank the many Members who have contributed in a positive way. There is much that we can agree on in terms of the need for encouragement, mentoring, sponsorship, role models and enterprise awareness, and those are very much the steps we need to take.
Ensuring that women can participate as fully as possible in business and enjoy full recognition of their abilities and potential is vital not only to promote a more equal and just society, but to make the best possible use of their skills to increase wealth creation and make a more prosperous society. Women are, of course, involved in many different types of business, from the self-employed woman who works just a few hours a week to the woman with the busy corner shop or the woman working in the very largest of companies. Many of the difficulties they face are not necessarily specific to women. Generalisations over the huge diversity of business can be misleading, and there are, of course, many excellent examples of good practice and success stories.
Over the past 30 years, women’s employment has significantly increased and women are making a greater financial contribution than ever to family incomes. Therefore, it is not surprising that more women’s jobs, particularly jobs in the service sector, have been affected in the current economic crisis than in previous recessions. With the expected job losses in the public sector likely to affect women disproportionately due to the high concentration of women in the public sector, it is important that the Government do more than simply hope that the private sector will grow. There needs to be a clear strategy for growth and encouragement for women to take up jobs in the private sector, particularly those who have not worked there previously.
During Labour’s time in office, we introduced measures that have supported women. We extended maternity leave and introduced paternity leave. We also introduced the right for parents and carers to request flexible working, and many speakers today have mentioned its importance. There is more to do to ensure that employees and employers are aware of the right to request flexible working. It can be daunting to be the first in a workplace to make the request. Many women are worried that such a request might harm their career prospects or make them look half-hearted about work. Properly managed, flexible working, such as changes in working hours to allow a parent to drop off children at school in the morning, can result in the mum or dad feeling much less stressed and better able to concentrate on their work. For some women, it can make the difference between continuing in work and having to leave a job.
Lorely Burt
I agree with all the points that the hon. Lady has made. Is it not good that the Government are introducing flexible working for everyone, because that deals with the stigma of asking? Anyone can ask for flexible working, whether they are picking up their children or going to the golf course, so it is seen as part of the norm and not a condescension for someone because they happen to be a parent.
Nia Griffith
Indeed, the opportunity to have flexible working is extremely important. That is why it is particularly perturbing that news is coming through of an exemption for microbusinesses. That effectively denies employees in businesses with fewer than 10 employees the right to request flexible working. I question the Government’s rationale for making that exemption. They seem to be saying that denying employees that right will somehow stimulate growth in the economy.
If we cast our minds back a few years, we will remember that the Prime Minister, in his speech to the 2007 Conservative party conference, spoke about flexible working:
“Companies that have adopted this have found that they are able to grant the request in the vast majority of cases, they have actually found that productivity has gone up, profits have gone up, staff morale has gone up and keeping staff is easier.”
So what exactly has changed? Will the Minister explain what sort of analysis his Government have done that suggests that flexible working hampers growth? What economic impact assessment did his Government do before deciding the exemption for microbusinesses? How will this move impact on women in business? How is it compatible with the Prime Minister’s promise when he was in opposition that a Government whom he led would be the “most family friendly ever”?
The loss of the right to request flexible working will affect both men and women, but at the moment, it is likely to affect women far more widely than men. It will be yet another obstacle to women being able to combine work and family responsibilities. It might mean some women giving up work altogether, or it might deter women from seeking promotion. Was an equalities impact assessment undertaken on the exemption decision, and if not, why not? We are getting used to the Government breaking promises, and that action is usually accompanied by some sort of lame explanation, so I am curious to learn how denying employees the right to request flexible working will stimulate growth in the economy. To most people, it just looks like a backwards step.
When in office, the Labour Government introduced the Equality Act 2010, which not only streamlined the law by replacing nine major pieces of legislation and around 100 statutory instruments with a single Act, but introduced measures to create a more level playing field and make life fairer for women. Those measures include requiring gender pay reports, using public procurement to improve equality, extending the use of positive action in the workplace, and protecting carers from discrimination—although that, of course, applies equally to men and women, the reality is that women are more likely to be carers. Can the Minister confirm that his Government will implement in full all the measures in the 2010 Act?
We, on the Opposition Benches, welcome the work undertaken by Lord Davies of Abersoch in producing the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report, “Women on Boards”. In particular, we welcome his recommendations that UK-listed companies in the FTSE 100 aim for a minimum of 25% female board member representation by 2015, that FTSE 350 companies set their own challenging targets to ensure that more talented and gifted women can get into top jobs in companies across the UK, and that those targets be set in the next six months and chief executives review the percentage of women they aim to have on their executive committees in 2013 and 2015.
The question is how we ensure that companies really make progress. The lesson from Norway, which is often quoted as having 40% women on boards, is that it does not happen simply by exhortation. That was tried first, but it took quotas to achieve the 40%. It is not nice to be accused of being on a board solely to make up a quota or to be used as a symbol that a company is addressing gender equality, but companies need to ask themselves exactly how appointments to boards are made. Does the process stand up to scrutiny? Is the best person for the post appointed? It may be that the best person for the post may not even be encouraged to apply. I hope that the recommendations in the report will make companies look very carefully at the whole pattern of promotion within the organisation, as many hon. Members have suggested, and identify whether there are factors, such as particular types of socialising after work, which tend to exclude women. It may be that much more subtle forces are at work, which amount more or less to that well documented tendency to select people like oneself.
What exactly will the Government do to ensure that the recommendations in Lord Davies’s report are fully implemented? Will the Government require companies to disclose each year the proportion of women on boards and in senior executive positions, and the proportion of female employees in the whole organisation, as recommended by Lord Davies? Will the Government insist on the disclosure of meaningful information about the company’s appointment process, as recommend by Lord Davies? How will the Government take forward the recommendation that a
“combination of entrepreneurs, existing providers and individuals needs to come together to consolidate and improve the provision of training and development for potential board members”?
The situation of part-timers needs particular attention. Some women find that they need to go part-time to combine work and a family. Other women would like to work part time, but are afraid of the consequences of doing so, knowing that too often going part time will set them back a long way in the pecking order. I have employed women part-timers, and have always found that their attitude to work is anything but part time. They invariably give over and above what is required for the hours they work. We need companies to take a serious look at how they deal with employees, largely women, who are working fewer hours than the full working week. Are they included in decision-making meetings? Are they encouraged to further their careers and seek promotion while remaining part time? Are they given training opportunities? Are they allowed to work part time only if they can find a person with whom to job share to replicate the exact pattern of a full-time post? Is part-time working considered appropriate only in the lower ranks of the company?
What is happening in other countries? In Spain, gender equity laws passed in 2007 obliged IBEX 35 firms to get a minimum of 40% women on boards in eight years. France passed a Bill applying a 40% quota for female directors by 2016. In Germany, the Justice Minister has threatened legislation if boards do not achieve a better balance in the next 12 months. Can the UK also move forward and can that be done without introducing quotas? Will the Government give companies sufficient encouragement to make the necessary changes voluntarily or will we find ourselves back here in two, three or four years’ time ruing the lack of progress?
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Nia Griffith(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lorely Burt
My understanding is that the inter-business agreement will come into place before any agreement is signed between Royal Mail and whoever takes over.
Nia Griffith
As I understand it, there is an existing IBA. The question is: what is the timetable for the privatisation of the Royal Mail? How much of the existing IBA will be left? If we are arguing that an existing IBA can be carried over, surely an existing IBA of a different length could also be carried over. Although we currently have one that is worth probably a couple of years at most, by the time the privatisation procedure has gone through, there could be a new and different IBA. Indeed, there could be a 10-year IBA. We have already heard from the Minister that it is possible to have all sorts of businesses entering into agreements. We know that there are 10-year rail franchises, for example. There are all sorts of different takeover bids—when companies take over other companies, they have all sorts of contractors working for them—so there can clearly also be a takeover of an inter-business agreement. We are asking the Minister for a guarantee that it will be a 10-year agreement. What we are asking for is not rocket science; it is something that I am sure he will want to do. Indeed, if we can be persuasive enough, I am sure that he might even consider it, but we shall see.
If that can be done and a privatised Royal Mail can be expected to honour the existing agreement, what has the Minister done to explore the option of putting in place a longer-lasting inter-business agreement, such as a 10-year agreement? Perhaps he will be able to tell us later what he has done. What will he do to put that in place before privatising the Royal Mail? Has he looked at examples of business takeovers where the buyer has taken over the existing commitments of the company that it has acquired? Simply telling the Committee and now the House that it cannot be done, without even exploring the options, suggests a fundamental unwillingness to take every possible step to secure the future of the post office network.
The Minister seems to think that it would be good enough to rely on the good will of those concerned. Indeed, he tried to assure the Committee by saying:
“I refer the Committee to what the chief executive of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, and Donald Brydon, the chairman, said. Moya Greene said it was unthinkable that there would not be a long-term relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. Donald Brydon said that he wanted to have the longest possible legally permissible agreement”.––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 11 November 2010; c. 121-22, Q244.]
However, what has the Minister done to turn that good will into practical action? Has he had talks with the chief executive and chairman of Royal Mail about securing a longer inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd before privatisation? What mechanisms has he explored for doing that? It also has to be said that Moya Greene may not be there for ever. What happens if we have a new chief executive or chairman? I have every belief in the sincerity of their words, but we all know that words are not enough. What we need in business are agreements in writing, so that we know what we are talking about.
The Minister also said that consideration had not been given to the matter before. No, it has not, quite simply because when we were in government, we always intended to keep Royal Mail in majority public ownership, so it would not have been separated from the post office network in the way that it will be if the Government privatise it. Therefore, there was simply no need to consider the future of the IBA in that way.
The National Federation of SubPostmasters is clear that it needs a 10-year IBA as an absolute minimum. That will be fundamental to providing security, so that business will be viable for the 97% of post offices that are owned by a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. They are the people who have taken on post offices, investing considerable amounts of their own money to set them up at a time when the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd was taken for granted. They would never have dreamt that post offices could face losing Royal Mail business and, with it, the money that accounts for a third of their revenue.
Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will have welcomed the Government announcement to continue the subsidy of the post office network. Indeed, they may be hoping to benefit from some of the money that is being put aside for the refurbishment of post offices. However, they will also be scrutinising the BIS document “Securing the Future of the Post Office in the Digital Age” to see whether they can find anything that guarantees more Government business to post offices, when we have PayPoint challenging the Post Office for the Department for Work and Pensions contract for benefit checks. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will also be looking carefully to see whether there are any strategies for channelling new types of business through the Post Office, now that the Government have abandoned Labour’s plans for a people’s bank at the Post Office—yet another Lib-Dem manifesto promise broken.
Most of all, however, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will be worried about the future of the IBA, because they know how much the future viability of their business depends on their continuing to provide services for Royal Mail. Indeed, the IBA covers more than just the counter services. As the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) pointed out, it deals with sorting facilities in shared premises in some areas. Specific guarantees that business with the Royal Mail will continue are wanted. If someone has invested considerable amounts of money in a business that included Royal Mail services, they would be concerned about whether they could sell their business as a going concern when they decided to retire or move on. They would be very worried about the price they might get if there were no IBA with the Royal Mail, and there would be a real problem in attracting new entrants.
Even without considering the potential loss of the IBA, the Rural Shops Alliance, in the winter edition of its journal Rural Retailer, expresses this view of Government plans to convert post offices to the Post Office local model:
“The logic of this is obvious, but it will involve a reduction in product ranges, longer PO opening hours and a reduction in income—not a model that will encourage subpostmasters to remain as part of the network. It is great that the Government is promising a no closure programme—it cannot however promise that it will be financially worthwhile for anybody to provide PO services.”
That is the case even without considering the catastrophic effect that the loss of the IBA would have on the prospects of post offices and the chances of attracting new entrants.
George Thomson of the National Federation of SubPostmasters told us that there are currently 900 vacancies where Post Office Ltd is struggling to find someone to take on a local post office. It is no good dismissing this as just the regular turnover. I know for a fact from my own constituency—I am sure that other hon. Members do, too—just how long some of those vacancies have been there and how depressing it is for those local communities without their post offices, with some pensioners having to face very awkward and time-consuming bus journeys to access their pensions.
With the prospect that the Post Office could lose the IBA, how on earth is Post Office Ltd going to attract new entrants? Why would anybody want to undertake the not inconsiderable task of establishing themselves as a sub-postmaster, with all the training and investment involved, with the prospect of the Post Office losing the IBA hanging over them?
Consumer Focus has also raised concerns about the impact of the loss of the IBA. It said in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee that
“following privatisation of Royal Mail, subsequent contracts would require a competitive tender process with no guarantee that Post Office Ltd would retain this contract”.
It continued by pointing out that
“for the foreseeable future, the loss of the mail’s contract, even on a partial basis, would significantly undermine the integrity of the post office network. Even if the Royal Mail continued to use the PO in rural areas only, the ability of the network to cross-subsidise from its profitable urban branches would be lost. The future of many post offices, particularly the 6,515 post offices in rural areas, would therefore be in doubt. This would not only threaten access to mail services, but also to the range of services of economic and social interest available through the PO network.”
That is the viewpoint of Consumer Focus, and I am sure we would all agree that it should be listened to.
Many hon. Members have made some good and useful points today. My hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who both have an excellent track record in standing up for post offices, each made a vigorous and impassioned defence of the post office network.
The hon. Member for Northampton South mentioned the importance of the social role of the Post Office—how people get help from it and how community networking and social work take place. He also mentioned that it is not only older citizens, but young mums who can benefit from the community and help that can be found through the post office. The hon. Gentleman said, “Woe betide any elected Member who ignores the importance of the local post office to the fabric of the community.” He also mentioned the role of the additional 900 post offices that act as mail sorting areas and the problem of post office vacancies and the difficulty of finding new entrants to take on post offices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) reminded us that there are other countries where the Post Office is protected in law. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the issue of the need for regulatory reform—something on which we would all agree. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that everything simply cannot be left to warm words. He pointed out that we simply do not know how long the current managers will remain in their posts. He also drew attention to the staggering range of products and services that are now available through supermarkets, which would not have been dreamt of only a few years ago.