Railways: British Rail
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to go into the territory of Royal Mail. The privatisation of the railways may not have been perfect; we certainly had Railtrack going into administration in 2002, and there have been other issues. The question is: do we have a system that has delivered a significantly better railway for customers and freight in this country? I would argue that we very evidently have. Does this give a basis for moving forward and providing yet further improvement? I think that argument is also made.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
While I am delighted to travel by rail most of the time, all the way down to the West Country, I am very sorry to see, after all these years since 5 November 1993, that raw sewage is still going out on to the lines. Before we rush forward to HS2—to which I am looking forward enormously—I urge our new Minister to think about the men working on the lines and in the stations who have to deal with this excrement.
Baroness Kramer
The comments of my noble friend totally resonate. It is utterly disgusting. It speaks to the fact that customer service has not always been at the centre of the railways, because I think customers are very concerned about this issue. Beginning in 2017, the current InterCity 125 trains will all be replaced by the new Class 800/801 intercity express trains from Hitachi, which will solve that problem on the intercity lines. It is a tougher issue on the local diesel trains, which are gradually going out of service, and we could use some help from the industry in tackling that problem.
Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I concur with the excellent points made by my noble friend. The clause will not reduce the standards required by the competent harbour authorities of applicants for a pilotage exemption certificate. It simply states that deck officers and members of the crew with navigation responsibilities can hold a certificate if—and only if—they meet those standards.
I met the chairman of the Maritime Pilots’ Association, in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and he assured me that he would work with the Port Marine Safety Code steering group to provide the best advice for competent harbour authorities on the qualifications that they should expect. I welcome that, as I hope that the House will, coming from such an authoritative group with such a fine history. I welcome that support from the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association and I support this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for the very full answers that he gave. Many of them were very helpful, but one thing that was conspicuously missing was that although there was a lot of talk about training, there was not so much about management responsibility. The key to a successful outcome is to ensure that PEC holders have experience of being in a senior management position on a ship.
As an example, many times in the course of this debate and others we have talked about a famous dredging company in the Thames Estuary. I will quote briefly from a letter that I, and perhaps others, have received from a pilot about this. He says that he knows the company and its working pattern well. He writes:
“The Master likes to do dredging at sea and the Chief Officer normally does discharge of aggregate”
—on the quay. He continues:
“They want the Junior Officer to pilot and navigate in between. I asked one of the Captains of this company why the Junior Officer couldn’t do the discharge or the dredging at sea. Both operations he would be qualified for. The answer was because he/she is not trusted in those roles”.
This is from the captain of one of the ships. If he is not trusted to do the discharge at a quay, or to dredge in the sea, it is a bit odd to think that he ought to be capable of having a pilotage exemption certificate to be able to pilot the ship up and around the Thames. We all remember what happened when the “Bowbelle” and the “Marchioness” had a collision.
Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the UK ports and shipping industry is a success. It works day in and day out. It is efficient and effective. Ninety-five per cent of the total volume of our import and export trade passes through our ports. It is one of this country’s greatest assets and enables our nation to compete on a global scale. I believe that my Bill will help the industry to grow even stronger and even more efficient, as it recognises the vital role that shipping must continue to play if the United Kingdom is to go forward trading as it does now.
I congratulate Sheryll Murray MP on steering this Bill successfully through the other place. Like me, she has a strong personal maritime connection, which underpins our desire to see this Bill enacted. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who has brought a number of marine navigation Bills before this House in recent years, some of which have included clauses also contained in this Bill.
Maritime traffic faces serious navigational challenges every day—dangerous weather, treacherous tides and currents, underwater hazards, congested waterways and narrow channels. In harbour waters, it is the responsibility of the relevant harbour authority to manage the risks posed by these threats and to understand how they are changing.
One of the tools used to ensure the safe passage of ships is pilotage. Competent harbour authorities are a subset of statutory harbour authorities given responsibility for, and granted powers to provide, pilotage services. Where a competent harbour authority deems pilotage is compulsory, no person shall have the conduct of a ship unless they are an authorised pilot or hold a relevant pilotage exemption certificate for that area. The pilotage exemption certificate mechanism permits competent mariners to pilot their own ship instead of taking on board a pilot. It recognises that regular users of a body of water can be as familiar with the navigational challenges present as a pilot.
Under the Pilotage Act 1987, a competent harbour authority is responsible for authorising pilots and pilotage exemption certificate holders whom they assess as competent. A competent harbour authority may determine how it makes that assessment, recognising that the factors influencing it will be local in nature. For a pilotage exemption certificate holder, the Act specifies that the competent harbour authority must be satisfied that the person has the skill, experience and local knowledge sufficient to pilot the ship within the specified harbour or area over which the competent harbour authority has powers.
Currently, the Act also requires that a pilotage exemption certificate holder be the master or first mate of the ship. This Bill seeks to amend this requirement so that any deck officer—that is, a member of crew with responsibilities for navigating the ship—may hold a pilotage exemption certificate if they are judged competent by the competent harbour authority.
The change will have an immediate benefit on ships where the crewing structure is suitable. It will make it easier to plan crew rosters. As someone who values aspiration and wishes to encourage people to do as well as they can and proceed up the tree, it will aid the career development of young British officers. UK ferry companies are investing in their young officers who are gaining professional experience and proven competency. However, at this time, they cannot apply to demonstrate this in a pilotage exemption certificate examination. Preventing capable officers from holding a pilotage exemption certificate does nothing to improve safety but hinders the nurturing of home-grown talent.
The Bill would also help the competent harbour authorities to manage risks by giving them the power to suspend the pilotage exemption certificate immediately where misconduct is suspected or where the pilotage exemption certificate holder is no longer competent; requiring ships navigating in their waters to report whose pilotage exemption certificate is being used, not simply that a pilotage exemption certificate is being used, as is currently the case; and providing a power for the Secretary of State to remove a competent harbour authority’s pilotage functions and so relieve it of duties and responsibilities where pilotage is no longer necessary.
Another tool for managing risks to safe navigation currently available to some statutory harbour authorities is the power of general direction. Depending on an authority’s legislation, general directions may be issued to all vessels in a harbour area or simply to particular types of shipping either in response to a particular occurrence or as a standing instruction.
Many harbours have secured the power of general direction through private Acts of Parliament or harbour revision orders, governed by the Harbours Act 1964. These routes are cumbersome and expensive to pursue, both for harbour authorities and government. The Bill would institute a simpler mechanism for obtaining similar powers of harbour direction and level the playing field commercially. Harbour directions could only be given to ships and relate to their movement, mooring and unmooring, equipment or manning.
There is a strong argument to say that if a harbour authority is responsible for managing risk in its waters, it should have the tools to do so. That many ports already possess the tools and use them successfully and reasonably is a mark that the proposal in this Bill to make it easier for other harbour authorities to obtain them is one grounded in both logic and proven experience. However, the Bill recognises that conferring the power on new ports should be subject to democratic procedure. Any harbour authority wanting the power will need to apply to be named in an order made by the Secretary of State, or Scottish or Welsh Ministers, as appropriate. There would be a public consultation on the proposal, which would give an opportunity for any objections to a harbour authority being designated with this power to be heard and considered. Later, should a harbour authority no longer need the power or prove itself incapable of using it properly, the order could be revoked.
Clause 5 would require an authority to consult before giving harbour directions. In the other place, it was argued that the Bill should also provide a procedure for resolving disputes about specific harbour directions. Based on the current positive experience of the powers of general direction, I see little need for creating an additional bureaucratic system to deal with what remains, at the moment, only a theoretical possibility. It seems to me that a non-legislative solution—an agreement between ports and port user groups on how to manage dispute resolution—would be greatly preferable.
The Shipping Minister, in a debate on this Bill in the other place, confirmed that discussions were under way between ports associations, the Royal Yachting Association, and the UK Chamber of Shipping to develop a solution on those lines. I know that real progress is now being made towards finalising the code of conduct on harbour directions, which will secure benefits for harbours and harbour users alike. I hope that noble Lords agree that there is no need for us to do battle on harbour directions until the RYA, the port associations and the UK Chamber of Shipping have completed their negotiations.
Another, quite different, risk faced by ports is that of crime and the need to maintain order within the port estate. Six ports in England maintain their own police force to manage that aspect of operations, whose constables have all the powers of any other police constable in relation to matters connected with the port but only within the port estate and up to one mile from its boundary. Increasingly, both ports and local police forces find this geographic limit to their powers very unhelpful. The geographic limit on port constables’ powers is clearly not sensible for the modern day. It is right that they should remain focused on matters connected with the port, or suspected criminals within the port estate, but there is no justification for hobbling their ability to carry out these duties and thereby putting additional burdens on local police resources.
I have mentioned the need for ports to monitor changes in risk as traffic patterns alter. Not often, but occasionally, a reduction in traffic can be so extensive as to render a harbour uneconomic to maintain. The Bill would help statutory harbour authorities to respond to such a situation too by providing the Secretary of State with the power to make a harbour closure order.
Perhaps the most widely recognised mitigation measure for the navigational challenges faced by mariners is the lighthouse. The work of the three general lighthouse authorities, the GLAs, that serve Britain and Ireland, covers more than simple lighthouses. There are other physical and electronic aids to navigation too. In 2014, Trinity House will have served mariners for exactly 500 years. For 230 years, the Commissioners of Irish Lights and Northern Lighthouse Board have done the same.
The Bill will provide clarity in law on two aspects of GLA activity. Clause 8 will specify the area of sea where each GLA may operate. Clause 11 will make it clear that when marking wrecks lighthouse authorities may use electronic means as well as physical aids to do so. In both cases, the provisions confirm the existing practices of the GLAs that help to keep mariners safe.
Clause 9 concerns the ability of the GLAs to earn income from commercial activity by harnessing spare capacity. The considerable expertise of the GLAs in maritime matters is widely recognised and in demand commercially. The existing legislation permits them, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, to enter into commercial agreements for the use of spare capacity, whether staff or other resources.
However, on occasion, a commercial agreement would require the purchase or hire of additional resources to deliver it in full. Regrettably, the GLAs are compelled to reject these opportunities as being outside their current powers. The Bill would provide the powers necessary to be able to enter into such commercial agreements—again, only with the Secretary of State’s approval.
To sum up, this Bill will greatly assist the ports and shipping industry by removing unnecessary restrictions and granting very necessary freedoms. It will facilitate shipping companies’ rostering of crew and development of talented officers, while always upholding existing safety standards. It will make it easier for harbour authorities to secure vital powers of harbour direction or to relinquish their powers, if appropriate, to reflect changing traffic patterns. It will ensure that ports police and the GLAs have the powers they need to continue delivering essential services efficiently and effectively.
Our valuable maritime sector is eager to see these measures implemented. I very much hope that noble Lords will agree to bring to an end the lengthy wait that it has endured for these measures to make it onto the statute book. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today which, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, has given us the benefit of much experience, from shipping Ministers to lyrical speakers and sailors in smaller boats.
I thank all noble Lords, of course, and especially my noble friend the Minister who has stated the Government’s position clearly and has responded to the principal issues raised in the debate. I shall not repeat all the answers that he has so succinctly given, but I will of course answer every question that has been asked between now and Committee. I am happy to discuss them with everybody who wishes to get themselves in order before we reach to the next stage so that the Bill can go straight through.
My noble friend referred to the considerable maritime experience in the House and I echo his thoughts on that. We have the noble Lords, Lord MacKenzie and Lord Greenway, from the GLA, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the former Minister for shopping—
Baroness Wilcox
Shipping! That was a Freudian slip: the noble Earl is always buying boats. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, strongly outlined the view of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association, as I would expect him to do as the president. He felt that the availability of pilotage exemption certificates to deck officers would be too great a step. I understand the concern expressed out of a desire to ensure that the strong record of maritime safety in UK waters is maintained. I reassure the noble Lord and the UKMPA that that is close to my heart. It would be ridiculous to try to bring forward a Bill such as this without having “safety, safety, safety” written all over it because of the pilots’ wonderful record thus far.
I do not believe that Clause 2 would undermine safety because neither ports nor shipping companies will wish to see underqualified crew members holding and using pilotage exemption certificates given the potential cost that they would have to bear in the event of an accident. I do not believe that owners of ships are sitting somewhere else and not worrying about where their ships are but just wondering if they are making enough money. Enough people have been to sea and enough legislation put through both Houses over the years to show that we as a maritime nation have far too much care for our sailors to allow that to happen.
To assist people, the Guide to Good Practice that accompanies the Port Marine Safety Code can be used to promote the standards of competence that a suitable applicant for a pilotage exemption certificate would likely have to achieve. The guide can be refined easily and quickly in the light of experience and changes in certification standards, which makes it ideal for purpose.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke from the heart about the rights of recreational mariners to indulge their passion for sailing without unreasonable restrictions being imposed on them by harbour authorities and lyrically emphasised how important it is to train our young people to love the sea and be part of our boating community, and to be safe and well taught. I will admit to having a family of very keen sailors. However, I also have sympathy for harbour authorities because they are charged with the serious business of managing risks to safe navigation in their waters, but may not have the right tools to do so. Recreational mariners as much as commercial shipping are done a real disservice when this is the case. My noble friend said that the Royal Yachting Association agrees that this is a shortcoming that needs to be rectified, and it is to the association’s credit and that of the British Ports Association that they are working together on a non-statutory code of conduct to ensure that the power of harbour directions is used in a sensitive way with the views of all port users being heard in the process of making and resolving disputes about harbour directions.
Notwithstanding these two issues, I am very pleased that there has been so much support for the Bill in this House. I believe that the time is right to move on, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [HL]
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Sandwich
I hope the Minister and also the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will forgive my intervention in the early part of the Bill.
I want to make a slightly more general point, since we are close to the Title of the Bill. There is something missing in the early part of the Bill: that is, the link with the original Groceries Supply Code of Practice. I know that this will come up again, but I want to raise it right at the beginning. The Competition Commission uses the important phrase about stopping,
“the transfer of excessive risks and unexpected costs”,
by retailers on suppliers, and encouraging compliance. To make that point, I have put down an amendment to Clause 15. I apologise that I missed putting an amendment down to the Long Title. I hope the Minister will find a few minutes, or a few sentences, to answer that point somewhere in the course of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, we are off to a marvellous start. This is a great level to start at—whether we are doing something in plain English or not. I was in on the beginning of the Plain English Campaign, as, I think, was the Office of Fair Trading and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I was rather hoping we would get a crystal award for how we have written this Bill in plain English, but I can see I am going to have to work very hard during this Committee stage to reassure everyone that we are trying to be as clear as possible.
I fully appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The Government have committed to writing the Bill in plain English, and we strive to apply this principle to all communication as the Bill goes forward. However, in this case the amendment would change the meaning of the clause. “There will be” is a prediction, whereas “There is to be” indicates that the Bill establishes the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I hope that that clarifies the point for the noble Lord.
I will answer the second question when we come to the appropriate amendment, if that is okay. I thank the noble Earl for giving me notice.
Baroness Wilcox
It might. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would be kind enough to let me take this away and return. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I will be more than content to withdraw my amendment, and to go away and reflect on the response of the noble Baroness to my rather small point. I am surprised, I have to say, at the nature of the response, given that I know that at least one piece of legislation has been passed by this House which includes the phrase “there shall be” in its first sentence. I suspect that there are many others, but I shall have to go and do some research now. If it was a prediction that the legislation fulfilled, perhaps that is the proper construction; I am not entirely sure. However, we should not detain the Committee with this point, given that we all need to go away and reflect on it. I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but I give the noble Baroness notice that I am not entirely persuaded by the response she deployed. This is not the most important issue that the Committee will consider this afternoon, but it is important that there should be consistency in legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
It is very helpful to have the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, because he has a particular view that we can leave this all to the market, which is operating perfectly. I disagree. I remember from my economics A-level that you can have perfect markets but you can also have imperfect ones and powerful players within markets who abuse their market position. I believe—as did the Competition Commission in its analysis—that that is the case here. That is where the noble Lord and I will differ as we debate these things. In the end, those suppliers will struggle to find another market. Often, they have worked with a supermarket and built up a relationship where they have been persuaded that it is worth investing in, for example, growing a product. That needs at least a 12-month timeline. The supplier or grower of that product takes on a huge risk because they have invested 12 months in advance but the contract will only give them at best three months’ notice of cancellation. They can just be cancelled on and that happens all the time. That is a difficult aspect of that market relationship.
I give another example: I know of an innovator of a new chocolate product using pomegranate dust from Afghanistan. That innovator had to invest significantly in developing the product. It is a fine product but the innovator has to recoup the cost of that investment and needs to get the product out in volumes that are only achievable using large supermarkets. The response from the supermarkets is, “Yes, we like the product. If you want us to stock it then you need to pay us to take it on. If you want a decent shelf position, you need to pay us some more money. If you want point-of-sale merchandising, you need to pay us for that as well”. That individual needs to acquire a huge amount of investment to be able to innovate. In the end, a healthy market allows new players to come into it, to innovate and introduce new supply. That is not happening very easily in this particular market because of that power relationship and the structure of how it is set up. I strongly urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment and strongly urge the Committee to support proceeding with the establishment of the adjudicator.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, this group of amendments goes to the very heart of the Bill. It concerns whether or not there should even be a groceries code adjudicator, or whether oversight of the code should continue to rest with the Office of Fair Trading. It is therefore only fitting that we should debate it early on, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for raising it. I also thank him for allowing us to discuss all these amendments in one go. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Borrie, Lord Razzall, Lord Curry, Lord Knight and Lord Howard, for their contributions to this debate.
I will not repeat all that I said at Second Reading. I know that the majority of us here support this Bill. Suffice it to say that, in its 2008 report on the supply of groceries, the Competition Commission found that the buying power of large supermarkets was potentially a cause for concern. It found that retailers were transferring excessive risks or unexpected costs to their suppliers, a practice that was likely to lessen suppliers’ incentives to invest and innovate, and that this would operate to the long-term detriment of consumers.
The Competition Commission therefore made an order that required large retailers to incorporate the Groceries Supply Code of Practice into their contracts with suppliers. It also recommended that an independent groceries code adjudicator be established to enforce the code and ensure that it was effective.
The adverse effect on consumers is not something expected to follow immediately and directly from a specific action by a retailer. Rather, the transfer of excessive risk or unexpected costs lessens incentives for innovation and investment, and the reduction in innovation and investment is what causes consumers harm.
This is a long-term effect and not one that can easily be measured—and not one that we should stop to measure before we have even implemented the measures recommended by the Competition Commission. I ask noble Lords to note that in the pre-legislative scrutiny the BIS Select Committee explicitly considered whether another review should be carried out, but concluded that we should instead implement the recommendations of the Competition Commission as swiftly as possible.
On the point from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the report from the Office of Fair Trading, I will pass his concerns to the OFT. I remind noble Lords that the OFT operates independently of Ministers, but I will pass that on and see if we can get some result for the noble Viscount. He has referred to the fact that the members of the Competition Commission were not unanimous in their view that an independent adjudicator should be established. He cited passages from the report which set out that minority opinion. He is right that one member of the panel did not agree with the rest, and I recognise that not everyone thinks the adjudicator is necessary. However, five out of six of the members did consider that an independent adjudicator should be set up. They concluded that an adjudicator is essential for the effective monitoring and enforcement of the GSCOP. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an independent adjudicator.
The amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, would give the powers in this Bill to the Office of Fair Trading, not to an independent adjudicator. However, the Competition Commission recommended an independent adjudicator. There are clear advantages to establishing an independent, dedicated office with industry expertise, which can build working relationships with supplier trade associations and retailers, monitor compliance and promote best practice. The Office of Fair Trading has told us that it fully supports the argument that the GCA should be an independent body, separate from the OFT or any other organisation. Furthermore, on a practical point, it would not be appropriate to give these powers to the OFT while the broader competition regime is undergoing so much reform.
The Government believe that the best way to address the issues in the groceries market identified by the Competition Commission is to establish an independent groceries code adjudicator to enforce the groceries code, not to give more powers to the Office of Fair Trading. This is also the view of the BIS and EFRA Select Committees, of the Office of Fair Trading and of five out of the six panel members of the Competition Commission investigation.
I have listened to all the views that have been expressed and I thank in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for taking the time and trouble to explain his differences so clearly. However, at this stage, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I support my Front Bench colleague at this stage. As at Second Reading, I declare my interests as a dairy farmer in Cheshire and in having been involved in dairy supply-chains both with farmer co-ops and on behalf of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers over many years. In support of the comments made in response to the previous amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, there is an extremely delicate relationship between a supplier and the supermarket, and it takes quite some managing. It is not necessarily a question of fear. I am often reminded of the words in the Bible that the lion will lie down with the lamb. When I was in with the supermarkets, I always wanted to make sure that I was a lion but I never quite achieved that status. It is an extremely delicate relationship.
The noble Viscount said that the groceries code has been in existence for two years. It is eminently sensible that we complete this legislation to get the adjudicator in place and then, two years after that, have the review that the noble Viscount looked for. That would be an excellent time to review whether the code should be extended further up the supply chain to the suppliers of suppliers: the consolidators and the processors that have that direct relationship. I am sure that we will then find that there are lots of parts that the code does not cover, to which my noble friend from the Front Bench has alluded already. For example, I point to the practice of offsetting invoices from the supermarkets to suppliers and the charges that they think are quite acceptable to deduct from the suppliers. Those lead to long, detailed arguments and a very awkward time between a supplier and the supermarket. I am sure that putting that review on a statutory basis would, in two years’ time, allow Parliament—it would be wider than just the Competition Commission—to be consulted on the reach of the GSCOP code.
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, has brought us an interesting amendment, supported by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It is perhaps not fully aligned with the subject of the Bill, which is the creation of a groceries code adjudicator. I reassure noble Lords that the groceries code, contained within the Groceries Supply Code of Practice Order 2010, already has full statutory force and the requirement to incorporate it in their supply agreements is binding upon all large supermarket retailers. There is therefore no need for the Secretary of State to establish it by statutory instrument.
Furthermore, the review of the groceries code is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading not the Secretary of State. If the OFT considers that a change in the code or the order is needed, it can advise the Competition Commission accordingly. As the code concerns the remedying of practices that are concerned with competition, it is right that oversight of the code rests with the independent competition authorities, which have the necessary expertise and can make decisions based on objective economic criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, also asked whether it is right that the Competition Commission can make such orders without recourse to Parliament. Noble Lords who wish to discuss the powers of the competition authorities will have to wait until the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill enters this House. However, the Government consider it entirely appropriate for the Competition Commission to make remedies based on the findings of its investigations.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the noble Baroness on that matter but I am struggling a little. Fundamental to the amendment is whether or not Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, which the adjudicator will referee. If the noble Baroness is saying that we will have to wait before we find out how Parliament will then scrutinise the code, we are in a difficult position to legislate. Have I misunderstood?
Baroness Wilcox
No, I do not suppose for one minute that the noble Lord has misunderstood, because I spoke quite slowly and clearly. As to whether it is a question I can answer now, I do not know. Obviously, the noble Lord may feel that the Bill is going to stop at this very moment if I do not answer that question, but perhaps I may have a conversation with him on this matter before we come back on Thursday. As I understand it, the powers of the competition authorities are going to be debated under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill when it enters this House. Perhaps I may leave it at that for the moment.
I move on to another question on whether the code will apply further up the supply chain. I should emphasise that government amendments that we will discuss later do not extend the code to intermediaries. The amendments ensure that only subsidiaries of the 10 retailers are covered, as they are in the code. I hope that that is clear when noble Lords read it tomorrow in Hansard. It might be a little more cogent. I have no more help from behind me, so perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am kind of grateful to the Minister for that. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was in many ways right to say that I sought to go beyond where the Competition Commission had reached and was looking for an opportunity to debate this issue. We are establishing the adjudicator who will referee the code. Plenty of people who have debated the Bill want to ensure that the code is a living code and is regularly reviewed so that changes in market conditions can be accounted for. There are concerns about intermediaries and we are looking for ways in which we might think about whether the code could be extended to cover them. That is worthy of consideration. In response to what the Minister said, I am sure that if the Secretary of State were to ask the Competition Commission or the Office of Fair Trading to have a look at the operation of the whole supply chain, they would do so. I am sure that if the Secretary of State were to then ask them, as a result of that review, to consider whether or not the code should be updated, they would be happy to do so. That is the way things work in government. If the Secretary of State asks these people to do things, there is a very good chance that they will give that serious consideration and try and meet the Minister’s wishes.
I understand what the noble Baroness was saying regarding the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. In the end, I understand that there is nothing technically wrong with the code as it is written. The powers that were used properly to set it up remain until they are changed, subject to Parliament, by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. I understand that they are not going to know how that works. For now, I am content for this Bill to be debated in the context of the current environment rather than some speculative future environment that may or may not come about, subject to parliamentary process. We can probably park that convoluted little debate in which we managed to find ourselves.
The fundamental thing remains: if this is not the right mechanism for keeping the code as a living code and something that Parliament can scrutinise, I am relaxed about that but would love for the Government to come back with a way for this Committee and your Lordships’ House to amend the Bill so that we can keep it a living code and, at points, consider whether or not it is up to date. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Deputy Chairman for clarifying that. We have approached it in a simple, straightforward way: that this is, in fact, the role of a regulator. As we have argued and discussed on previous amendments, the role of the regulator is a high-profile one at the moment, with a wide range of powers to effect change in the UK groceries market. It is only appropriate that the Secretary of State should consult with both the relevant Select Committees in the other place to reflect the standing that such a person will have in the business and parliamentary world, so that it is fully transparent to the supply chain that this has been well considered.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, these amendments concern the independence of the adjudicator and, in particular, how this may be safeguarded through the appointment and dismissal processes. I fully agree that the independence of the adjudicator is critically important to the successful operation of the role.
I have just been passed a note for the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Borrie, on the name “adjudicator”, which I thought might be helpful. The term has been chosen because an ombudsman must deal with consumers rather than businesses. That is the answer to that one.
Before addressing the amendments, I first reassure noble Lords that the Bill provides the adjudicator with full operational independence. There is no question of the Secretary of State telling the adjudicator what to do, who to investigate or what the sanctions should be. It is, however, normal practice that public appointments should be made by Ministers, in accordance with the standard rules and procedures on public appointments. In addressing these amendments I intend to draw parallels with other public bodies in the field of competition.
On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the adjudicator will not be a judge and it is therefore not necessary to involve the Judicial Appointments Commission. Similarly, the panel members of the Competition Commission, who might also be considered to have a similar quasi-judicial role in their rulings on appeals from sectoral regulators, are not appointed or recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is similarly appropriate that the Secretary of State should appoint both the adjudicator and, if there is one, deputy adjudicator, as both are public appointments. In a similar way, the Secretary of State currently appoints both the chair and the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading can, of course, also impose financial penalties.
On dismissal, the Secretary of State may dismiss the adjudicator only if they are satisfied that he or she is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform his or her functions. This is not a judgment that would be made lightly and could be subject to judicial review if made incorrectly. Given these safeguards, I do not consider it necessary to require the Lord Chief Justice’s approval, nor to make specific provision for the circumstances of criminal conviction, which the Secretary of State could, in any case, take into account when judging whether the person was appropriate for the role.
Finally, on the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Grantchester, I make two points. First, while the Government support the principle of suitable parliamentary oversight of public servants, they believe that pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees are only for those roles where it is vital that the post’s independence from government or its importance to the public is of the highest importance. It does not seem clear that the adjudicator, though very important to the groceries sector, would fall within this category.
Secondly, even were the post of adjudicator such a post, it is also not general practice for Select Committee oversight to be set out in primary legislation, but rather for it to be decided by the Secretary of State responsible. I hope that that is helpful and, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the Minister for dealing so comprehensively with the constituent elements of my argument. I am not entirely persuaded by all her arguments. I read that the distinction between an ombudsman and an adjudicator is that an ombudsman deals with only consumers and therefore cannot regulate a set of circumstances in which consumers are not involved. I am not entirely sure whether that argument is sustainable but it has been deployed in earlier debates on this legislation for justifying the move from the recommendation for an ombudsman in relation to this role. When I read it in the past I was not convinced and, with respect to the noble Baroness, I am not convinced now. However, I realise that that is the Government’s position, which I respect.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his intervention and I am enormously respectful of his vast experience in the area of consumer protection and competition. I thought that he got almost to the point where he agreed with me but could not break through the cigarette paper that was between us—which I have to say he put there. I am also grateful to him that he thought that there was something in my argument.
There is nothing implicit in any of these arguments that is in any sense critical of the way in which I expect the Secretary of State to behave. I expect the Secretary of State of whatever party is in government in this country to behave in an entirely appropriate way and not to make capricious decisions. I accept also that it may be possible to find other examples—as there were in the noble Baroness’s brief—of similar types of appointment that have not been considered to be judicial appointments or have required the intervention of the Judicial Appointments Commission in the past. However—I will research this as I cannot be certain about it—I suspect that none of those roles was created by statute since the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission in 2005. In view of the roles held in the OFT in the post-2005 constitutionally changed environment, I would argue that it would be inappropriate to appoint someone with those sorts of powers without the element of independence that we imposed on the nature of these appointments by passing that legislation.
I am concerned that perhaps we treat constitutional change now as being of the moment and that we revert to type thereafter. But the 2005 Act was a significant step in creating an element of independence in the role of people who exercise these types of functions. We extended it well beyond what people would normally think of as judges, for instance into tribunals that cover a significant area of public life. I do not believe that competition should be immune from that restraint as regards the constitution. However, despite the fact that I believe quite strongly in this argument, at this stage I am content to withdraw the amendment—before I do so I will give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling these amendments and concur with the viewpoint of the noble Duke. I am speaking from a Welsh perspective, with experience of the Welsh situation. The noble Duke is correct to acknowledge the significant role of the devolved Administrations in relation to this topic. As has been said by both speakers so far, the devolved Administrations have power over key issues.
The Welsh Government obviously have considerable power over agriculture and agricultural issues. Indeed, that power has grown considerably in the 12 years since devolution. They make the key decisions on agriculture. Even on the economy, many levers are in the hands of the Welsh Government rather than the UK Government. It is really important that the adjudicator, once established, has a regular and close dialogue with the Governments—the Executives—of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because it is so important to their day-to-day decision-making on policy.
As a member of the Welsh Assembly for 12 years, I sat through more debates on the supermarket ombudsman, and more questions on when the supermarket ombudsman would be set up, than I could possibly recall and count. It is a topic that was very close to the hearts of Assembly Members in Wales, across the board. It would be right for them to be closely involved from now on.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I fully recognise the interests of the devolved Administrations in this Bill: of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for Scotland and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for Wales.
The Government have kept in close contact with the devolved Administrations through the development of both the policy and the legislation, and we are grateful for the strong support that they have given to this Bill. Officials in my department have discussed this with representatives of all the devolved Administrations on multiple occasions, and continue to do so. We would of course expect the adjudicator to informally interact with the devolved Administrations in the same way.
However, formally speaking, the groceries code is a non-devolved issue, as it is a matter of competition law. The adjudicator therefore has no formal responsibilities to the devolved Administrations. Given this fact, a statutory duty to report to such bodies would therefore be inappropriate, and could make the adjudicator’s role less clear. Additionally, it might suggest that the devolved Administrations had responsibility for oversight of the adjudicator, when in fact they do not have powers to control either the code or the adjudicator. However, as I have said, we have worked and will continue to work very closely with the devolved Administrations. It is in all our interests that we do so.
If I may, I will discuss the issue regarding the Competition and Markets Authority when we discuss the seventh group of amendments. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I confess to being disappointed. It would appear that we have resorted to type in relation to the legalities of these issues. I am utterly schooled in making the arguments for them. However, with respect to the noble Baroness, she reassures me to a significant degree when she recounts the degree of interaction and co-operation that there has been between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I am reassured by that and would expect nothing less. She suggested that informally the adjudicator will be encouraged to continue that level of co-operation. To that degree she reassured me.
However, the noble Baroness disappoints me because it would appear that in the structures of Whitehall we have not got beyond the strict legalities of these arguments and cannot see how damaging this strict approach is to relations across the union. We need to be much more mature in the way in which we approach these issues, and we need to be much more political in not creating opportunities for grievance or for discussions that are perceived to be beyond power but which create an argument for more power. For example, if the Welsh Assembly sensibly had a debate about the importance of a supermarket ombudsman, in Scotland that would lead almost inevitably to an argument that the Scottish Parliament should have had the power to appoint one because the UK Government were taking a long time to do it. We would then get into a confrontation about the constitution that would be utterly unnecessary if we had an officer who was instructed by the legislation that we passed to set up his office to report to those institutions.
I confidently predict that if the adjudicator role beds in, at some stage a committee of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly will say, “We are conducting an inquiry into the economic opportunities that relate to a particular part of our society or economy. This officer has a role to play in that. We would like him to come and give evidence to our committee”. I also confidently predict that the occupier of this role will go, that the constitution will not melt down and that no great affront will be done to the divisions between devolved and reserved powers. I hope that at some stage we can come off these platforms where we tell the people of the United Kingdom that we are better together and that we respect each other and the settlement that we have, and drive that attitude down through Whitehall so that departments do not define themselves by whether they have reserved or devolved powers.
This is a disappointing response to the issue. I understand why legally it is being done. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the possibility that while she is still in her office, somebody will come to her and say, “This does not go far enough. There is insufficient power for Scotland and it is disrespectful to the Scottish people”. I hope that those who provided her with the argument to defeat my simple amendment can provide her with the argument to deal with that when she has to go to Edinburgh to make the argument. However, I accept the inevitable. We are where we are. In these circumstances, there is nothing else I can do but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the adjudicator has the powers necessary to adequately carry out its functions. However, the powers listed in this amendment are already provided for in the Bill. I refer in particular to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, which provides:
“The Adjudicator may do anything that is calculated to facilitate the carrying out of the Adjudicator’s functions or is conducive or incidental to the carrying out of those functions”.
It is clear that sub-paragraphs (a) and (d) of the amendment are covered by this. The adjudicator could, for example, use this to enter into contracts or to obtain and pay for legal advice. Similarly, it must be the case that the adjudicator has the power to enter into a lease, which is an interest in land. With regards to borrowing, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to, for example, provisions such as paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the Human Tissue Act 2004. That is exactly like our paragraph 16, except that it ends with the words,
“but may not borrow money”.
That implies that a general power includes a power to borrow unless it is specifically excluded. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My noble friend raises an interesting point and I thought that I would wait to hear whether the noble Baroness prayed in aid paragraph 16. I worry about the very broad nature of the power that the adjudicator gets in paragraph 16 to do whatever he or she thinks is appropriate to perform the functions. It seems sensible enough, but I am mindful of what the large retailers are saying to us in respect of them having to pay a levy to fund the operation of the adjudicator and there being very little protection for them as to how much that would cost. Paragraph 16 as it stands seems to give a very wide power that leaves them vulnerable to some considerable costs. I wonder if the Minister needs to reflect on whether there is a way to give some protection to the levy payers to make sure that, were this interpreted by a frivolous adjudicator who thought there were some incidental things to the carrying out of functions, they could not go slightly berserk and incur quite a large cost on those levy payers.
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, will be pleased to know that we are ahead of him on this. The adjudicator will be able to carry out these acts only if it is to facilitate the carrying out of the adjudicator’s functions or if it is conducive or incidental to the carrying out of those functions. This will ensure that the adjudicator’s powers are used responsibly and are not abused. For example, it would not be possible for the adjudicator to make investments in land. I hope that that may be of some help. I was about to say that we might add things like, “should not go to Ascot” or this, that and the other, but I am being frivolous. I think that that is broad enough to cover any difficulties there.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is the “incidental” that would worry me the most were I a levy payer. I will leave it at that because I do not want to labour the point. We need to think about this a little. I know that we may have an amendment later that looks at whether the annual reports should explicitly include the cost of administration so that that is transparent and clear to levy payers as a way of ensuring that these “incidental” expenses are not excessive. I think that the point has been made.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, I recognise that in due course the references to the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading will most likely need to be changed to refer to the Competition and Markets Authority. My ministerial colleagues in BIS are currently working hard to ensure that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will bring about these changes, makes a successful passage through the other Chamber. However, the Government believe that it would be presumptuous of us to take the will of Parliament for granted by making a reference to the Competition and Markets Authority when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill has not yet received its Third Reading in the other place, so we propose to consider the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, at a later stage of this Bill’s passage through Parliament—namely, when the other Bill is more advanced.
With regard to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Grantchester, we all agree that when granting delegated powers, the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny should be provided. Too weak a procedure could lead to a lack of scrutiny and the weakening of parliamentary authority. However, too stringent a procedure would not only be cumbersome, wasting Parliament’s valuable time, but could act as a barrier to timely action. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked why there are abolition provisions in the Bill. Abolition and review provisions are included in accordance with the broader policy on sunset and review that we are pursuing. It does not indicate an intent to abolish the body or transfer its functions.
The Public Bodies Act has been mentioned as a precedent. However, there is a big difference between that Act and this measure. The Public Bodies Act confers powers to abolish, reform and modify a wide range of public bodies, and confers a range of ancillary powers such as the power to amend primary legislation. However, this Bill is a limited measure to establish a new adjudicator in a single, specific area of the economy, the grocery sector. It is quite a different thing.
I remind noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee examined the Bill. Its report is available to any Member who wishes to read it. The committee carefully considered whether the procedures provided by the Bill were appropriate, and specifically considered whether some measures should be delegated at all. However, it concluded that the procedures were appropriate and did not recommend the replacement of the affirmative procedure with the super-affirmative procedure at any point.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
The noble Baroness is of course right to refer to the first report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. When it considered abolition, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report, and Clause 16(2), it stated:
“This provision illustrates the unusual nature of this Bill”.
It then goes back to its opening paragraph, which states:
“If the Competition Commission revoked the Order containing the groceries code, the Act would serve no purpose so it could be repealed. There would be no great point of principle involved in its repeal, for the Act is wholly dependent on the Order”.
The committee’s view was very much informed by the weirdness—which I referred to earlier—of setting up in primary legislation a quasi-referee to govern a code that Parliament has no power to scrutinise.
It is entirely appropriate and comparable with the Public Bodies Bill, which was about the bonfire of the quangos and the Government having the power in secondary legislation to get rid of quangos that they had set up in primary legislation. In this primary legislation we are setting up a quango. In Clause 16 the Government are seeking to use just the affirmative procedure if they want to abolish it. It is entirely consistent with the Public Bodies Act to argue for the super-affirmative procedure.
Baroness Wilcox
Perhaps if I go back and continue for two paragraphs, we might find something a bit more helpful. I will go back again to say that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee examined the Bill. It carefully considered whether the procedures provided by the Bill were appropriate, and explicitly considered whether some measures should be delegated at all. The committee concluded that the procedures were appropriate and did not recommend the replacement of the affirmative procedure with the super-affirmative procedure at any point.
On the abolition of the adjudicator, the committee stated:
“We considered whether this goes far enough and whether the policy and repeal of the Act in these circumstances should be effected by another Bill. But we are satisfied that the affirmative procedure is appropriate given the overall purpose of the Bill”.
On transfer of functions, the committee said:
“An order under clause 16(1) can transfer all or some of the Adjudicator’s functions to another public body (undefined). The power is balanced by the affirmative procedure; and the Adjudicator’s functions are specific under the Bill. We are satisfied with this approach”.
Abolition and transfer of functions are major steps that should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. The Secretary of State can abolish the adjudicator only for being ineffective or unnecessary, under the clauses referred to by noble Lords, following one of the triennial reviews. These reviews require full consultation. Transfer of functions can be done only after consideration of whether it will increase efficiency, effectiveness and economy, while ensuring appropriate accountability to Ministers.
This Committee’s job is to carefully scrutinise delegated powers and to ensure that the appropriate procedures are chosen. If the committee had recommended changes to the Bill, we would have considered them extremely carefully, but it said that the procedures were satisfactory.
As I said at the beginning, one must ensure that the degree of scrutiny is proportionate to the powers involved. That is why it would be absolutely wrong, for example, for the negative procedure to be used in these cases. Equally, the super-affirmative procedure is a step too far. With that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to meet me after today and talk this through further. I would be delighted to do so, rather than taking up any more of the Committee’s time at this stage. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I look forward to the Government’s amendments at a later stage of the Bill and, although I was slightly premature, the opportunity to claim credit for them. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I would trade that for better consideration of the earlier amendment on the devolved Administrations. If I may crave the indulgence of your Lordships, I realise that when I was responding to that debate I failed to recognise and pay due regard to the contributions of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who graciously supported my amendments and made arguments that created a cross-party consensus on this issue, which the Government were unfortunately immune to. I am grateful to noble Lords for their support and contributions to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I do not know if this will help or at least shorten what I need to say in the debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. I want to consider what the situation is and has been since 4 February 2010. The dispute resolution scheme is set out in the code in Part 5. Paragraph 11(5), of course, does not conform to the Bill. It states:
“The arbitration will be administered by the Ombudsman, if established. In the event that the Ombudsman is not established, or has a conflict of interest in relation to a particular Dispute, the arbitration will be administered by a single arbitrator appointed in accordance with the Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in force for the time being.”
My understanding would be that it is a contractual obligation of the retailers that that is included in their contracts with their suppliers, exactly as I have read it out. It goes on in 11(6) to say:
“To the extent that they do not conflict with this Article 11, the arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in force for the time being”;
and in 11(9):
“Nothing in this Article will prevent a Designated Retailer including in a Supply Agreement a right for the Designated Retailer also to refer a Dispute to arbitration if the Dispute is not resolved … within 21 days”.
We need to know what the present situation is with the operation of the code. If the arrangements which have been set out with care by the Competition Commission, and included in the order are working perfectly well then I am bemused as to why the adjudicator would ever want to play any part in arbitration at all. I cannot see why it would be sensible for the adjudicator to play any part, because it is all there. Surely the adjudicator is to monitor whether these arrangements are working satisfactorily?
It may be, of course, that the further sophistication suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would also be a sensible thing to do. I have no view on that; I am not sufficiently expert. However, I cannot understand—and I need to be given some sort of comfort—why the adjudicator is involved in arbitration, as opposed to simply taking note of the fact that arbitration is taking place, and probably coming to a view as to whether, when it took place, it was a satisfactory procedure or not?
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has raised an important question that it is well worth us examining closely. It is correct that the adjudicator will have two separate main roles. One will involve arbitration, as set out in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The other will involve investigations and is set out primarily in Clauses 4 to 10 of the Bill. Both roles will be carried out fairly and impartially. The two functions will be distinct from each other and it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne said, that they remain so in order to prevent any conflict of interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether the adjudicator would always be conflicted. Not necessarily. If arbitration is sought on a subject where the adjudicator has not carried out an investigation or given advice, it is likely that there would be no conflict of interest. We do not consider it inherent in the functions of the adjudicator that he or she will be conflicted in carrying out arbitrations.
It is important to remember that the adjudicator will carry out all their functions fairly and impartially. It is not the role of the adjudicator to act as an advocate for suppliers in carrying out investigations, but it is possible that conflicts will arise in particular cases, and the Bill provides the flexibility to deal with each situation as it arises. The Government consider that Clause 2(1)(b) in particular will help ensure that the distinction between the adjudicator’s arbitration and investigation functions is maintained and that any conflicts of interest are prevented. This clause allows the adjudicator to appoint another person to arbitrate a dispute. The Government envisage that this will be used in cases where a conflict of interest may exist, for example where the adjudicator has previously advised on, or investigated, an issue which is relevant to the dispute. To assist the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the powers to arbitrate are applied at the request of the supplier or retailer. No previous investigation is actually needed.
The adjudicator will be required to act responsibly and will refer any cases where a conflict may arise. However, in cases where there is no conflict of interest, the Government believe that it is sensible to allow the adjudicator to arbitrate. This was envisaged by the Competition Commission in its drafting of the groceries supply order. The adjudicator will, after all, probably be the single most experienced person in the workings of the code.
On the proposed procedure for appointing an arbitrator, I do not consider it necessary to set this out in the Bill. As the Explanatory Notes explain, in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, Section 94 of the Arbitration Act 1996 will broadly apply the provisions of Part 1 of that Act to any arbitrations carried out under the groceries supply order and this Bill. In Scotland, Section 16 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 will broadly have a similar effect in applying the Scottish arbitration rules.
The arbitration legislation which will apply to arbitrations by the adjudicator or a person appointed by the adjudicator includes protections on fairness and impartiality, including an ability for parties to apply to the court to remove an arbitrator on those grounds. The adjudicator can of course be expected to satisfy himself or herself either that they can carry out an arbitration themselves fairly and impartially, or that the person they appoint will do so, but there is a safeguard in the arbitration legislation if, for some reason, that does not happen properly.
I wanted to respond to my noble friend Lord Eccles, and have now found the speaking note for that. The groceries supply order has already established a dispute resolution scheme for disputes arising between a particular retailer and a particular direct supplier under the groceries code. The order anticipates that the adjudicator, referred to there as the “ombudsman”, will arbitrate these disputes. This will both ensure that the disputes are arbitrated by an individual with a high level of expertise in the sector and will allow the adjudicator to gain a greater understanding of how the code is operating that will be helpful when carrying out his or her functions, such as providing advice or preparing the annual report. I hope that that is helpful.
I hope that these rather long but, we felt, necessary explanations have proved satisfactory to noble Lords. While I would of course be happy to speak further to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, about this matter, I ask him to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for expanding into a potentially fruitful area my further deliberations on this. I had not thought to look at the terms of the code itself, but his drawing my attention to the detail of the provisions on arbitration points to an area at least worthy of consideration: the interaction between existing provisions and those that would be enacted by the Bill, which are less descriptive. It interests me that the Government have chosen to legislate in way that is less clear than the simple provisions in the code, which the noble Viscount read out, composed by the Competition Commission. I will take some time to deliberate on that, but it is an area worth exploring, perhaps at a later date.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving these amendments such careful consideration, and for her words suggesting that they raise an important issue. It is an important issue and I remain to be convinced that it would be appropriate for the adjudicator to embark on arbitration without doing some prior investigation. I suppose that it depends on what one means by “prior investigation”. Given that it is expected that the adjudicator will arbitrate in a very small number of cases over the course of a year, I would expect that he or she would pay great attention to whether it was appropriate to deploy scarce resources on such a request, even if it came from a big retailer.
Viscount Eccles
I am only talking about expectations. It is up to Members of the Committee to make up their minds as to where the expectations that might arise as a result of this Bill being enacted lie. We all make up our own minds. In conclusion, I would much prefer it, and I think that it would be much in the public interest, if Clause 2 did not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Eccles has already made clear that he believes that the adjudicator’s function should be given to the Office of Fair Trading. The Government disagree and consider that with arbitration, just as with investigations, there is merit in establishing a dedicated, independent office which can build up a high level of expertise in the groceries market. I have already discussed this issue in some depth in response to previous groupings and have set out why we have made the provisions for the adjudicator to arbitrate.
The groceries supply order has already established a dispute resolution scheme for disputes arising between a particular retailer and a particular direct supplier under the groceries code. The order anticipates that the adjudicator—referred to there as the “ombudsman”—will arbitrate these disputes. This will ensure that disputes are arbitrated by an individual with a high level of expertise in the sector and allow the adjudicator to gain a greater understanding of how the code is operating that will be helpful when carrying out his or her functions, such as providing advice or preparing the annual report.
In response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Eccles on whether the Bill will override existing arbitration clauses, the order already gives a right to suppliers to arbitration in accordance with Article 2 of the order. The Bill simply allows the adjudicator to carry out that arbitration role where appropriate. Similarly, with regard to Amendment 16, the purpose of Clause 3(1) is to increase the expertise of the adjudicator—something that will benefit both retailers and suppliers. It is entirely reasonable that just because the adjudicator has not acted as an arbitrator he or she should continue to have access to the information from that dispute. This clause provides the adjudicator with the means of obtaining it. Therefore, with that explanation, although I know it will not please him, I hope that it will persuade him to allow Clause 2 to stand part of the Bill.
Viscount Eccles
I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps I may ask whether that last comment was on Part 2 of the code of practice, which does not seem to mention arbitration.
Baroness Wilcox
The order already gives the right to suppliers to arbitration, in accordance with Article 11. I am sorry, did I say Article 2?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee long with my amendments in this group. They are designed to protect legal professional privilege and confidentiality of communications in Scotland.
I am certain that the noble Baroness will say that legal professional privilege is recognised by common law and is therefore protected by it; that it is not therefore necessary to make legislation to protect it; and that the same applies in Scotland. My question to her, although she may not be able to answer it, is: why do we protect legal professional privilege in some legislation but not in other legislation? For example, in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, at paragraph 12 in Part 3 of Schedule 7, we enacted exactly the provision I have sought to include in the Bill. That is only one example and I can find others. I apologise to the noble Baroness for bowling her a bit of googly, even if I am a Scotsman—and we normally cannot play cricket at all, unless we captain the English team. Why on some occasions do we legislate to protect legal professional privilege and on others we do not? If she can answer that at some stage, I will be pleased. I do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox
This is an important issue. It is clearly important that documents subject to legal professional privilege should not be subject to the information-gathering powers that are granted here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for raising this point and reassure him that the Bill already gives protection to documents that are subject to legal professional privilege, on the basis of the general rule about legal professional privilege in civil proceedings. Because the enforcement mechanism in Schedule 2 and Clause 3 is via civil proceedings, the outcome is that legal professional privilege cannot be overridden.
I can say that confidently because legal professional privilege can be overridden only by express words or necessary implication. That is precisely what the House of Lords decided in the case of R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Tax Commissioner 2003. There are no express words of override here, nor is there anything that can be thought of as giving rise to unnecessary implication. In the mean time, I have been given an answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord. It is difficult to talk about other legislation, but we are clear that the intent is to protect legal professional privilege here.
As a result of the precedent to which I have just referred, the Bill has the effect desired by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and I would therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Picking up on quite wide-ranging amendments, I think that on this side we are content that included in the drafting of the clause is the fact that third parties can be party to the complainant. That is perhaps the easiest way to put it. Yet we appreciate what has been said and would like the Minister to underline and put on the record that that is indeed the case. On this side, we think that third parties will act as a responsible check and balance to the process in that they will pick up widespread experience of the supply chain, including from other suppliers who may come forward with information. I am sure that they will act as a steadying hand on any vexatious claims that individual suppliers might feel they have under their own individual circumstances. I will also reply to the noble Lord, Lord Howard. Of course, on this side we are very concerned that fair and best practice should be everyday experience for all businesses, whether they supply supermarkets or not.
Baroness Wilcox
I thank all noble Lords. We are considering three amendments in this group—two intended to make it easier for the adjudicator to begin investigations and one to make it harder.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are in complete sympathy with the aims of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Teverson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. We firmly believe that the adjudicator should be able to consider information from any source when deciding whether to start an investigation, whether or not this is provided by way of complaint. However, it is unnecessary to make explicit provision for the breadth of information that can be considered. I assure noble Lords that in this respect Clause 4 is written broadly and places no limits on who can complain to the adjudicator or what evidence the adjudicator can consider as reasonable grounds for suspicion. My officials have discussed this clause with trade associations and representatives of suppliers, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Food and Drink Federation, and they have raised no concerns over the wording of Clause 4.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising would return the Bill to the draft that was originally published for pre-legislative scrutiny last year by restricting the sources of information that the adjudicator could consider to information from suppliers and information in the public domain. I remind noble Lords that this issue was considered carefully by the BIS and EFRA Select Committees, both of which explicitly rejected the version of the clause that is now being proposed. They concluded that third parties, including trade associations and whistleblowers, could have a valuable role to play. After discussion with both suppliers and retailers, the Government decided that that was right. Trade associations, for example, may have a better overall picture of practices in a sector, which could reveal systematic breaches of the code. The Government therefore consider that it is right that the adjudicator should be able to consider any relevant information when making decisions to investigate. However, I reassure my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising that we have also introduced Clause 15(10) to enable the Secretary of State to restrict the possible sources, if it turns out that third parties do act irresponsibly.
I say to my noble friends Lady Byford, Lady Randerson and Lord Howard that there is protection in the Bill against malicious complaints, in that costs can be awarded against a complainant who makes a vexatious complaint or one that is wholly without merit. If those answers are seen as good and fair, I will ask the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, at Second Reading the Minister said that there would be no restrictions on who could complain to the adjudicator and she has confirmed that that is the position, which I am satisfied with. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their support of that position, which was overwhelming, with one notable exception.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Borrie, raised the issue of my reference to the phrase “with an interest” as perhaps restricting those who can complain. I may, in including it, have been guilty of what I have been trying to avoid and want the Government to avoid: attaching legalese when it is unnecessary. The concept of “with an interest” is well recognised by lawyers. It was intended not to restrict but to indicate that there ought to be a bar against frivolous or vexatious complaints. The idea of title and interest is a concept with which I am entirely comfortable, but I understand that many other people may not be and may think that it would be restrictive. It would not prevent any of those identified groups that noble Lords want to be able to complain to the adjudicator from doing just that. In any event, I would think that the adjudicator would be experienced and able enough to indentify frivolous or vexatious complaints and see them off rather than have to wait until the end to deal with them by the imposition of expenses, as it were.
I cannot conclude without expressing a degree of regret at the tone of the preamble to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to which I listened with interest. I have some sympathy with it, which he will have gathered from my contribution. I am not interested in creating some monster which runs away in terms of regulation.
Baroness Wilcox
Before the noble Lord sits down, I realise that I omitted a response to my noble friend Lord Howard on a question that he asked. It was central to what he was saying, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, does not mind if I intrude. My noble friend Lord Howard asked whether it was right that the adjudicator will have no power to require information before an investigation is started. The answer is yes. The adjudicator will have no such power; this is in paragraph 35 of the Explanatory Notes. The only exception to that is the monitoring of recommendations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I will finish what I had to say. I was pleased that the nature of our debate in Committee this afternoon was devoid of partisanship. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was perhaps just tweaking our tail a little and was not making too serious a point, However, I represented a group of farmers in my constituency, which was both urban and rural, for 13 years. I established a good relationship with them, and some of them became my very good friends, although I did not know them before I became a Member of Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that before he categorises people as manifestations of irony, perhaps he should make some inquiries. I am confident that, were he to interrogate members of the National Farmers’ Union in Scotland whom I represented for 13 years about whether they thought it ironic that I should be party to a process that is designed to protect their livelihoods and those of others, he would be surprised. Clearly he would be surprised, because he has a preconception about where I am coming from. The same could be said of my noble friends on the Front Bench. I understand that one of them farms, and so is well qualified to speak for farmers. Therefore, it might be better if we avoided such implications for the rest of our deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I will read out a sentence that is relevant to my amendment and also to the one we have just discussed. The Minister stated:
“After careful consideration, the Government have decided not to restrict the information that the adjudicator can consider”.—[Official Report, 22/5/2012; col. 726.]
That is entirely right. It is a free country, with free speech and so on. However, at the other end of the story, if we were to get into a situation where it was found that something had been brought forward that turned out to be vexatious, it would represent a failure and would be proof that the Bill was not working as well as it should.
I am mindful of the warning of Professor Lyons that he was not at all sure that the investigation potential was all that large, because of the length of the supply chain and because the adjudicator may investigate whether a large retailer has broken the groceries code. That is quite a narrow ground on which to mount an investigation.
In my amendment I put forward the argument that we should take out “suspect” and put in “believe”. There is a lot of hearsay and suspicion in the world, and in the way in which people think about the way supermarkets behave. When considering several Bills recently the House had no problem accepting that “suspect” was too weak and that we should “believe” before we start engaging in the expenditure of public money. I also think that it would be a protection for the adjudicator. This business of investigation is delicate and the adjudicator will have quite a hard time with it.
It is not an answer to say that Amendment 24 is irrelevant, because I think that the Office of Fair Trading should persist. That is my preference but of course I am capable of accepting that we should debate this on the basis that there will be an adjudicator, even though I want to see the continuation of the OFT. The adjudicator would welcome the protection of having to say that he or she “believed” that they had reasonable grounds rather than just “suspected”. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the amendment would alter the criterion for starting an investigation so that the adjudicator would have to have reasonable grounds to believe that there had been a breach of the code, rather than reasonable grounds to suspect, before beginning an investigation. The decision on what threshold is needed is always difficult. However, we should consider what is being decided here. It is not guilt, liability or a sanction of any kind. All that is being decided is whether the adjudicator should begin an investigation that will allow him or her to decide, based on the results of the investigation, whether there has been a breach of the code. At this early stage of the process, the term “suspect” rather than “believe” has to be correct, particularly as the adjudicator generally will not benefit from the information powers set out in Schedule 2 until an investigation has started, and so may not be able to establish grounds for belief.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, although I will come back to the matter because I am not satisfied. I should like to point out that the minute an investigation begins, it threatens a supermarket with an unexpected cost. Starting an investigation is quite a serious matter and is not to be undertaken lightly. The word “believe” should be included in the prelude to an investigation. I also think, given the amount of information that would already be available and will become available to the adjudicator, it should not be too much of a problem to ensure that there is some certainty that the matter is worth investigating. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am interested in the noble Baroness’s amendment. I shall not comment on it at length, but I understand the problem she raises here. I want only to ask the Minister whether, under paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, which we discussed earlier in respect of incidental powers, it would be better to offer the adjudicator some flexibility under this wonderful paragraph and thus allow him to use his judgment on what would be a reasonable level of travel expenses.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend is asking this question because she lives in the countryside. I live in Cornwall and I know about buses in rural areas, and can understand the principle behind the amendment. From a practical point of view, a simple distance criterion will be much easier for the adjudicator to apply than one based on the time taken to use public transport. It says here that it is more straightforward and harder to dispute to decide whether someone has travelled more than 10 miles than to calculate whether it would have been possible to make that journey within half an hour on public transport.
However, my instinct is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and I feel that somehow or other the adjudicator should at least be able to have some thoughts on this matter. Although I shall ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment, I can say that we will go back and look at this issue to see what the answer may be. I do not know whether there can be some discretion, and I may be treading on all sorts of impossible ground, but when we discussed this matter previously, and my team asked why we should consider this, I said, “I think you will find that this is a rural question”. There is obviously sympathy in the Committee for my noble friend’s question. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment. However, I will take it away and see if there is anything else that we can come back with.
Baroness Byford
I thank my noble friend for that response. I am not wedded to the half-hour period suggested in the amendment, but I wanted a debate about the need for rural accessibility. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. We all appreciate some of the real difficulties that people face. I am grateful to the Minister, and it gives me great pleasure to withdraw my amendment in the hope that we will come back with something at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie
I cannot see how the Minister can possibly have a good reason for rejecting the perfectly straightforward amendment of by my noble friend.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the reports that the adjudicator must publish at the end of each investigation are a vital part of his or her accountability and an important way of keeping retailers, suppliers and consumers informed of his or her work. It is therefore right that we should carefully examine what is contained within them. To take each of the amendments in turn, I find the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, interesting and he has made his case eloquently. It is indeed reasonable that the report should give the reasons for the decisions reached, as well as the decisions themselves. I would be happy to speak with him further about this amendment before the next stage of the Bill.
I am less sure of Amendment 33, which is proposed by my noble friend Lord Eccles. I think that it is reasonable to say that the adjudicator’s report need not always identify the retailer concerned. This is because there may be cases where the adjudicator considers that the matter can more appropriately be dealt with privately. For example, if there were no breach of the code, the adjudicator might conclude that it would be unfair to name the retailer that had been investigated, due to the possible reputational damage.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In what way will the Freedom of Information Act apply to the adjudicator? If a report was published that did not identify a retailer and someone wanted to find out who the retailer was, would it apply? I think that that is pertinent to the noble Viscount’s amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
Will scrutiny from freedom of information or the parliamentary commissioner not undermine the principle of confidentiality? The duty to maintain confidentiality is very strong and the Bill is explicit that it can only be overruled in certain defined circumstances. Those would not include a freedom of information request and that position is a result of Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act, which is engaged by Clause 18. Generally, freedom of information will apply to the adjudicator with the exception of Clause 18 overriding it. I am sorry that that was a slightly disjointed answer. Was it of help?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me another chance to seek clarification. It seemed clear and then the second piece of in-flight refuelling to the Minister made it less so. She essentially said that there is a confidentiality get-out on FOI for the adjudicator. Normally, freedom of information would apply to the work of the adjudicator unless there were good reasons for confidentiality such as protecting the interests of a retailer who would otherwise be damaged. Is that the case? If the Minister or her in-flight refuelling were able to give us some examples, that would be quite helpful.
Baroness Wilcox
My view—and that of the advisers behind me—is that at this stage I need say only one thing: I will write to the noble Lord. That will be easier and fairer. We will make sure that everyone else receives a copy of that, too. I apologise for not being able to be clearer at this stage. Maybe it is getting late. Furthermore, regarding the deletion of subsection (4), it is only fair that if a retailer is identified in a report they are given a reasonable opportunity to comment on a draft of that report before publication.
That brings us on to my noble friend Lady Byford’s amendment, which would require the retailer’s comments to be published as an annex to the report. Although I understand the thinking behind that, on balance it is unnecessary. Although the retailer may comment, the adjudicator is not obliged to include any of these comments and the final report is fully the adjudicator’s. Furthermore, if a retailer knew that any comments they made would be published, it could impair free and frank discussions. I hope that that clarifies the position a little. Apart from the fact that I will write to everyone to clarify the point about freedom of information, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Byford
I am slightly mystified by the Minister’s response to my question. I would be grateful if she would take it away and think about it because it was a surprise.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Despite the lateness of the hour, I am significantly perked up by the noble Baroness’s response. I have no doubt that what tipped the balance in my favour was the support that I received from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, but more importantly that I managed at last to persuade my noble friend Lord Borrie that there was some merit in one of my amendments. I am extremely grateful to him. He has almost rehabilitated his relationship with me with that intervention. I am delighted that the noble Baroness is willing to take this away. I would of course say this but, with respect, it enhances this part of the Bill. It will have the consequence of reducing the amount of contention that follows decisions if it is clear that people can expect that there will be reasons given for them.
I listened carefully to the amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I have some sympathy. Coupled with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, there is an issue here that requires further exploration. I think that—with respect—there was a cross-purposes discussion that took place between the proposal of the noble Baroness for comments to be published, and the response from the Minister that that would in some way impede the process of investigation. I understood the noble Baroness to be saying that the comments and response deserve to be published. As these will be published in any event, it would be a much more coherent and comprehensive process that would command the support of parties if they thought that, even when there was a finding against them, the response would be published by the process rather than independently of it.
I hope that I have done credit to the amendment from the noble Baroness. In any case, conversations are about to take place and I hope that, when we all come back to this, there will be even bigger smiles on their faces, metaphorically, than I have at the moment, having managed to achieve even this minor victory. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Directors’ Pay
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
With your Lordships’ permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in another place today.
“I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government’s proposals on directors’ pay. This follows extensive consultation with business and investors.
Since I first addressed the House on this issue, the Government have initiated a broad, national debate about shareholder activism. This has encouraged shareholders to become more engaged as owners of their companies during the so-called ‘shareholder spring’. We have also seen many companies engaging constructively in the face of this opposition. This is an important step for encouraging improved pay discipline.
As I said then, there is compelling evidence of a disconnect between pay and performance in large UK-listed companies. It is right that the Government act to address this clear market failure. Today, I can therefore announce a far-reaching package of reforms that will strengthen the hand of shareholders to challenge excessive pay while not imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
We will give shareholders new powers to hold companies to account on the structure and level of pay, and make it easier to understand what directors are earning and how this links to company strategy and performance. Shareholders will have a binding vote on a company’s pay policy, including their approach to exit payments. Rather than being a one-off vote, for the first time this will be a real, lasting and binding control on pay. A company will be able to make payments only within the limits that have been approved by a majority of shareholders. This binding vote will happen annually unless companies choose to leave their pay policy unchanged, in which case the vote will happen at a minimum every three years. This will encourage companies to set out and stick to a clear, long-term pay strategy, and it will help to put a brake on the annual upward pay ratchet.
The policy should explain clearly how pay supports the strategic objectives of the company and include better information on how directors’ pay relates to that of the wider workforce. This includes increased transparency on employee pay, including information that will show the difference between rises in directors’ pay and those of the employees. Employee views on pay are important. That is why I am proposing that companies report on whether they have taken steps to seek the views of their workforce.
As part of their policy, companies will have to spell out their approach to exit payments. When a director leaves, the company must publish a statement explaining to shareholders exactly what payments the director has received. Companies will not be able to pay more than the shareholders agree.
Alongside the binding vote on policy, there will, as now, be an annual advisory vote on how the policy has been implemented, including all remuneration paid in the previous year. If a company fails the advisory vote, this will automatically trigger a binding vote on policy the following year. Both the binding and advisory votes should be as strong as possible to keep up pressure on companies. I therefore welcome the CBI’s call for the Financial Reporting Council’s corporate governance code to be updated to codify the current best practice that companies make a statement when a significant minority of shareholders vote against a pay resolution. This would publicly hold directors to account. Pay reports will be clearer and more transparent for investors. Companies will have to report a single figure of the total pay that directors received for the year, details of whether they met performance measures and a comparison between company performance and chief executive’s pay.
The Government will bring forward amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill shortly to introduce these reforms. In tandem, and as good policy-making requires, we will publish, for comment, revised and simplified regulations setting out what companies must report on directors’ pay. Lasting reform is dependent on both business and investors maintaining this activism and developing and adopting good practice.
The best companies and investors are already leading the way and acting as early adopters of these reforms. We welcome the close engagement of institutional shareholders and their willingness to use their voting powers. We want this to be sustained and shall continue to monitor disclosure levels. Evidence suggests that more institutional investors are disclosing their voting records and that up to three-quarters of those investors are now disclosing their votes. We will consider further action if the number of investors volunteering to disclose their voting records does not continue to increase.
This is a strong package of reform. It builds on the United Kingdom’s status as a global leader in corporate governance; it commands wide support from investors and business; and it addresses public concerns about directors’ pay. These proposals restore a stronger, clearer link between pay and performance; reduce rewards for failure; promote better engagement between companies and shareholders; and, overall, empower shareholders to hold companies to account through binding votes. We look forward to discussing these proposals further with the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee on 28 June and in the Public Bill Committee that will consider the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for some of the things that we have done. Obviously he feels that we have not gone far enough, which is what I expected him to say. Of course, that allows me to say that in all the years that his Government were in power, they did not do any of this. Therefore, I hope that he will feel that we have at least made a decent start and will encourage us as much as he can.
I will answer some of his questions. We consulted extensively with business and investors. The Association of British Insurers today said that the package was practical and workable, and would help investors tackle excessive pay. I know Sir Roger Carr very well. I was on the board of Cadbury Schweppes with him, and we were also—I think—on the Audit Committee and the Remuneration Committee at the same time, so he and I have some history, and I am sure that we will agree over the years.
The noble Lord asked why we had gone for a binding vote and why we had changed the time period from three years. Shareholders will get a binding vote on a company’s pay policy, as we said, including on exit payments. This binding vote will happen annually unless companies choose to leave their pay policy unchanged, in which case the vote will happen at least every three years. The idea on consultation was that it would encourage companies to set out long-term pay policies clearly linked to company strategy rather than short-term, one-year pay policies. We hope that it will put a brake on continuous upward pay ratchets. However, we will watch and see whether it succeeds.
On employee representation, we have acknowledged that employees’ views on pay are important. That is why I proposed that companies should report on whether they have sought the views of the workforce. We will monitor this very carefully. As for employees on boards, nothing stops companies doing this already, but we are not saying that it should be enforced—we do not believe in mandating this across all firms. We hope that the things that we put forward today will give people confidence to go forward, and certainly will give confidence to employees, who have a lot of powers that they have not yet used, which are similar to those of shareholders who have gone forward and said, “Enough is enough”.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House of the benefit of short questions to the Minister, in order that she may answer as many as possible.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important Statement. I have three questions. First, does she accept that the Statement applies almost entirely to companies owned and run with employees in the UK? What is her view on the large number of FTSE 100 companies that have shareholders and employees primarily outside the United Kingdom? The Statement says that there has been a broad national debate about shareholder activism. Has any consultation taken place with companies run from Kazakhstan or the United States that are UK FTSE 100 companies? How does she think these proposals will go down with them?
Secondly, I will touch on the question of exit payments that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I support and understand the Government’s position that they do not wish shareholders to have the right to veto the individual contracts of people who are taken on for employment, but I am not entirely sure that that should apply to exit payments. Contrasting the Statement in my left hand with the Explanatory Notes in my right, there seems to be a slight confusion. The Statement says that on exit payments, companies will not be able to pay more than shareholders agree. Will the Minister confirm that that is not exactly true? The proposal is that the company will say something like, “We will never pay more than two years’ salary in an exit payment”, or, “We will never pay more than the contractual entitlement of the employee”, or, “We will reward performance but not lack of performance”. Does the Minister agree that the Statement is slightly misleading in suggesting that shareholders have a right to veto exit payments?
The third point is slightly facetious, and the Minister may well have answered it already. As we know, her Secretary of State has been described in the Daily Telegraph by Mr Adrian Beecroft as a crypto-socialist. The criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has made has probably proved that that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that, as far as she is aware, the business community broadly welcomes these Statements and regard them as coming from a Secretary of State who is significantly pro-business?
Baroness Wilcox
In answer to my noble friend’s first question, company law captures only UK companies. However, overseas companies must comply with the listing rules. We will work with the FSA to consider how the listing rules need to change in view of these reforms. I hope that is a helpful answer. In answer to his second question, companies will be able to make exit payments only within the envelope that shareholders have approved and it will be up to the shareholders to agree.
I cannot imagine that my Secretary of State was ever called a crypto-socialist by anybody—was he? I know that business very much welcomes what we are doing at the moment. Shareholders and business welcome it, and it is with them that we have been talking and negotiating to make sure that we can put this into the Bill that is coming up and that we can introduce secondary legislation so that we can get this moving as soon as possible. Everybody seems to agree that things must change.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, did the Minister hear the discussion on Radio 4 this morning in which one company chief executive reminded us of the fuss there was 10 years ago when the salary of the chief executive of British Gas reached £460,000? Is she surprised that, 10 years later, when FTSE chief executives have an average salary of 10 times that amount, this Statement smacks somewhat of closing the door after the horse has bolted? It is not sufficient just to deal with the present problem because the proposals that are being made build in the inequity that exists at the present time.
When the Minister talks about pay, precisely what is she talking about? Is she talking about total emoluments, of all sorts—pay, share options, shares, accommodation provided; the whole gamut, everything included—and will that be made absolutely transparent? Can she give us that assurance at least to make sure that there is no progress on the inequity?
Baroness Wilcox
I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord that we mean pay—all of it—and that is why we said in the Statement that there would be one figure. One figure means you do not have to work your way through myriad figures and arrangements, et cetera, so that it will be clear to everybody exactly what that person is getting.
I did hear the interview this morning. It was with two businessmen; one from a FTSE 100 company and the other one from a company that was never listed on the Stock Exchange. If you talk about closing the door, in the short time that we have been in government, we have now opened the door—a door that we feel should have been opened a lot longer ago, but we were not in government then.
Baroness Sharples
Does my noble friend agree that small shareholders will take considerable encouragement from this Statement?
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend is right. We are very keen to make sure that shareholders feel that they are getting a fair deal. It is very useful for the very big shareholders to be able to get in and take on the companies for these pay arrangements. I have sat in FTSE 100 company meetings when the room is absolutely full of people who have only got a few shares. Up go all the hands for the vote and we add them up: 1,800 for, 246 against; and then of course we have the other votes that have come in, that are not in the room at the time: 45 million say this, and so on. So yes, the small shareholder will feel that he is in the room, and it is very important that we start to see the dividends grow, if we can, for small shareholders too. We want more shareholders. I thank my noble friend for the question.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, since the 1980s the multiple between the average earnings in FTSE 100 companies and the earnings of top executives has risen from about 29 times to at least 140 times. If we do not see any improvement in these differentials, they will prove dangerous to social cohesion, as has been widely seen across Europe. Will the Minister be reviewing measures to see if greater effect can be brought to bear?
Baroness Wilcox
The right reverend Prelate is right; one of the big worries is the great differential which has gradually opened up between the top pay and that of other employees in the company. As we said in the Statement and as I am happy to repeat now, we will be making sure that companies are looking at the increments and the pay rises that are happening at all levels. I know the right reverend Prelate was in business and it is very nice to have a Bishop in the place who knows something about business.
Lord Myners
My Lords, this is the minimum necessary response to a situation in which company directors seem to see their role as driving the cost of everything down except their own remuneration. This is not a strong Statement. The Minister is wrong to suggest the previous Government did nothing. They introduced the Companies Act 2002 which increased disclosure; they introduced obligations for institutional shareholders to publish their votes; they also promoted the Higgs and Walker reviews. So the Minister is simply wrong to say that the previous Government did nothing on this issue. Paragraph 7 of the Secretary of State’s Statement shows that the Government’s policy is both voluntary and binding. When I suggested that earlier this week, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who is in his place, said that he could not envisage a situation which was both voluntary and binding.
However, to questions. First, the Minister says that these reforms will strengthen the hand of shareholders. Can she explain why shareholders could not have introduced these requirements themselves through amendments to the articles of association? I suggest that these reforms do not strengthen the hand of shareholders at all. They already had that power. Secondly, the right honourable Secretary of State said these proposals were introduced in the face of opposition. Can the Minister tell us the opposition to which the Secretary of State was referring in making that comment in paragraph 2 of the Statement? Finally, in her earlier answer the Minister said that employees already have powers to influence company remuneration. Can she tell us what these powers are?
Baroness Wilcox
We have engaged extensively with businesses and investors to come up with a robust, workable and enduring package that helps shareholders to sustain the increasing activism which we have seen.
Baroness Wilcox
I read that to make sure I was absolutely correct because the noble Lord has been quoting paragraph numbers. I would not like him to say that I had made a mistake or moved a comma. Perhaps he will forgive me on that.
It is a radical package. For the first time companies will be bound by a policy approved by shareholders. As to why shareholders did not do more and do it on their own, as the noble Lord knows very well, changing articles is complicated so we wish to help shareholders on their way. The noble Lord is shaking his head vigorously. He has been a Member of this House and has sat on the Labour Benches a long time. He has also been a Minister. During all that time none of this, no matter how frail or small it seems to him now, was done by his party or by him when he was sitting in this position. Let us be clear; one year ago there was not the same level of recognition on the issue of pay. Now business accepts that there is an issue and has been very good in coming forward to have the conversations with us.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I for one on these Benches was very pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement today. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, had a point when he said that shareholders can already veto executive pay. One of problems is that many shareholders are directors themselves and therefore have some considerable interest in seeing that salaries are up there rather than down there. It would be very helpful if it were possible to use the ordinary employees of a company more widely as a blanket on what is finally resolved. The Government should consider how employees who are not at the top of the pay scale can be brought more into the picture. I take it that what is being suggested today applies not just to directors but to executives as well. An executive is not necessarily the chief executive. What he or she is earning will also come under close survey.
Baroness Wilcox
The answer to my noble friend’s last assumption is yes. When it comes to employees getting their voices heard, we encourage them to make more use of the tools that they already have, and to which I have already referred, in airing their views on pay, for example. Existing information and consultation arrangements are a potentially powerful mechanism for employees and have been underutilised to date. We will now watch carefully what companies say in directors’ remuneration reports about whether employees’ views have been sought. I agree with my noble friend that we need to hear the views of employees. We want boards to encourage them to use the mechanisms available to them so that we can hear more of what they say.
Lord Haskel
Does the Minister agree that this is another small and welcome step towards implementing a long-term stewardship code? It is a journey which the previous Government started and which I hope this Government will continue. The Minister spoke about institutional investors, pension funds, insurance companies, active shareholders, savers and investors, all of whom will of course take an interest. However, we are told that these are a minority of shareholders. We are told that short-term traders, overseas investors with different objectives, private equity, hedge funds and those who borrow shares are now in the majority. Will they simply not bother to vote and so render this scheme useless?
Baroness Wilcox
Gosh, that is dreary. Private equity is something else again. We have promoted long-term stewardship and continue to do so today. I would not like to give the impression that the previous Government did nothing at all; they did what they could to try to change things. However, in the past few years, it has become increasingly obvious that the stretch of pay across a company has become too much to bear. From the Statement that I have repeated today, I hope that your Lordships will see that we are keen to monitor how our proposals are being implemented. We leave ourselves the opportunity to keep a watching brief, as is right, but not to interfere in companies’ day-to-day workings or set remuneration. Shareholders are becoming more engaged, as results from recent annual general meetings show. Reforms will encourage shareholders to engage by giving them stronger tools that require companies to sit up and take notice. This will help shareholders sustain the increasing activism that we have already witnessed this year and to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the robustness of this Statement. I was disappointed when there was nothing in the gracious Speech on this subject but what she has announced today was well worth waiting for. I cannot help feeling that some of the contributions from the party opposite are redolent of foxes being shot. This makes a very important start on what is an important issue and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House on this Statement.
Baroness Wilcox
I thank my noble friend very much indeed. I am very glad that somebody thinks we have done the right thing today. I hope we will keep it up and that he will continue to be pleased with us.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
The Minister, as a former non-executive director, is very much aware that the business model is the key to understanding companies, both in good and bad times. More than anything, it is the professionals—the auditors—who understand the business model. Will the Minister ensure that the Government mandate auditors to talk to shareholders, so that they begin to understand the company? If they do, they can then request a seat on the remuneration committee, along with other stakeholders such as employees, so that we blow open the cartel that is at present called the remuneration committee.
Baroness Wilcox
I assume the noble Lord is talking about outside auditors, not the internal audit committee. I do not have an answer for him immediately but I will certainly go back and find out what we are thinking in respect of auditors. I think I have an Oral Question next week on auditors so that might be worth listening to. I apologise that I cannot answer that right now.
Baroness Buscombe
Will the Minister explain what she meant when she said that private equity is “something else”?
Baroness Wilcox
This is to do with the FTSE-100 companies as opposed to private equity, which is a completely different discipline.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the substance of this Statement will reappear in the form of clauses or amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, so we shall all have a further opportunity to examine the various issues?
Baroness Wilcox
The answer is yes. Amendments will be laid to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Next week, or soon afterwards, the draft regulations will be published.
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Razzall
I stand by the point that I made in Committee: in the current climate, it would be extremely unlikely that there would be an IPO for the Royal Mail.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, demonstrates another reason why that is highly unlikely. The fundamental difference between this and the privatisations to which he and his colleagues referred in the 1980s and 1990s is an ideological belief on behalf of the then Conservative Government that those industries were better held not by the taxpayer but by public shareholders. In those circumstances, there was clearly an interest in creating an aftermarket, so that as many individual shareholders—in the case of BT, it was a huge number of individual shareholders—should have an incentive to buy shares and then make a profit. The reason why that would not apply in this case is that the fundamental reason for the transaction would be to get resources into the Royal Mail. In those circumstances, the Government would not have an interest in creating the sort of aftermarket that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, fears. The significant interest of the Government would be to maximise the financial return for the Royal Mail, because the whole purpose of this is to get investment into Royal Mail, not to provide a windfall for shareholders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, Amendment 1 would restrict the number of shares that can be sold in an initial public offering—an IPO—to 30 per cent of the value of shares, and imposes a time limit for the sale of one year from the new clause coming into force.
First, the Government believe that Royal Mail needs an injection of private sector capital to meet its needs in a fast-changing postal market. Unlike the previous Government, we do not believe that there should be any barriers in legislation to prevent a disposal of a majority of the shares. The Government’s objective in disposing of shares in Royal Mail is to secure the future of the company and to secure the best value for the taxpayer. To achieve that, the Government must have flexibility on when to sell shares and how much should be sold.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, is concerned that previous privatisations have resulted in the taxpayer losing out through undervaluation; the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke in support of his concerns. Noble Lords have a great deal of knowledge of previous privatisations; it is one of the great assets of your Lordships' House. I cannot answer for why they were done as they were, or what were the objectives of those privatisations. I am absolutely clear that our intention will be to secure the best deal for the company and the taxpayer consistent with our objectives. We will ensure that whatever form private sector investment takes in this instance, it will be with those objectives in mind. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for his clarifying statement on that.
As I said in Committee, the Bill would allow the sale of a minority of shares in Royal Mail, and a sale by means of an IPO, if either or both were decided to be the best route to achieve our objectives. We do not, however, believe that there should be a time limit on the sale. The Government must have the flexibility to choose the right time to dispose of shares to ensure that we can get the best result for Royal Mail and the taxpayer.
The noble Lords, Lord Lea, Lord Young and Lord Borrie, also asked how Royal Mail will be valued. If I may, I will come back to those issues when we discuss Amendment 3, which directly addresses that point. Arbitrary deadlines in legislation would mean that the process might be rushed through, which is not the best way to conduct what would be a significant commercial transaction. I do not believe, therefore, that Amendment 1 would be in the interests of either Royal Mail or the taxpayer, and I would therefore hope that, following my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to keep the Royal Mail in public ownership and reflects the position set out in the previous Government’s Postal Services Bill, which this House considered in 2009. As I said earlier in response to Amendment 1, the difference between the position of this Government and the previous Government is that we do not believe it is necessary for the Government to retain overall ownership of Royal Mail. Public ownership has not helped Royal Mail to move with the times and to make the changes that it needed to succeed. That is why we need a different approach if we are to safeguard the universal postal service, and that is what we are committed to doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, questioned the Government’s mandate for the Bill. The Liberal Democrat manifesto was explicit about the need for private sector investment and employee shares. The coalition agreement was explicit that:
“We will seek to ensure an injection of private capital into Royal Mail, including opportunities for employee ownership. We will retain Post Office Ltd in public ownership”.
The Bill does exactly what we said we would do. There are several reasons why we should not seek to retain Royal Mail in public ownership. I covered these at length in Committee but, to summarise: first, the Government cannot provide capital fast enough and any funding we provide has to be cleared by the EU under state aid rules. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding spoke most eloquently from his past experience in support of that. Secondly, limiting a sale to only a minority of Royal Mail’s shares will reduce our ability to attract the best future owners for the company.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the provision to amend the minimum requirements of the USO in Clause 33. Again, I will come to those issues when we discuss his Amendments 65 and 66. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. I remember that occasion well, given my interests at the time and the continuing interest which I declared on a previous occasion. As I said, we do not seek to oppose the injection of private capital. Interestingly, there was almost unanimous support for the 2009 Bill, which applied the same formula that I applied to the House today. I hear the points made by the Minister on private sector investment but it is not quite true that it said “100 per cent privatisation” in either the coalition agreement or Liberal Democrat manifesto; I noticed that those were not the words that she used. I stick by my original assertion that this is new territory. It is an important and fundamental decision and one on which we should test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Amendments 3 and 13 seek to place additional reporting requirements on the Secretary of State, while Amendment 5 would introduce additional parliamentary procedures before there can be a disposal of shares in a Royal Mail company.
Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament how the value will be assessed, and to make available to the Public Accounts Committee of the other place an independent valuation of the business. As we debated in Committee, there are incredible sensitivities about revealing the estimated value of Royal Mail shares prior to a commercial negotiation. We would be giving the whip hand to the potential investor. This does not make commercial sense and would greatly reduce the potential for getting the best value for the taxpayer from any future transaction. The Government will work with their advisers to consider the potential value of Royal Mail so that they can properly assess bids from buyers. Before a sale, the accounting officer for the Department for Business would need to scrutinise any future transaction to ensure that it represented value for money for the taxpayer.
I reiterate what I said in Committee: we would expect that, after a sale had completed, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in the other place will wish to review the sale process. They would both provide their own independent view to Parliament on whether the Government had achieved value for money for the taxpayer. This is completely in line with the reporting requirements for previous sales of government assets.
Amendment 5 would require that the Secretary of State made an Oral Statement and that an order was laid that was subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before there could be a relevant disposal of shares in a Royal Mail company. As I said in Committee, further parliamentary procedures should not be required before there can be a disposal of shares in Royal Mail. The disposal of shares, as set out in the Bill, has been debated fully in both the other place and this House. The Opposition’s Postal Services Bill of 2009 did not include a requirement for additional parliamentary procedures before there could be a disposal of shares. As they said at the time, such a requirement would cause uncertainty for potential investors. That uncertainty is the same whether we are selling a majority or a minority stake. I said in Committee that I fully agreed that an Oral Statement might be appropriate for the first sale of shares. We will discuss with the House authorities the appropriate format for such reports at the relevant times.
I turn to the last amendment in this group, Amendment 13. The purpose of Clause 2 is to ensure that Parliament has transparency about the way in which shares or share rights in Royal Mail that reduce the proportion owned by the Crown are disposed of. The amendment would require reporting on any subsequent disposal of shares by the original purchaser. I do not consider that such a reporting requirement is appropriate. I know of no precedent for this type of “open-ended” reporting in any previous privatisation. The Companies Act requires that a private company has to disclose a full list of its shareholders on incorporation and then with the first annual return to Companies House following incorporation. It then has to provide such a list every third annual return after a full list has been provided. Information on ownership of Royal Mail will, therefore, continue to be publicly available.
As with discussions we had in Committee on other aspects of the Bill, I see no reason to impose more onerous reporting requirements on a privately owned Royal Mail than those that are currently imposed on privately owned companies. Clause 2 does, of course, continue to apply to any disposals of shares by the Secretary of State himself after the initial sale. The crucial issue, however, is not ownership but securing the future of Royal Mail, and in doing so securing the future of the universal postal service. Regardless of who owns the company, it would still be the universal postal service provider in the United Kingdom. It will still need to comply with any conditions issued by Ofcom in the universal postal service order to be made under Clause 29 of the Bill. The purchaser would, therefore, be fully aware of the obligations that the company it is purchasing must deliver.
The initial conditions in the universal postal service order will follow those currently set out in the licence issued to Royal Mail by Postcomm. Condition 12(5) of that licence requires Royal Mail to notify the regulator if there is any change of control in the company. It will be for Ofcom to decide whether to impose similar conditions in the future as part of delivering its overall duty to secure the future of the universal service. With these reassurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said and I welcome her assurance regarding the Oral Statement. That represents some progress, but we still feel that she has not fully addressed our concerns about the presale valuation and the ability to report to the Public Accounts Committee in confidence. We will reflect on the situation, but in the light of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
(c) the objective intended to be achieved by the undertaking of it.(3A) The report must—
(a) contain information about the expected commercial relationship, after the proposed disposal, between the Royal Mail company in question and any Post Office company, and
(b) if the proposed disposal would result in shares or share rights being owned by or on behalf of an employee share scheme for the first time, give details of the scheme.
In paragraph (b) “employee share scheme” has the meaning given by section 3.”
Baroness Wilcox
Amendment 6 is intended to increase transparency in relation to any future disposal of shares in Royal Mail, as well as to provide further information on the commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. At the same time I will speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and Amendment 8 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher. I hope that Amendment 6 will ease the concerns expressed by many noble Lords in Committee and provide further reassurance that the Secretary of State will be open and transparent about decisions taken on the future of these two businesses. The amendment relates to the report which will be laid by the Secretary of State before Parliament once he has made the decision to undertake a disposal of shares in Royal Mail.
Amendment 6 serves three purposes. First, it clarifies that the Clause 2 report must state the objective intended to be achieved by the share disposal. Secondly, it will ensure that when shares are proposed to be put into the employee share scheme for the first time, the report must include details of the scheme. Thirdly, it will ensure that the report includes information on the ongoing relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd after any disposal.
Perhaps I may take these in turn. In terms of objectives, I said in Committee that the Government’s overarching objectives from the disposal of shares is to secure the future of the universal service and to ensure that we negotiate the best deal for both Royal Mail and the taxpayer. However, I appreciate that Parliament will want confirmation of these objectives once a decision has been taken to dispose of shares. This amendment will ensure that this is included in the report to Parliament made under Clause 2.
Moving on to employee shares, we understand the concerns of both Houses about the sort of scheme that will be put in place for employees, and I would remind noble Lords that the Bill already makes the strongest statutory commitment to an employee share scheme of any major privatisation. This commitment has been strengthened further by the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, who put on record in the other place that shares would be put into the scheme at the same time as the first disposal of shares. This commitment was repeated by my noble friend Lord De Mauley in Committee in this House. It is too early to commit to a particular scheme structure as this will depend on factors that are as yet undecided, such as the type of sale, but we have considered how we can provide additional comfort to both Houses. As the amendment sets out, we propose to place a specific duty on the Secretary of State to report on the details of the employee share scheme when shares are proposed to be put into it for the first time.
Finally, the amendment also ensures that the report will include details of the ongoing commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd after the proposed disposal of shares in Royal Mail. We hope that this amendment will address the concerns expressed by several noble Lords in Committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his colleagues on the Front Bench. It will also work in tandem with Amendment 50, which we will discuss later, to ensure that information on the relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail continues to be publicised in the Post Office’s annual report, as required under Clause 11.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I provide a little more detail about what we expect the reporting requirement will provide in practice. We envisage that the details published will be akin to those which a listed company might provide in relation to a material contract when issuing a prospectus offering shares to the public. This provides a fine balance between ensuring that the public—in that example, potential investors—have sufficient information and making sure that no commercially damaging information is inadvertently disclosed. In practice, the information is likely to include much of that which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seeks to include in Amendment 7. The contract has yet to be finalised. It does not need to be finalised until the two companies are formally separated prior to completion of a Royal Mail transaction, but negotiations are under way and we would expect a new contract to be ready to be signed by next spring.
Noble Lords will already be aware that Royal Mail and the Post Office management have committed that the contract will be for the longest legally permissible duration. I would hope that this could be for the 10-year period that noble Lords opposite have sought, but the final duration will depend upon interlinked factors such as volume commitments or exclusivity arrangements. Since the contract has yet to be finalised, the specific details required under Amendment 7 are impractical. For example, it would most likely be impossible to provide accurate annual total contract values to the Post Office as these are likely to depend on the volume of mail and parcels handled over Post Office counters during the relevant years. That is certainly the basis of the current arrangement.
I turn now to Amendment 8, which would require the Secretary of State to include in the report that he has to make under Clause 2 a risk assessment of the proposed disposal and information on due diligence made of the purchaser, along with a comprehensive analysis of the due diligence work. As I have said before, the Government’s intention is that a sale of shares will help to secure the future of Royal Mail, and this in turn will help the company to continue to provide the universal postal service. We will, of course, assess the risks and carry out appropriate due diligence as part of that process. The report in Clause 2 is required when the Secretary of State has made a decision to undertake the disposal of shares in Royal Mail, and the report must include details of the kind of disposal. The process of a disposal is unlikely to have begun and so the information set out in the amendment would not be available at the time of the report.
As I said in response to Amendment 5, we expect that after a sale had completed both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in the other place will wish to review the sale process. They would look at the process that was conducted prior to a sale, including the risk assessments and the due diligence. This is recognised as standard parliamentary process to assess whether the Government have achieved value for money for the taxpayer. I certainly expect that process—that is, the work of the NAO and the PAC—to cover work undertaken by the Department for Business to assess the financial and other risks associated with the buyer because they can directly impact, in the longer term, the taxpayer. We do not believe that Amendment 8 reflects the nature of the reporting requirement in Clause 2, which is to report when a decision is taken to undertake a disposal—not on subsequent activities prior to a sale. We also believe that there are existing parliamentary processes in place to scrutinise risk assessments and any due diligence that has been undertaken.
With the assurances that I have given to the House about what the Secretary of State will intend to include in a Clause 2 report, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, will feel able to withdraw their amendments at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6)
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, we welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and believe that it is a step in the right direction. The question is whether it goes far enough in that direction. We welcome the Government’s acceptance of the kind of information that ought to be made available before Royal Mail is sold. We have already stated that there are still many unanswered questions about the disposal—the timetable, the qualification of the future owner, the nature of the sale, how value for money will be secured, the danger of asset-stripping, safeguards for the universal service, and safeguards for the post office network. Yet the scope that is being given to the Secretary of State to make the sale is still very large indeed, with only a factual report to Parliament.
There is a significant improvement in the scale of information that is being offered, but it is certainly not the whole answer. I listened carefully but I did not quite get the assurance given on the nature of the contract between Royal Mail and the Post Office. I would welcome the Minister, in responding, clarifying the point that she made about next spring, when this contract is likely to be signed, and saying how strong the guarantee is on the 10-year period. Is it still just a hope, and are there still likely to be legal barriers to the 10-year period being a part of the contract?
I want to speak to Amendments 7 and 8. The House will be aware that we have consistently put the case for a long-term agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office, to run from point of sale. We have proposed a 10-year duration. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it is certainly not an academic issue; it is a matter of commercial survival. The Government’s assurances are an improvement but still fall short of the commitment that we seek. I have no doubt that we will continue to return to this issue until we get a satisfactory assurance.
My noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment provides a useful elaboration of the information that we seek, including the contract length, any contractual break period and the total value of the contract to Post Office Ltd. We urgently support his amendment and urge the House to do so.
Amendment 8 seeks further guarantees, and important ones, on the risk assessment of the proposed disposal of Royal Mail. My noble friend Lord Christopher rightly seeks confirmation that due diligence of the prospective buyer has been undertaken. These are sensible steps to take before such an important transaction, and I thought that his graphic and interesting description of the Netherlands postal system was an important contribution to this debate.
Once again, we support this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I rise to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Christopher and Lord Young, on my amendment and the other two amendments. In response to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the details to be provided in the Clause 2 report, I reiterate some of the sentiments I mentioned earlier. The information that we propose to include in the report includes much of the information that the noble Lord seeks in his Amendment 7. I would hope that the contract’s duration would be for the 10 years that many noble Lords are seeking, but the longest legally permissible duration will depend on other factors, such as volume commitments, which must be commercially negotiated between the companies. Finally, we must not require in Clause 2 the disclosure of information that might inadvertently damage the commercial interests of either business. That would damage the commercial sustainability of the post office network, which I am sure is not the noble Lord’s intention.
The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, raised a number of important points about how the postal service is provided in the Netherlands. I believe that these are consequences of the regulatory framework in the Netherlands, not of the ownership of its postal companies, but we will come to those matters when we debate Part 3 of the Bill, and I hope I will be able to provide him with further reassurance then.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked me to clarify what I said about the timing of a new contract between Royal Mail and the Post Office. As I said, negotiations are under way, and we expect a new contract to be ready to be signed by next spring. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord feels that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness has gone some considerable way. However, from what she just said it is clear that the information that the Government envisage in the report is on potential investors and the financial viability of both halves. There is a bigger public interest issue here. The post office network, which is so dear to many of our communities, depends on this agreement for one-third of its income. Unless this Bill spells out that part of the report to Parliament will cover something like the details that I have in my amendment, I do not think that the Government will be bound to provide a sufficient report on which Parliament can judge. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I also support Amendment 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. It asks that the report should include information about how the name of Royal Mail is to be protected and used by the universal postal service provider. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he mentioned the value of the brand. We should remind ourselves that it was not that many years ago that the dreaded Consignia reared its head. Nobody understood why such an appalling name was chosen. It received no public understanding or acclaim, but no doubt the consultancy did quite well out of it. There is a bit of previous in this respect, which is why my noble friend Lord Kennedy was absolutely right to draw this aspect to our attention.
I will deal also with Amendment 54. As others have said, the House will agree that we owe a debt to my noble friends Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, who deserve enormous credit for persuading the Government to bring forward this amendment, which will require the Post Office to tell us in an annual report how these collections are being looked after. I also pay tribute to the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in his support for this. He made the point about ensuring that the collection is on public display and adequately resourced. While we welcome the amendment, producing a report is not the same as making sure that the heritage is taken care of. However, it will certainly concentrate minds and provide a degree of transparency that was not in the original Bill. Again, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Christopher and Lord Clarke, and the Government for listening to their case, which we welcome.
We also support Amendment 55, which would improve the government amendment by requiring that the report include details of donations, both in money and in kind, from Royal Mail to the British postal museum and the Royal Mail archive. I hope that the Government feel able to take another positive step in this direction by supporting the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I will respond to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and then move on to Amendment 54 and also respond to Amendment 55 at the same time.
I said in Committee that I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and understand why he seeks reassurance that the Royal Mail name will be preserved. However, the name of the company that delivers the universal postal service should be a commercial decision for that company and its shareholders. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said in Committee, Royal Mail is a great brand name. My noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Boswell have agreed. The commercial reality is that any owner will see this name as an asset. It is instantly recognisable in the United Kingdom in relation to the provision of the universal postal service. As a brand it is up there with Coca-Cola and McDonald’s—brands and goods that your Lordships might not necessarily purchase but will no doubt recognise.
I have heard what has been said about companies doing daft things. I agree that this can happen, but it is very rare for any company completely to abandon its leading brand. For example, there has been much discussion of the decision by the Post Office corporation in 2001 to change its name to Consignia once its operations were transferred to a public limited company. With hindsight, all involved—Parliament and the general public—saw this as a poor decision. However, even in this situation the brand name Royal Mail was not abandoned, nor was Parcelforce or the Post Office. These brand names continued to be used in all customer-facing operations, regardless of the name of the top company. A similar example is Centrica’s continued use of the brand name British Gas. To all intents and purposes, the public-facing side of the business in the United Kingdom is British Gas. This can be seen in its advertisements in newspapers and on television. I have listened carefully to the points raised in the debate today but I am not persuaded that it is necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a company to be called a particular name after a privatisation. This would not be good use of the legislative process.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
The following line is not totally transparent:
“Before preparing the report, the company must consult any Post Office company”.
Consultation can take a wide variety of forms. Could the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea of what kind of consultation she envisages?
Baroness Wilcox
I will get a note and come back to that. I will continue with my point for the moment. Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, would amend Amendment 54 to require the Royal Mail company’s report to include details of financial support, both in cash and in kind, for the museum collection and its archive. In tabling Amendment 54 we have not been prescriptive about what should or should not be included in the report. As I have said, we fully expect a Royal Mail company to continue to recognise the importance of its heritage. How it chooses to support the museum and archive will be a matter for the company. However, any support that it gives to the museum and archive will be an intrinsic part of its activities, and it follows that the report will include these details. It is not, therefore, necessary specifically to include this requirement in the new clause.
The Government want to see the heritage of Royal Mail preserved. Amendment 54 provides the right balance and places a sufficient spotlight on Royal Mail’s activities to ensure that the Government and Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinise those activities, and for Royal Mail to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to its heritage. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support Amendment 54. I ask the noble Lords, in view of the reassurances that I have given, kindly to withdraw Amendment 9 and not to move Amendment 55.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I also thank the Minister for her response, although it was disappointing. My amendment does not seek to affect the disposal of Royal Mail; it seeks merely to protect the name. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but the Government have taken an unnecessary and risky decision. I hope that they are right, but if they are proved to be wrong a tragedy will result which could so easily have been avoided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
I turn first to Amendment 14. As I said earlier, Ofcom will be required to report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities, including the provision of the universal service, and the Secretary of State is required to lay this report before each House of Parliament.
In performing all its duties—those in this Bill and those in the Communications Act 2003—Ofcom must have regard to various areas and groups as set out in Section 3(4) of the 2003 Act. These include: the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes; the opinions of consumers in relevant markets and of members of the public generally; and the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom, of the different ethnic communities within the United Kingdom and of persons living in rural and in urban areas.
That list covers all the groups set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and I hope that he will be reassured by that. As I said in Committee, those requirements on the performance of Ofcom’s duties will apply to all future regulation of the postal sector. That is far more enduring than a snapshot assessment at the time of a sale.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, mentioned the power in Clause 33 to amend the minimum requirements of the universal service. We will come to that power when we discuss amendments to Part 3, but I know now that the power in Clause 33 is subject to the affirmative procedure.
On Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Rogan and Lord Laird, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, spoke this evening, I reiterate what I said in response to a similar amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in Committee. The overarching objective of the Bill is to secure the universal postal service in the United Kingdom. It is about securing a postal service that is available to all in the United Kingdom and delivers to all addresses in the United Kingdom.
As I said in Committee, the Government have already produced an impact assessment on the Bill’s proposals. The assessment considered the impact of the proposals on all parts of the United Kingdom, together with the impact on small firms, rural communities and disadvantaged groups.
As I said earlier, Ofcom will report annually on its activities, including ensuring the provision of the universal service throughout the United Kingdom. In addition, we expect Royal Mail to continue to report on its quality of service performance, broken down by postcode area, so that there continues to be transparency about the provision of the universal postal service to all parts of the United Kingdom.
With regard to post offices, the Government recognise the need for accessibility by specific groups. The report by a Post Office company required by Clause 11 must include information about that. Clause 11 also requires that the Secretary of State give a copy of the report to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, as well as, of course, laying the report before this Parliament.
The information that is already in the public domain and that which will be provided as a result of the Bill will provide long-term transparency on the protection of the universal postal service and the accessibility of post offices throughout the UK. Those reports and the activities of the regulator will, as I have explained, take into account the needs of disadvantaged groups and those in rural areas.
I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, I thank those Members who have spoken to my amendment. I have listened to the Minister and thank her for her remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 22, 24, 28, 29, 31 and 32 in order to reflect their purpose in its entirety. I shall also address Amendments 21, 23, 25, 26, 33, 34 and 35 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Stevenson, as well as Amendments 20, 27 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. This is a large group of amendments but it covers ground with which we will all be familiar from earlier stages. I shall try, therefore, to be as brief as I can while still, I hope, addressing the concerns of noble Lords. I hope that the government amendments will help to ease the noble Lords’ concerns as well as the concerns raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
All sought to increase the parliamentary scrutiny around the transfer of Post Office Ltd to a mutual ownership structure. The Government believe strongly that a mutual structure should not be imposed on Post Office Ltd from the top down, and this has not changed. We are still of the opinion that Parliament should not dictate the structure of a mutual Post Office Ltd or the make-up of its board. When the company is mutualised these details must be agreed by all of the interested parties and the interests of stakeholders such as sub-postmasters and employees must come first.
As I have said before, the Government have asked Co-operatives UK to report on recommendations for a move to a mutual model. This report will be presented to Ministers shortly and we will of course make it public. Should your Lordships wish, I shall also ensure that a copy of it is placed in the House Library. I hope the report will provide more detail of what a mutual Post Office Ltd might look like in practice. The Government plan to launch a public consultation later in the year, which will develop further details of how a mutual Post Office Ltd might work.
Your Lordships will understand that the suitable model for a mutual Post Office has yet to be designed and that we cannot know its governance structure. As I said in Committee, it is by no means clear at this early stage that the selection of both sub-postmaster and employee representatives to the board would necessarily be the best option. Enshrining governance arrangements in legislation goes completely against our commitment to ensuring that the mutual is developed by the people who know it best. The Government do not, therefore, agree with Amendments 34 and 35 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Stevenson and Lord Tunnicliffe.
I understand the desire of both Houses to be able to exercise further scrutiny over a move to a mutual. Until we have fully consulted, we will be unable to define specifically what the Post Office mutual will look like and we recognise that, in order for Post Office Ltd to transfer to mutual ownership, it must have become commercially self-sustaining. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Stevenson, recognise this too in their Amendments 21, 23 and 33. We are confident that the strategy mapped out by Post Office Ltd, backed by the Government’s £1.34 billion funding package, will deliver a commercially self-sustaining business.
There are a number of elements to this, as set out in detail in the Government’s policy statement published last November, particularly the aspiration that the Post Office should become a front office for both central and local government. There are great opportunities for the Post Office to develop this ambition and a number of pilots for new services have already been agreed. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions has recently announced plans for three pilots, including document verification for pensioners and support for jobseekers in more rural areas. The DWP has also confirmed that it will work with the Post Office to explore its role in supporting new ways of delivering welfare, including universal credit. Post Offices are also of course a trusted and natural place for people to access face-to-face government services such as identity verification services. Currently, the ambition to be a front office for government builds on existing capabilities and strengths.
As Paula Vennells, the Post Office’s managing director, explained to a number of us at the briefing meeting last week, the Post Office is working closely with the Cabinet Office to explore the services it could offer the Government to help them to make the savings that this demanding fiscal environment requires. Paula has also been working with Martha Lane Fox to ensure that the Post Office can have a sustainable role as services are increasingly delivered digitally—a trend which is set to continue. This could include supporting those who are unable or unwilling to access services in this way.
As Paula Vennells also emphasised last week, the front office for government strategy must not be considered in isolation. The Post Office must continually improve, with quicker transactions, shorter queues and longer opening hours. The better the Post Office’s customer-service offering, the more attractive it will be as a channel for government departments. That is why the Post Office’s network strategy—the introduction of 4,000 main post offices and 2,000 Post Office Locals across a network that remains above a total of 11,500 outlets—is so important. That is why the Government’s investment of £1.34 billion and their commitment that there will be no programme of Post Office closures are also so important. We will no doubt discuss that network strategy in more detail when we come to Clause 11.
On the question of a post bank, I reiterate what I said in Committee. The Government have already looked carefully at the options and arguments for establishing a standalone post bank. Regrettably, our conclusion is that it is just not a viable option, particularly in the current fiscal environment. Setting up and capitalising a post bank would be prohibitively expensive as well as creating a much more volatile and risky balance sheet for the company. Yet it is important to remind noble Lords quite how extensive the Post Office’s existing financial services business already is. For example, the Post Office offers savings accounts, ISAs, mortgages and credit cards and, following the recent agreement with RBS, it will provide access for more than 80 per cent of all UK current account holders. That is in addition to the wide range of basic bank accounts available to those who do not use conventional current accounts. As I said in Committee, from this strong base financial services have significant potential for growth.
These are some of the key strands of the strategy which we are confident will put the Post Office on a commercially sustainable footing. We have been clear that this is not an overnight solution. It will take a few years, and possibly more than the two years allowed under the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for Post Office Ltd to become self-sustaining—that is, Amendments 20 and 30. The process of moving to a mutual model should not be rushed through and the Government have no intention of setting deadlines which Post Office Ltd and its stakeholders must meet in order to speed up this process. We recognise that some time will pass between the debates we are having now and any subsequent move to a mutual model. As such, Parliament should be given the opportunity, nearer the time of a proposed mutualisation, to scrutinise those proposals in more detail.
The amendments in my name in this group ensure that both Houses will need to approve a move to a mutual through the affirmative resolution procedure before it can proceed. They also ensure that a report giving details of the proposed move to a mutual will be laid before Parliament before any order is made. We hope that this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords, since the government amendment seeks to ensure that the report will now be laid before Parliament before it votes on whether the company should be mutualised.
I reiterate that the proposals eventually brought before Parliament must be developed with the full involvement of all interested parties. The Post Office’s commercial position must have improved as we expect. Provided that these things happen, I am confident that proposals for a mutual Post Office will, after careful scrutiny, be implemented. The reports in Amendments 21, 23 and 33 will not be required because the improvements to the Post Office’s commercial position on which they seek comfort will necessarily already have occurred. Parliament will in any event have the safeguard of a vote on a move to mutual ownership.
Amendments 25, 26 and 27 are technical amendments that I hope I can clarify as unnecessary. As I stated at Committee, Clause 4(4) makes quite clear the only people who can own an interest in the Post Office. The clarification envisaged by Amendment 25 is not required to achieve this. Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that any disposal made by a relevant mutual would be a disposal of its entire interest. Again, as I said in Committee, we believe this amendment to be unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 7 provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that it is perfectly possible for different stakeholders to form separate corporate bodies to take their interest in the Post Office. Provided the safeguards in Clause 7 were met, why would we want to prevent this prior to completion of the process of designing what a mutual might look like?
Finally, Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is technically unnecessary as Clause 4(1) ensures that a disposal of shares can be made only pursuant to a direction under subsection (2) or an approval under subsection (3). In addition, the government amendments brought forward today will ensure that any direction made by the Secretary of State under subsections (2) or (3)(b) must be subject to approval by Parliament through an affirmative resolution procedure.
I therefore hope that these government amendments will provide noble Lords with further reassurance regarding the move to a mutual model. I hope, too, that the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Stevenson and Lord Tunnicliffe, will feel they need not move their amendments. I beg to move the amendment in my name.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we welcome government Amendments 19, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31 and 32. They are a very positive response to the representations made inside this House and beyond for greater accountability before Post Office Ltd is made a mutual. They also deal with the case of that mutual disposing of Post Office Ltd subsequently in whole or in part to another mutual or set of mutuals, and we are very pleased to see them. We are particularly pleased that provision has been made for the Secretary of State to come back to Parliament to provide details and seek approval of an order under the affirmative procedure before it is too late to influence events. We welcome these amendments and support them.
I shall speak to a number of the amendments in this group that we have tabled, but I have taken comfort from what the Minister has said in her response and will give her some assurance that we will not press the amendments to a vote. However, one or two points need to be made for the record.
Amendments 25 and 26 seek the safeguard of maintaining Post Office Ltd as a single entity before and after the creation of a mutual. From what the Minister has said, that is probably not necessary. Amendments 21 and 23 seek to ensure the Government give proper consideration to the case for a post bank. We have heard from the Minister that she has looked hard at that proposal. Given that that is the case, would it be possible for the Minister to share some results of the investigation with us? That would put our concerns beyond all doubt. Perhaps she could write to me with as much detail as she feels she can.
What I am left with is to reiterate the comments that we made earlier but to add more flesh to the suggestion about the volume of government business being transacted at post offices before the disposal takes place. We should be given more information about that, and a report should be provided to both Houses.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who is not in his place at the moment, I understand the wish to avoid unnecessary sloth over creating the mutual, but I agree with the Minister that the overriding consideration must be to have Post Office Ltd in good shape before mutualisation. That is why we put in Amendment 33 a call for a sustainable development plan for Post Office Ltd before any change of ownership is mooted.
It would be nice to see the Co-operatives UK report when it comes. It was promised in April but has still not been delivered. When it does come, we would like to have a look at it as well. The Minister said that she would publish it, and we are grateful for that. That will get us only to the stage where we understand better what the options are. We will need to know what the Government intend to do; as we have discussed, the Government intend to provide a full report on that before any proposals come through. I hope that in preparing a report for both Houses of Parliament, the questions that we have about what obligations a privatised Royal Mail will be under to utilise the Post Office network will be answered and, in the case of Post Office Ltd, what type or range of mutual bodies may end up owning our post office network. What will the rules be and what will be the extent of its powers? Who will be eligible to be a member? How will a board be constituted and could the mutual-owned post office have ownership and nationality tests that would be appropriate for a company-owned Post Office Ltd? Those are all questions that we will want to come back to at that time.
I turn to Amendment 23 and government business. The amendment puts in context some of the difficulties facing those who run the network of post offices throughout the United Kingdom. The Post Office is a trusted and traditional outlet for government services on the high street, and the future of the service lies in the redevelopment of that role. The post office network needs new sources of revenue to survive without subsidy; the Government need a reliable means of communicating with and serving the public directly in their local communities and, in this time of economic downturn, access to government services is more crucial than ever.
The Government should consider making the Post Office a first-choice provider of local and national government services on the high street. A systematic policy of using the Post Office as a shop front for government services could help the Government reach vulnerable and marginalised members of society in rural and urban deprived areas. Moreover, it could further the Government’s regeneration agenda, tackle the financial exclusion that is rife in communities across the UK and, in so doing, ensure a future for the post office network. Despite some of the removal of government services over recent years, post offices remain a massively popular and a reliable source for information and assistance to the public.
If the Post Office is to survive as a mutual, it cannot continue along its current trajectory. This can happen only if it keeps the work that it gets from two major clients—Royal Mail and the Government. Already there is concern about the Post Office’s business relationship with Royal Mail. A survey by the Communication Workers Union this week, widely published in the papers today, found that nine out of 10 sub-postmasters said that they could not survive without Royal Mail business. Assurances from the Minister about that relationship do not hide the fact that the Bill contains no real protection for Post Office Ltd in that regard. Equally, there are reservations about the so-called locals model of franchised post offices, which by their nature make it difficult for customers to interact with staff on anything other than the most superficial transactions. A recent report by Consumer Focus highlighted some of the problems in this regard.
The Post Office is dependent on Royal Mail’s business for its survival. Over one-third of its revenue, £343 million, and one-third of its sub-postmasters’ pay, £240 million, is generated by selling Royal Mail products and services. If the two businesses are forced to separate, a privatised Royal Mail will be likely to look elsewhere for retail outlets to sell its products. There is no guarantee that it will use post offices to the same extent. The loss of accounts such as TV licensing and the “green giro” was a bitter blow, particularly for those post offices operating at very tight margins. Taking those contracts away was a classic case of the Government’s left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.
Having said all that, we think that the move to mutualisation is highly welcome, but employees and managers within Post Office Ltd will be concerned that the business they inherit has a real future. They will want to know that future revenue streams from the Government are secure and that business planning can proceed accordingly. Our amendment provides that assurance by setting out which government business will be transacted through post offices. Such a report will also enable the Government to consider what other types of their business the Post Office might be able to develop. We have a range of thoughts about that which echo many of the points that the Minister made, and we will be happy to exchange views on that, perhaps outside this discussion today.
We think that the Post Office banking remains a prize that could help sustain the future of the network. I heard what the Minister said about it not stacking up, but it is surprising that many of Post Office Ltd’s overseas equivalents have developed comprehensive banking services to offset losses of other traditional services which have made substantial contributions to the viability of those national post office networks. Even if they are not like-for-like comparisons, they are useful examples of where the future might lie.
The post office network, mutualised or not, can prosper as a standalone business with the Government and Royal Mail as key customers. Our amendments do not seek to force that choice upon the Government but ask them to consider what business they intend to transact via Post Office Ltd over the next few years so that the people who run our post offices, whom the Government want to take ownership of the business, can do so with certainty and security.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, thank you very much indeed for those contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was most reassuring for me. He asked if I could expand in due course on the assessment of the case for the post bank and I will certainly write to him on the matter. I agree that it would be lovely if we could have a Post Office bank. At the moment the numbers do not add up, but that is not to say that it could not be the case in the future so I am with him on that. When the report comes out, he will of course see it. There will be a copy put in the Library and we will make sure that he has a copy too.
My noble friend Lord Cotter gave a vote of confidence in the Post Office Local idea, which I was delighted to hear. In the ones that we have already started, we are ironing out the problems which you always have with a new idea but they seem to be becoming successful. People like them and, because the opening hours are extended, it means that the footfall and the other business transacted within the shop seem to be improving by leaps and bounds. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was not here to be able to speak to his amendments but the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did. Unless there is anything further, I hope that covers any of the points that other noble Lords wished to make.
Baroness Wilcox
Baroness Wilcox
“(3A) An order under subsection (2) or (3)(b) is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Baroness Wilcox
Baroness Wilcox
“(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the proposed issue or transfer before making the order.”
Baroness Wilcox
“(a) give details of the proposed issue or transfer (including the expected time-scale for the issue or transfer),”
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Amendment 37 seeks to impose consultation requirements on companies or people that propose to close a post office. As we well know, 97 per cent of post offices are privately owned and operated businesses. As I said in Committee, neither Government nor Post Office Ltd can ensure that there is always time to carry out a consultation before an office closes. A sub-postmaster may retire or move away or the premises may be damaged by fire or flooding. It cannot be appropriate to impose a consultation requirement on a retiring sub-postmaster before he can shut his store, as this amendment would do.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding spoke warmly of the Government’s commitment to ensure that there will be no further programme of post office closures and that the network of at least 11,500 post offices will be maintained. I confirm that commitment. Therefore, if a post office is to close, there is a strong likelihood that this will have been driven by a choice of the sub-postmaster rather than by Post Office Ltd. In the unfortunate event of a post office closure, other than in very exceptional circumstances, Post Office Ltd will seek to maintain services. If a permanent closure without any replacement is proposed, the Post Office must undertake a local public consultation for a six-week period, in line with its code of practice. In addition, Post Office Ltd will contact local councillors and parish councillors about service changes.
It is worth stressing that the code of practice has been agreed with Consumer Focus. I mentioned in Committee that the code of practice has recently been amended to introduce a telephone helpline providing information on temporary breaks in service and on new notification requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, in his maiden speech, called for a 16-week consultation. He spoke eloquently about the problems faced by rural communities as a result of the previous Government’s closure programmes. However, this Government have committed that there will be no programme of post office closures and a network of at least 11,500 post offices will be maintained. As I said, if a post office is to close, there is a strong likelihood that this will be driven by the choice of a sub-postmaster rather than by Post Office Ltd.
In considering the appropriate duration of local consultations, it is important to strike a balance between giving communities sufficient opportunity to express their views and allowing the Post Office to get on with providing the services on which those communities so rely. A 16-week period—that is four months—as Amendment 37 envisages in some cases, seems to be disproportionately long. That is especially so when we recall that we are talking predominantly about individual small businesses operated by sub-postmasters. Furthermore, the six-week period currently required by the code of practice was introduced, following a national consultation, as part of the previous Government’s closure programme.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the arrangements already in place and will consent to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the Minister for her contribution. It goes some way towards providing reassurances and we will reflect on what she said, after carefully reading it in Hansard. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I shall briefly support my noble friend Lord Whitty. He has made all the key points about the importance of the additional information that the amendments would provide.
I tend to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in a previous debate about the potential for locals. They have to get the formula right; they have to get the transition payments right as well. The managing director, Paula Vennells, has assured us that they are learning quite a lot from the 60 or so pilots that are currently running. Interestingly, I received an assurance that they have all been instructed to accept parcels of up to 20 kilograms in weight. Clearly, the message has not filtered through to all of them but the intention is clear. Amendments 40 and 41 pose some important questions and I, too, will be listening intently to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments to Clause 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I thank him for telling me in advance that he is not going to press them tonight and I hope that my response will at least reassure him.
Amendment 40 seeks to oblige the Post Office to report against its compliance with the access criteria at a UK level and also in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The access criteria are national criteria. Five of the six of them apply across the entire United Kingdom but they recognise the country’s diversity by including individual protections for urban, urban deprived, rural and remote rural locations. The sixth criterion—for 95 per cent of the population in each postcode district, such as BA2 or GU27, to be within six miles of a post office—applies to each and every one of the nearly 2,800 postcode districts in the UK. This provides a very real guarantee that post offices will be broadly spread and accessible to communities in every corner of the United Kingdom. I reassure the noble Lord that the annual network report will include details of the Post Office’s compliance with the criteria. Indeed, such reporting is already done. Your Lordships will recall that last year’s Postcomm network report showed that the Post Office continues comfortably to exceed the access criteria.
It is most upsetting to have the opposition Chief Whip sitting here with me. I want that noted.
Baroness Wilcox
However, we believe that obliging the Post Office to report against the access criteria separately for each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would be of limited assistance. The previous Government recognised that too when, following a national consultation in 2007, they rejected suggestions from some that the access criteria should apply at an individual national level. This additional reporting obligation would place a significant additional administrative burden and subsequent cost on the Post Office. For example, 17 postcode districts straddle national borders, such as postal district TD15 around Berwick-upon-Tweed. For this reason, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to consider withdrawing Amendment 40, which I think he has already agreed to do, and to reflect on what I have said.
I turn to Amendment 41, which again is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It relates to the services offered over Post Office counters on behalf of a universal service provider—in other words, Royal Mail. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the Government’s Amendment 50, which obliges the network report to contain details of the services offered by the Post Office on behalf of a universal postal service provider. The report must also contain details of the wider postal services that are available, so services that are not regulated under universal service conditions must also be covered.
I also reassure the noble Lord that new Post Office Locals all offer the full range of Royal Mail’s universal service products. Some have voiced a concern that certain Post Office Locals do not offer full universal postal services—for example, through not accepting parcels weighing more than 6 kilograms. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Post Office has, through the current pilot process, now developed the Post Office Local model so that new local outlets will all accept parcels up to the full universal postal service standard of 20 kilograms.
I hope that in the light of those reassurances the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I shall be brief because my noble friend Lord Lea has covered the waterfront, as they say. He raises a key point, which I referred to in my previous contribution. There are some concerns about the quality of the service offered by locals, but we have had some useful assurances from the managing director, Paula Vennells, about the nature of pilots that will genuinely seek to improve the level of service. The concerns about the quality and range of services have been adequately described by my noble friend Lord Lea.
On the transition arrangements in converting those sub-offices to the local model and what the payments are likely to be, I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to reiterate the statement made by Paula Vennells, who said that broadly speaking the fixed and variable income ought to be more or less on a par with the income at the moment.
I wish to pick up on what my noble friend Lord Lea said when he talked about the importance of government business and it being a key part of the future of these offices; and my final point is that it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that remote rural offices that need a fixed income to survive will not be moved to the local model on a compulsory basis.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Amendments 46 and 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, require the Post Office to provide details in its annual reports of major changes in its sub-postmaster contracts from the introduction of the Post Office Local model. In Committee, I spoke at length about the Post Office Local model, but I would like briefly to reiterate some of the key points. The Post Office Local model was introduced under the name Post Office Essentials in September 2008, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is therefore familiar with the format. The Post Office Local does away with the impersonal, screened-off, fortress post office counter that requires separate staff. Instead, it provides open-plan access to post office services alongside the retail till for the hours the shop is open. This will involve a significant increase in opening hours for the customer while also providing a much more flexible and lower cost operating model for the retailer. The Post Office Local model currently provides 97 per cent of post office transactions by volume and there are over 50 Post Office Local pilots operating across the country right now. Customer satisfaction with these pilots has been excellent with 94 per cent of customers being very or extremely satisfied with the local model. Some noble Lords will have been unable to hear Paula Vennells, the managing director of the Post Office, speak last week, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was there when she spoke. Paula explained very eloquently that it is plainly not in the Post Office’s interest to introduce a model of contract that is not viable for sub-postmasters.
The model will involve pay being rebalanced from fixed to variable pay in those outlets affected. But this cannot be accomplished simply by eliminating fixed pay without evaluating rates of variable pay to ensure the model works for sub-postmasters and Post Office Ltd alike. Over the next two years, there will be continued and widespread piloting to develop understanding of the locations in which a Post Office Local may be viable and the services that may be offered from one.
In 2014, we expect a larger scale rollout so that by 2015 around 2,000 of the network of at least 11,500 will have converted to the local model. To give some perspective over the same period, the Government’s £1.34 billion funding package will enable the Post Office to invest in around 4,000 main post offices in towns and city centres across the country. These will more closely follow the traditional post office model. Of course, that will leave almost 6,000 post offices whose operating model will remain unchanged. I understand that any change in sub-postmaster contracts is of great significance for the many independent businessmen and women who operate post offices up and down the country. But I do not think that a public annual report is the appropriate place for a business to detail its contractual terms with its agents. That is certainly not something that one would see any competitors of the Post Office doing.
I hope that I have provided sufficient explanation and reassurance to the noble Lord to encourage him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the Minister. However, the competitors of the Post Office may not do this, but they are not the Post Office. They are not what the British people understand to be the service of post offices right across the country. They do not cherry-pick like their competitors, which is why they are part of the fabric of the community. Perhaps one could agree the terms of reference of a public opinion poll whereby all the facts are on the table, as spelt out by the managing director of the Post Office, the noble Baroness and the unions. I include the national federation and George Thompson who, according to the Independent yesterday, said:
“The NFSP has made clear that a minimum 10-year inter-business agreement … between the Post Office and Royal Mail is required if the companies are separated, both to allow the public and business to continue to access Royal Mail services at their local post office and to secure the large proportion of subpostmasters’ income which comes from carrying out work on behalf of Royal Mail”.
Parliament is the backstop if something goes wrong with these negotiations. I am not saying that it is a negotiation between an elephant and a mouse. But the idea that the negotiations have as much leverage on the part of the sub-postmasters as on the part of the Post Office under the plans in this Bill is rather fanciful. We will just have to consider where we are. I asked the noble Baroness whether she would comment on the interesting study which says that sub-postmasters believe that 9,000 post offices could close under the Government’s plans. I should like to know what was wrong with the methodology of this study. The Government have had 48 hours to look at it. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would like to take this opportunity to say more about that.
Baroness Wilcox
Is the noble Lord, Lord Lea, speaking about the CWU’s recent survey on the future of the Post Office?
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am referring to the survey conducted by an opinion research company, which was commissioned by the union.
Baroness Wilcox
I understand that the National Federation of SubPostmasters said in response to recent claims by the CWU:
“We (the NFSP) have played a pivotal role in ensuring that both companies are working well together towards securing a mutually beneficial arrangement and we are confident that a 10-year commercial deal will be achieved”.
It continues:
“Scaremongering about the future without an IBA and the forced introduction of the Post Office Local model does nothing but harm to the post office network and to subpostmasters”.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the noble Baroness for reading out what I have in front of me as well. I was asking whether she thinks this so-called scaremongering is actually the survey of the membership of the national federation. It is all very confusing and I do not know any more than the noble Baroness does how one reconciles these two things. But before we get to Third Reading, it is incumbent on BIS to make a more considered evaluation of this remarkable survey.
Lord Lea of Crondall
That is all that can usefully be said at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
“( ) In subsection (2)(b) the reference to postal services includes postal services provided pursuant to arrangements made with a person who provides a universal postal service.”
Baroness Wilcox
“( ) A Post Office company’s duties under this section are enforceable in civil proceedings by the Secretary of State—
(a) for an injunction,(b) for specific performance under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.”
Baroness Wilcox
“Annual report on postal museum collection and archive
(1) A Royal Mail company must send to the Secretary of State each year a report on its activities in relation to—
(a) the British Postal Museum Collection, and(b) the Royal Mail Archive.(2) Before preparing the report, the company must consult any Post Office company.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(4) A Royal Mail company’s duties under this section are enforceable in civil proceedings by the Secretary of State—
(a) for an injunction,(b) for specific performance under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.(5) This section applies irrespective of whether the British Postal Museum Collection or the Royal Mail Archive alters the name by which it is known or forms part of a wider collection or archive.”
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, during an earlier debate on Amendment 54 the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, asked what was meant by a consultation with the Post Office company and I should like to respond to that point now. Amendment 54 will require Royal Mail to consult a Post Office company about its activities in relation to the proportion of the archive and museum collection for which it is responsible. I hope the noble Lord finds that helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I am most grateful for being guided on the procedures of the House and grateful to my noble friend for remembering that I raised this and providing me with the opportunity of coming to listen to her at this hour. I am still not absolutely certain that I understand what the process of consultation that she envisages will consist of, but at this late hour I would certainly not wish to press her any further than I have already.
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
My Lords, perhaps I may speak very briefly in support of Amendments 24J, 24K and 24N, in the name of my noble friend Lord Low of Dalston, that were so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Tenby.
The Minister helpfully assured the House that the Government intend that the changes introduced by this important Bill will be open and transparent. These amendments have the virtue of combining simplicity with clarity. Amendment 24J leaves absolutely no doubt or ambiguity about the responsibilities of Ofcom in enforcing the minimum standards that together make up a universal postal service that we all value so highly. Amendment 24K seeks to reinforce the importance of the universal postal service obligation that is central to this. Amendment 24N seeks to ensure that no significant changes can be made without adequate consultation with the postal service user groups.
These amendments are not controversial. They are aimed at strengthening the Bill and making sure that, together as a community, we continue to enjoy a reliable, efficient and enduring universal postal service. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the primary purpose of the Bill is to protect the universal service. The Bill requires Ofcom to secure the provision of the universal service and to ensure that it is meeting the reasonable needs of users. Indeed, that latter point is a requirement not just of this Bill but of the European postal services directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that Ofcom’s duty to secure the future of the universal service was in some way on a par with its duty to have regard to the financial sustainability and efficiency of the universal service. I am happy to reassure noble Lords that this is not the case. Ofcom’s overriding duty in relation to postal services is to secure the provision of a universal service. In doing so, Ofcom must have regard to the need for financial sustainability and efficiency, but these considerations cannot outweigh the need to secure a universal service.
Clause 29 requires Ofcom to assess the needs of users and to set the universal postal service order at a level that meets those needs. The provision is a necessary tool to ensure that the postal market remains flexible and responsive to user needs. I know that there has been some confusion and concern about the relationship between the universal postal service order and the minimum requirements in Clause 30. The order will set out the particular products and services that Royal Mail must provide, over and above the minimum requirements and the standards that the company must meet. These products are currently set out in Royal Mail’s licence. As we are abolishing the licensing regime, they will need to be set by order in the future.
Amendment 24HZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Eccles, seeks to constrain the scope of the universal postal service order. Clause 29(2) provides that the universal postal service order must include “as a minimum” each of the services set out in Clause 30. The subsection allows Ofcom to include more services or higher requirements—for example, it can specify the percentage of first-class letters that must be delivered the next day. Given that the universal service must evolve in line with user needs, this is appropriate. I understand where my noble friend is coming from and it is important that we hear the arguments he has made so well. However, I should say to him that to be compliant with the directive, we must allow Ofcom the flexibility to ensure that user needs are met. It is right that Ofcom, as the expert regulator with all the market information, is the body that makes the judgment. Given that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Kramer
I shall speak briefly to Amendment 24AB in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Cotter, as the argument for the need for stability and certainty for Royal Mail as a universal service provider has been made extensively in the House today in discussion of the previous group of amendments and by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this group. However, there is a glaring gap in the Bill, because there is no set timetable for the period during which Royal Mail would continue reliably to carry that role. The amendment would set a period of 10 years before Ofcom may make a procurement determination that would change that position.
The case was well made in the other House by a Member of the Opposition—some people will think that I am supporting those on the Benches opposite more today than those on mine. The honourable Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, I think, said that moving to the 10-year period,
“gives Royal Mail the certainty to make investment and business decisions, confident that it will remain the universal service provider for a reasonable amount of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 7/12/10; col. 648.]
The point was also made that, for Royal Mail to have a secure future, significant investment will be required, much of it in equipment. Given the lifespan and cycles of equipment, 10 years becomes a reasonable minimum for that kind of stability.
We have heard again in this House real concern about cherry picking. It is clear to me that your Lordships do not want others coming in to cherry pick pieces or aspects of the universal service. I am sure that that is true for the public at large, who perhaps matter the most; it will certainly matter to Royal Mail itself and future investors. Given the widespread concern, it strikes me that an amendment such as Amendment 24AB neatly covers a variety of concerns by providing fundamental stability over a 10-year period. That may alleviate many of the other issues raised in this important debate.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the actions that could be taken if Ofcom found that there was an unfair financial burden on the universal service provider as a result of its complying with its universal service obligation to ensure that consumers are protected under the new regulatory regime. Clause 43 sets out three options if there were found to be an unfair burden: a review of the minimum requirements; a procurement process; or the establishment of a compensation fund. If it considered that action would need to be taken, Ofcom would have to recommend to the Secretary of State which of those options would best address the unfair burden.
I speak first to Amendment 24X, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Cotter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, made an eloquent case for the amendment. It is right that we should consider it alongside the other amendment that would prevent a procurement determination for 10 years; the two need to be seen in balance. Your Lordships will need no reminding that our central objective in the Bill is to protect the universal postal service. We have been clear that Royal Mail must continue to modernise and, to that end, have included a new requirement on Ofcom to have regard to the efficient provision of the universal service.
No one would dispute that Royal Mail needs to improve its efficiency, and the company has already taken significant steps on its modernisation journey. However, without further modernisation, costs will remain high, increasing the risk of substitution by other forms of communication, in turn exacerbating volume decline and further threatening the universal service. The package of measures in the Bill will greatly assist Royal Mail in its modernisation. We believe that it is important to allow Royal Mail to continue on this modernisation path for a few years, able to take advantage of the benefits of the Bill, before the regulator assesses whether the universal service represents an unfair burden. This would also give certainty to all those who might be required to contribute to a compensation fund, given the reassurance that that would not be on the table for at least three years after the Bill came into force. This is clearly a fine balance. There is no right number; it is a judgment. I would therefore like to take the amendment away to consider it, so I hope that the noble Lord will, for now, consent not to press it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
We tried to give notice to my noble friend’s office that this amendment would not be moved, but the message has obviously not got through.
Baroness Wilcox
I apologise. Scrap that. How about Amendment 24NZA? This amendment is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and is concerned with removing the ability to designate, in extremely limited circumstances, more than one company as a universal service provider. The intention of Clause 34 is to give Ofcom the power to designate more than one universal service provider in two specific circumstances only in order to ensure the provision of the universal service. As with other elements of the Bill, Clause 34 has been drafted to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed. It enables the regulatory regime to adapt when it needs to in order to ensure the continued and long-term provision of the universal service. The measures that we are taking are designed to put Royal Mail on a sustainable footing so that it can continue to provide the universal service that we all value so highly. However, it makes sense to future-proof the legislation in this way to ensure that the universal service could continue to be provided in two specific and extreme circumstances.
Clause 34 will allow Ofcom to designate more than one provider in only two specific cases. The first case is where providing the universal service is found to represent an unfair financial burden on the universal service provider. The Secretary of State agreed with Ofcom’s advice that the best way of addressing that burden was through a procurement exercise provided for by Clause 43. This would assess whether another company could provide the relevant part of the universal service with less of a burden. In that event, that company could be designated the universal service provider for that part of the universal service.
The second circumstance is where Royal Mail has become insolvent and has entered special administration. Where a postal administration order has been made under Part 4 and it is not possible to rescue Royal Mail as a going concern, some of its activities could be transferred to another company. Ofcom could then designate that company as a universal service provider as well in order to secure the universal service.
As I said, the full package of measures in this Bill is designed to secure the future of Royal Mail and the universal service and therefore to ensure that we do not end up in either of these scenarios. Both the procurement process and the special administration provisions are backstops to be used only—I repeat, only—if the future of the universal service is at risk. However, as I mentioned, having the ability to make multiple designations in these specific cases is a sensible and pragmatic safeguard.
It is also important to make it clear that having more than one designated universal service provider in no way provides for or permits a varying level of minimum service across the country. Provisions elsewhere in Part 3 have the effect of guaranteeing that the minimum requirements of the universal service must remain uniform. Given these assurances, I hope that noble Lords who tabled these amendments will feel able not to press them.
Amendment 24AHA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, relates to the power that Ofcom has under Clause 49 to impose a consumer protection condition on either,
“every postal operator, or … every postal operator of a specified description”.
The amendment would replace these categories with a single category that allows for the imposition of consumer protection on,
“every operator appropriate to the postal service each provides”.
The intention of this amendment may be to ensure that regulation can be applied with greater precision or to ensure that all circumstances are captured by regulation and that none falls through a perceived loophole. However, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that it is unnecessary and has the potential to create confusion for the regulator and postal operators.
Giving Ofcom the power to describe separate categories of operator enables it to direct the consumer protection conditions very precisely. This follows the model in Section 52 of the Communications Act in relation to Ofcom’s functions in other regulated sectors. This approach is consistent with other parts of the Bill and allows for the clear and effective targeting of regulation to where it is required. I can therefore assure noble Lords that there are no loopholes.
I do not believe that this amendment would help Ofcom to regulate, nor would it offer any greater protection to consumers than is already provided for by Clause 49. However, it might leave the regulatory system open to challenge and confusion, which I believe all involved will wish to avoid. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will feel free to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for her full reply. It was good of her to take the time to go through the detail we have raised because some of these are very technical points. Obviously we will need time to read through what she has said because she covered a lot of ground. I have not been keeping score, but my sense is that rather a lot of concessions were emerging in the previous two or three groups, which we are pleased about. We seek no vainglorious victory on this, but simply to improve the legislation, which is always the role of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition in these matters. However, I am pleased that we are beginning to see a degree of discussion and debate around the issues that is not on the lines of “We have made the legislation and we will keep it”. We look forward to seeing what the Minister brings forward on Report.
Most of what has been said in this debate and in the debates on the two previous groups has really been about the type of regulation that must apply to the universal service provision and to the universal service obligation within that. There is bound to be tension between economic regulation on the one hand, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke to very fully, and the more social regulation which this side of the Committee wishes to see strengthened in order to ensure that the citizenship approach to the service is preserved. As many noble Lords have said, this is in a sense a fault-line across all the regulation that applies to former public utilities. I do not think that anyone has got it right yet and that there are going to be tensions. You cannot have at the same time the best possible public provision and the most profit-generating and economically appropriate way of doing these things because the two are in conflict. Profit will often—not always, but often—drive out the best. We have to live with that, and as the Minister said, we have to find a judgment that will work not only now but in the long term.
Although noble Lords who have spoken in the debate come from different places, we are all trying to seek one thing, which is that in times of change there will be some stability in the processes we are engaging with in this Bill. I felt that the Minister did respond in a way that gives us some assurance that on Report we will be able to see that built into the Bill. She also tried to explain why the Bill spends a lot of time future-proofing the arrangements. This may be simply because the advice she is getting from her civil servants is that, having gone through this in 2009, having walked up the aisle towards the altar and having been jilted at that point, they are experienced in these issues and therefore able to work towards producing what could be a divorce-proof marriage going forward. Perhaps there is a pre-nup situation here that we should be thinking about and using in other places, or perhaps not.
Having said that, the last part of the Minister’s speech stressed that future-proofing does not necessarily open loopholes, but we feel a little sceptical about that. We would like to look at it in some detail and I suspect that it will form one of our debates on Report. However, given what the Minister has said and the assurances we have received, which are extremely welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Amendment 24PA, standing in my name, would ensure the continuation of the current inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. The agreement should be in force before any disposal of an interest in a Royal Mail company and should include the definition of the relationship between that Royal Mail company and Post Office Ltd after the disposal.
Amendment 24P, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan, seeks an inter-business agreement of 15 years’ duration, while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks one of 10 years’ duration. We share the view that that would be a reasonable period, although Amendment 24PA makes the point at a different clause in the Bill. At this stage, I am sure that if Ministers could accept the principle then we could between us find the best place in the Bill to insert it.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made a point about setting things in tablets of stone. I should have thought that there ought to be the capacity to review some of the detail of an inter-business agreement. The important thing is to establish it.
The Post Office is dependent on Royal Mail's business for a significant part of its survival strategy. More than one-third of its revenue, some £343 million, and one-third of sub-postmasters' pay, £240 million, is generated by selling Royal Mail products and services. If the two businesses are to be forced to separate, our concern is that a privatised Royal Mail might look elsewhere for a better bargain and for other retail outlets to sell its products. There is no guarantee it will use post offices to the same extent. The Bill does not safeguard the inter-business agreement through which Royal Mail guarantees use of the Post Office as its retail arm. When it comes to be renegotiated, a privatised Royal Mail could look to reduce costs by using other outlets such as supermarkets or high-street chains instead of post offices. To date, the Government have not agreed to undertake to extend the current, five-year IBA to 10 years.
Without an extended IBA, there is no guarantee that Royal Mail will continue to use the Post Office. In evidence to the Postal Services Bill Committee, the Minister, Ed Davey, stated:
“No previous Government have thought to put it on any different footing”.
But then no other Government have needed to intervene on the inter-business agreement because no other Government have separated the Post Office from Royal Mail. The Minister tried to reassure stakeholders by arguing that both Royal Mail and the Post Office want an extended inter-business agreement. He further said in evidence to the committee:
“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”.
The stated aims of the current management of Royal Mail, while welcome, are insufficient reassurance. The relationship between the two companies is one of imbalance. The Post Office cannot survive without Royal Mail, yet Royal Mail could succeed without the Post Office. Ed Davey went on to argue in his evidence to the committee:
“If you actually wrote that there should be a contract between two companies that are going to be separate companies into law, I think that it would be subject to serious legal challenge”. —[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 11/11/10; cols. 121-23.]
However, he has provided no evidence to support this position. Given the importance of retaining the relationship between the two businesses and the risk of leaving its maintenance to the discretion of Royal Mail, the Government should instead require a 10-year IBA as part of the Bill and ensure that this meets the requirements of EU competition law. To do so could only strengthen the position of the Post Office. As I understand it from a recent discussion with the Post Office, it is indeed seeking to establish a legally binding agreement with Royal Mail.
Consumer Focus has warned of the risk to the Post Office of the lack of a long-term IBA. It has argued that the number of post offices could fall by 37 per cent, from its current level of 11,900 to a minimum number consistent with the Government’s access criteria, 7,500. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters believes that a minimum 10-year IBA is essential and that, in order to avoid further post office closures, the existing levels of Royal Mail work at post offices must be maintained, with a minimum 10-year IBA between the two companies.
Post offices—predominantly those in rural areas—are still struggling to survive; they are finding it hard. Only 4,000 of the UK’s 11,905 post offices are economically viable and, despite assurances from the Government, which we welcome, that there will be no further programme of post office closures, branches are still closing every week. More than 150 post offices have closed on a long-term temporary basis this year alone, with no absolute guarantee that they will reopen. So there is genuine concern here. The 900 post offices that are currently up for sale, an issued referred to George Thomson, the General-Secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, is an unusually high number. Many sub-postmasters are retiring or leaving the business because of the low levels of revenue generated in sub-post offices and the Post Office is struggling to find alternative premises and service providers.
The post office network can ill afford to lose any more work. That is why it was unfortunate, to put it mildly—it is my attempt at irony—that the Post Office’s contract to award 400,000 green giros a week has recently been lost. This provided 400,000 transactions a week, a significant of level of footfall supporting the network and around £70 million in revenue over five years to Post Office Ltd. It strikes an unfortunate note given the recent statements by the Government that they are determined to ensure that post offices will be the front office for a number of government services. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that decision.
As I have said, the Government have rejected a number of opportunities to make that commitment firm in this important legislation. They have declined to accept a statutory commitment, as exists in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, to a figure of 11,500 offices; they have rejected embedding into the Bill the access criteria stating how close your nearest post office will be; and they have even rejected empowering Ofcom to adjust the statutory commitment over time. We do not doubt the Government’s good intentions but it will take more than that to require a privatised Royal Mail to use the post office network to the same extent as now.
European competition law is trailed as a possible obstacle to an inter-business agreement. The Minister for Postal Services told the Public Bill Committee in another place:
“I am unaware of any statutory precedent for requiring particular commercial terms between two independent businesses”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 23/11/10; col. 360.]
However, there is no precedent for separating the Royal Mail from the post office network. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has said that there is nowhere in the world where this has happened. It is the role of new legislation to create precedents. It is because of the precedent of totally separating the Post Office from a privatised Royal Mail that we seek to underpin the relationship with the post office network.
We hope that the Government will reconsider this vital business agreement, which will ensure not only an enduring relationship but the future of the Post Office. I am conscious of the time and I shall cut short my contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox
In these amendments, noble Lords express a concern that has been debated at length in the other place and in other fora—namely, that taking Post Office Ltd out of the Royal Mail group of companies will put at risk the commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, and therefore the post office network. The amendment also seeks to provide for any situation where the universal service provider may no longer be Royal Mail alone. I share the noble Lords’ laudable interest in ensuring that a strong commercial relationship is maintained between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd but the approach taken in the amendment—legislating for a contract of a certain length—is not the way to achieve our shared objective.
In the evidence given by various stakeholders to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, strong backing was given for the separation of Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. Let me reassure this House that the separation of Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail will not lead to dangers for the post office network. Operationally, these companies are reliant on one another. Post offices carried out more than 3 billion transactions for Royal Mail in 2009. They will continue to be partners because there will remain an overwhelming commercial imperative for the two businesses to work together.
In her evidence to the Public Committee in the other place, Moya Greene, the chief executive of Royal Mail, called the post office network,
“the best and strongest network in the country, by any yardstick”.
She also said that it would be “unthinkable” for there not always to be a very strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. To underline this point, Donald Brydon, Royal Mail’s chairman, pledged in his evidence to the same committee that, before any transaction took place, a continued long-term commercial contract will be put in place between the two businesses for the longest duration that is legally permissible. On Report in the other place, the Minister for Postal Affairs pledged to the House that the Government will ensure that this commitment is upheld. I repeat that pledge to your Lordships today.
I also remind your Lordships of my commitment to consider the amendment to Clause 2 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. His amendment would have ensured that information regarding the relationship between the two companies is included in the report laid before Parliament when a decision has been taken to dispose of shares in a Royal Mail company. I hope to bring forward a government amendment on Report to address those concerns which I believe will also provide greater comfort to the noble Lords bringing forward these amendments today. However, I would like to explain why I cannot accept these particular amendments.
In these amendments, the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Rogan, seek to place the agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd on a statutory basis, requiring a minimum duration to the contract of 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and his colleagues on the Front Bench also specify that the Secretary of State should ensure that an agreement of at least 10 years is in place. As was discussed in the other place, legislation is not the appropriate place for the commercially sensitive terms of a relationship between two independent businesses to be settled. These negotiations are best left to the businesses themselves, which know far better than we in this House their customers, the markets they serve and the services they require of one another. Contractual negotiations between these businesses will involve a complex interaction of many different factors, such as pricing, volume, service levels and duration. Focusing on the duration of the contract would simply not achieve our shared objective of ensuring the strongest possible commercial relationship between Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail. The experts—the businesses and their advisers—should negotiate and agree the commercial relationship between the two businesses for the long term, rather than us in Parliament. What the Secretary of State and indeed the Government can and will do is to ensure that there is a contract in place between the two businesses before separation. Most importantly, government can of course help to create the conditions in which both businesses can flourish in partnership with one another. One thing is certain: a struggling Royal Mail will lead to problems for the Post Office. This Bill introduces the ability to bring in much-needed private capital for Royal Mail to invest in its transformation so that it can offer the very best service.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I have a couple of comments to make. She talked about a long-term contract that is legally permissible. I would welcome some elaboration on what the Government envisage. We constantly talk about this long-term contract that is legally permissible, but somehow we seem to be short on finding out what is the longest contract that is legally permissible. That creates a feeling of uncertainty. If she does not envisage that this is the appropriate place for that contract, in the legislation, can she make it clear that the Government will ensure that there is a contract in place before separation?
Although we welcome the £1.3 billion funding package, the other concern that I addressed in my contribution, to which she did not respond, was that the funding package is good but that it also requires commitment in business coming from the Government. As I pointed out, in the first test that we saw on this, on the green giro cheques, the Post Office did not get the contract. In our view, and in that of a number of people, that was a significant contract. Before I make up my mind, I would welcome a response on what is legally permissible with a long-term contract, or an explanation of what the Government are doing to get that answer if the noble Baroness does not have it, and on the commitment to ensuring that government business will go to the Post Office.
Baroness Wilcox
We have gone on record in the other place and I have repeated it here today. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will read it but I will write to him to clarify further, as best I may. I understand about the business. In fact, the contract was not that big but the Post Office had to bid for it. We are very encouraging of all government departments to bear in mind the work they may be doing themselves but which the Post Office could do better for them. We are encouraging all departments to look again and think carefully about what work they can start to bring forward that could be better done by the Post Office.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the Committee that the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Laird.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I suspect that everything that needs to be said has been said already and I do not want to fall into the trap of saying “but not by everyone”. There is a common thread relating to heritage. I think that keeping the Queen’s head on stamps would be a reasonable tribute as we come up to her Diamond Jubilee. An amendment on that matter was the only amendment passed in the other place, and I look forward to hearing a confirmation of that. Other noble Lords have eloquently stressed the importance of the archive. When companies are privatised, that poses a real threat to their records, and I witnessed what happened to British Telecom’s archive and heritage. Therefore, I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I very much understand and appreciate the sentiments behind these amendments. Royal Mail has a tremendous history and heritage. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Christopher, have both campaigned to secure Royal Mail’s future for many years, and they have a strong desire to protect the company’s proud heritage.
As noble Lords have heard, I recently visited Royal Mail’s archive and saw for myself some of the public records, including a sheet of Penny Black stamps—something that I thought I would never see—and museum artefacts on display in the archive. I also saw on my visit the designs for stamps commissioned by the then Postmaster-General, Tony Benn, working with the artist David Gentleman, which did not include the image of Her Majesty. Thankfully, as I think the Committee will agree, these stamps were never issued and the tradition that the noble Lords are seeking to preserve through Amendments 25A and 25B continues to this day.
Clause 60 provides the Secretary of State with a power of direction that can be used to require the universal service provider to maintain that tradition and to make sure that the stamps receive royal approval before they are issued. Amendment 25A would require the Secretary of State to issue such a direction, while Amendment 25B would require that any such direction was subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
This clause was discussed in the other place and, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Government subsequently introduced an amendment to strengthen the safeguards for protecting the future of this unique tradition. We are not here today to remove that amendment in any way. The current voluntary framework governing the approval of stamp designs has been in place for more than 40 years and it has worked well.
Royal Mail has been, and is currently, doing just what a direction would require it to do. I would therefore like to draw on a piece of timeless wisdom that says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. That is not to say that we should not have the tools in place to fix it, if fixing were ever required. That is precisely what this clause provides for. However, this power is a failsafe that should be drawn on only when required. It can easily be drawn on by the Secretary of State if there is ever a justifiable need to do so.
On Amendment 25B, we take the view that if there is ever a need to use the power of direction, the direction itself will not be of a nature to warrant the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. This power of direction can be used only for a limited and focused purpose, in effect to re-impose time-honoured practice and processes. Furthermore the direction will be imposed only on the universal service provider, and Clause 60 allows for any such direction to be varied or revoked by subsequent directions. We believe that this clause as it stands is fit for purpose and proportionate to the important task of protecting the future of the sovereign’s image on UK postage stamps, if such protection is ever needed. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lords on this.
On Amendment 29A, and as noble Lords will recognise, archive status and museum collection status are different, although both are currently maintained by the British Postal Museum and Archive—the BPMA. The archives of Royal Mail and its predecessors are part of the public record, and they will remain part of the public record after we dispose of shares in Royal Mail. The Bill makes this clear and ensures that no changes can be made to the way in which the records are kept without consultation with the Keeper of Public Records, which is the National Archive. As public records, the archive must be preserved, maintained and made available to the public in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958. Amendment 29A would, however, place additional requirements on Royal Mail that would not apply to other organisations which have responsibility for keeping public records. I do not think that it would be right to place an additional burden on a privately owned Royal Mail that Parliament does not place on publicly owned bodies.
The museum collection is not part of the public record; I understand that its ownership was passed to the BPMA in 2004. Although the Government, like noble Lords, wish to see the collection maintained, we do not believe that this should be a statutory requirement on Royal Mail. It is currently not a statutory requirement for Royal Mail to maintain the collection. Royal Mail funds the BPMA because it recognises the importance of its heritage; it does so not because it is publicly owned but because heritage is part of the Royal Mail brand. I would fully expect this approach to continue in the future. Royal Mail, whether privately or publicly owned, should be proud of its history and use it to positive advantage in an open and transparent way.
I read in my brief that British Telecom is a good example of a privatised company respecting and maintaining its heritage, although the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just given us an instance of when it was not. It has a purpose-built repository for the archive which is located in Holborn; and although the dedicated British Telecom Museum closed in 1997, it has invested some £6 million in establishing its Connected Earth initiative which provides access to its museum collection online and at its 10 partner museums located around the United Kingdom, including the National Museum of Scotland, the Museum of London and the Amberley Museum and Heritage Centre.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, mentioned the Post Office underground railway—Mail Rail. He was even kind enough to mention it to me the other day in passing so that I would not get caught out, as I would have done if he had mentioned it only today. I understand that the Post Office (London) Railway Act was passed by a Select Committee of this House in 1913. Construction began in 1914 but was halted during the First World War, when the tunnels were used to store and protect art treasures belonging to the National Portrait Gallery and the Tate. The railway finally opened in 1927. At its height it was carrying an estimated 4 million letters a day. Royal Mail decided to stop using Mail Rail for operational reasons in 2003, primarily because many of the mail centres that Mail Rail serviced had been closed or changed their function. Of the nine original stations, Royal Mail still owns only four of the properties.
Royal Mail is not unique in deciding to disuse such underground railways. The German and United States postal service providers have similar systems, but they also no longer carry mail. In fact, the United States railway in Chicago is now used to carry rubbish, as part of the city's waste disposal system. Royal Mail has not made any decisions about the future of the railway; it does, however, continue to maintain the tunnels, to ensure that they remain safe and sound. Although there have been previous discussions about putting the tunnels to commercial use, no commercially viable solution has been developed so far. Any suggestions that your Lordships may have on good commercial uses for the railway can be sent on a postcard to Royal Mail at 100 Victoria Embankment. I am sure that the company would be only too delighted to offer a prize to any offer put forward and successfully processed.
In all seriousness, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Boswell, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lord Christopher and Lord Young, I assure them that I recognise their concerns about Royal Mail, its heritage and how it should best be preserved in future. I would like to take away the issues that they have raised for further consideration and will return to the matter at Report. I ask that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment at this time.
Viscount Eccles
Very briefly, I recall that 55 years ago, I used to be responsible for making 5 foot 8 inch diameter tunnel sections for the GPO tunnel system. The firm was called Head Wrightson, and it made many tonnes of the segments that made up the tunnel. There is no question of them deteriorating. As with the Northern line, which is older, they will be there for ever, because in London clay, cast iron has an almost infinite life. You will notice that when the Underground does things on old lines, it does not have to replace the tunnels.
On a more serious point, I urge my noble friend to have serious thought about the non-public records part—what could be loosely described as the stamp collection. It would be a great shame if it were not kept coherent and whole. I do not know if that can be achieved by some partnership agreement with the British Museum, for example, or some other imaginative idea about who would undertake some combined financial responsibility—perhaps partly charitable and partly public money. It would be a great shame if it was not kept together.
Baroness Wilcox
I will of course add the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to those that we have already heard in this debate. They will form part of our discussion before we come back at Report.
Lord Christopher
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, which is very encouraging. I was going to call the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, my noble friend, because, as he said, he has been a friend for about 25 years. One of his remarks reminded me of a true story. I have been thinking about this for some time. The Inland Revenue has—or had; I hope that it still has—a very large and valuable collection of stamps which it seems to me appropriate to put into the museum. Some of them used to be exhibited in three or four large glass cases as you walked into Somerset House. You could view the stamps and they were changed. One day, someone from Stanley Gibbons came in and asked to see the chairman. He said, “Do you know what you have in your glass cases?”. The chairman said, “Well, stamps”. “Yes, he said, but there is £1 million-worth in there”. The stamps were then taken away. As far as I know, they are not being seen by anyone. That seems to me to be a great shame.
I thank the Minister for her remarks. Her early remarks were a bit technical and I will need to take some opinions on them but, in view of the assurances that she has given, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
“An order under this subsection is subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Baroness Wilcox
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I am afraid that we now see week after week in some newspapers—I would include under that heading a magazine such as the Economist—thinly disguised attacks on collective bargaining. We cannot debate that topic in its totality this evening, but I refer the Committee to the central point. Across the OECD countries, there is a close statistical fit between the amount of collective bargaining in a society and its equality. It is therefore the grossest hypocrisy—it is not conscious, but perhaps subliminal—for people to say that they do not like the gap between rich and poor when they are attacking collective bargaining. Both at a point in time and over the decades, the weakening of collective bargaining means that the forces in society are no longer balanced. We now have a gross imbalance between the oligopoly of power in the City of London and the attempt to weaken the workforce.
I think that we will see in the demonstration to be organised by the TUC in London on 26 March that the workforce has woken up. It will demand that its rights be respected, which will have great resonance with the people of this country. I therefore fire a warning shot across the bows of people who think that they are now able to administer the coup de grace to people who have collective bargaining. When the postal services are in the private sector, they may be expected to fit the private sector model whereby workers are not covered by collective bargaining and it is much more difficult for them to be so. Therefore, it is fair to take the opportunity to point out, in the spirit of this amendment, that it would be very unwise for people to think, “The public sector has collective bargaining. In the private sector, we don’t have collective bargaining and we can just say goodbye to it”. Anybody who thinks that is deluding themselves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, Amendment 13 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that employees’ existing rights of recognition are maintained. I am not sure whether the amendment fits neatly into Clause 2, which is intended to place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament when a decision has been made to undertake a disposal of shares in the Royal Mail company. However, I am happy to debate the specific issue raised by the noble Lords.
Before I do that, I reiterate that the Government welcome the positive changes in the relationship between Royal Mail’s management and the CWU over the past 12 months. I say this because, notwithstanding the historic references made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, industrial relationships at Royal Mail have undoubtedly been poor in recent times. The national strikes in 2007 and 2009 were damaging for the company and for the postal market but the business transformation agreement, reached in March last year, has seen the implementation of a new approach to union-management relationships. It has enabled progress on the much needed modernisation of the company and I urge both sides to continue to work together in that improved way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, was concerned about uncertainty for employees. Let me be clear that the worst thing for employees would be for us to do nothing and to let the Royal Mail decline through inaction and a lack of investment. People want to work for a stable company and to have a secure pension, and I believe that our proposals will help us on both those fronts.
On employee representation, employees at Royal Mail are mainly represented by the Communication Workers Union and by the Communication and Managers’ Association, which is a section of UNITE. This representation is recognised in voluntary agreements between these unions and the management. The Government do not play a role in these agreements. Such voluntary agreements occur across industries where there is a union presence and it is good practice for the employer to take full account of the views of employees when deciding whether a union should be recognised or continue to be recognised. Union membership remains relatively high within most grades at Royal Mail. That fact suggests that most staff support union recognition.
I have no reason to believe that any new owners would seek to change such agreements, provided, of course, that the employees wish to continue to be represented by those unions. Any new owner will fully appreciate the need to work with employees’ representatives to secure the future of the company in the changing postal market. Management most certainly cannot do this alone. However, as I have said, union recognition within Royal Mail—or any other business—is primarily a matter for the employer and the trade unions concerned. I do not therefore believe that it would be appropriate for there to be a specific duty on the Secretary of State to guarantee these arrangements in Royal Mail. I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Lea, will take time to consider my response and that they will withdraw their amendment at this time.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the Minister for her response, even if it did not go as far as I would have liked. I also thank my noble friend Lady Donaghy for contributing to this debate and for pointing out that at a time of great change—and moving to a privatised environment will be a great change—the role of unions will be absolutely vital. My noble friend Lord Lea warned about not taking trade unions for granted in the current environment.
While the Minister welcomed the new approach between management and unions and laid stress on the question of voluntary agreements, any new owner ought nevertheless to recognise the environment that they will be coming into. If they want the company to succeed, it will mean working with the unions, in our view. We will reflect on what has been said and consider whether we need to bring this back on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, this has been a stimulating evening all round. Amendment 14 is a sister amendment to Amendment 2 which we debated last week. Amendment 13A provides a new twist on the disposal of shares in Royal Mail and seeks to place time constraints on the disposal of shares specifically in the case of an initial public offering—an IPO.
I will first respond to Amendment 14 which seeks to keep Royal Mail in public ownership and reflects the position set out in the previous Government’s Postal Services Bill which was considered by this House in 2009 but never found its way on to the statute book. As I said when we debated Amendment 2, the Government believe that limiting a sale to only a minority of Royal Mail’s shares will reduce our ability to attract the best future owners for the company and secure the best value for the taxpayer. Amendment 14 proposes a staggered approach to a sale of shares but with a limit on the disposal of 49 per cent of the value of the shares in Royal Mail. Given that the Government are also committed to establishing an employee share scheme—we will come later to amendments from noble Lords opposite to increase the size of the scheme—these amendments would in fact limit even further the amount that could go to private investors. However, the difference between this Government’s position and the previous Government’s position is that we do not believe that it is necessary for the Government to retain overall ownership of the Royal Mail.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, was concerned about maximising the value of Royal Mail. That concern is welcome although somewhat surprising given his earlier amendments which sought to limit how much could be sold, which would undoubtedly impact on the value. The Bill as drafted allows for the sale of shares in tranches, as set out in Amendment 14. However, we do not believe that there should be a rigid structure for how shares can be sold. There is nothing to stop the Government, in the first instance, selling a minority stake in Royal Mail or for Government to retain a stake in the company in future. However, we do not believe that there should be any barriers in legislation to prevent a disposal of a majority of the shares. As I have said before, our focus is simply on what is best for the Royal Mail and the taxpayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, was concerned that Richard Hooper had steered the Government towards an IPO and that the Government would undervalue Royal Mail in such a flotation. I wish to make it clear that Richard Hooper did not express a preference for any form of sale. In his 2010 report he said that an IPO had become an option as Royal Mail now had less need for corporate experience from a partner thanks to its strengthened board. The Government are focusing on securing the best outcome for Royal Mail and the taxpayer. I hope I have already assured the noble Lord that we can sell in tranches, as he suggests, if that best meets our twin objectives.
As I said in my remarks on Amendment 14, and earlier amendments, the Government want to maintain maximum flexibility in the method and timing of any disposal of shares. This will give the Government the opportunity to make the right decision at the right time and to ensure that we can get the best result for Royal Mail and the taxpayer. Placing statutory arbitrary deadlines in legislation will not help to achieve the Government’s objectives. If we choose to dispose of shares through an IPO, I believe that it would be impractical to be faced with a deadline of 31 July 2012 and to have to rush the process through by then. We heard last week from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the damage caused by imposing statutory deadlines on commercial transactions. What if we were not ready to launch a flotation until August 2012? We would then have to wait until July the following year to make the disposal and give Royal Mail the access to the capital that it so badly needs. That would be in the interests of neither the company nor the taxpayer.
As I said on Amendment 14, nothing in the Bill would prevent the Government staging a disposal in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, suggests, but Amendment 13A would reduce the flexibility to make the right decision and I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of Royal Mail or the taxpayer. I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded by my argument and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, it will not surprise the House that I will in due course withdraw the amendment pro tem, but that in no way assumes that our arguments have been overwhelmed by the firepower of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, or the Minister.
The Liberal Democrats must have been reading too much Machiavelli recently. I am not surprised at that, given the extraordinary arrangements that they have been making with the Conservative Party, and I am sure that they are being kept awake at night wondering who is going to stab them in the front instead of in the back. As to the idea that the amendment is aimed at killing the Bill, we have experience of killing Bills but this would be a peculiar way of going about it. This is about helping the Government and society to avoid a fiasco by feeling our way on how this disposal will be carried out.
Is the noble Baroness prepared to respond on whether it is her view—along the lines of the view of noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for whom he knows I have the greatest respect—that we are living in fantasy land if we think that this sale can be carried out by way of an IPO. The alternative, presumably, is the Sheikh of Kuwait. It may be that Colonel Gaddafi is no longer the likeliest candidate. The alternative is an IPO. We will all avidly read Hansard tomorrow—which means that we will not—but I do not think I said that Hooper advocated an IPO. I said that the most likely presumption to be made after reading Hooper is that an IPO would be a strong candidate as the means of sale. If that is the case, the amendment is the exemplar and states that if the scenario is an IPO, some of the experiences of the IPOs in the 1980s should be borne in mind.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I believe that the intended effect of Amendment 15, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Stevenson and Lord Tunnicliffe, is to seek to ensure that Royal Mail remains a single company providing the universal postal service and that it is the only universal service provider. We will, of course, come on to the protection of the universal postal service when we debate Part 3 of the Bill, but I should make it clear now that we expect Royal Mail to be the universal service provider in the UK for the foreseeable future. I hope that reassures noble Lords.
I now turn to the issue of whether Royal Mail should be a single company. I do not consider that we should be legislating on the future structure of a company that will no longer be in public ownership. A privatised Royal Mail should be free to organise its business and operations in such a way that enables it to provide the universal postal service efficiently and effectively. This could mean establishing subsidiaries to deliver part of the service or it might mean no change at all. We simply do not know, in 2011, what the best operational structure should be for Royal Mail. Through a disposal of shares, we are giving Royal Mail real commercial freedom, and I do not consider that it is appropriate for the operational structure of Royal Mail to be set in primary legislation.
I have two answers in the question and answer part of the brief on subjects that the noble Lord mentioned. On whether Parcelforce or GLS will be part of the package, no decision has been taken on the formal method of sale. Just as for the Royal Mail, we have no plans to retain either Parcelforce or GLS in public ownership in the long term. The noble Lord also asked about the risks of a new owner stripping the assets from Royal Mail. The Government simply would not sell to a bidder if they believed that they would not assist in securing the future of the universal postal service. Furthermore, any shareholder would want to see a successful business and a sustainable universal service, given that the cash generated by a successful Royal Mail will outweigh the asset value in a very small number of years. Investors would also face significant reputational damage if they allowed Royal Mail to become insolvent. We believe that there is ample protection against that, both in the Bill and more generally. With those answers and the answer I gave previously, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for that response. We seem to be placing a great deal of stress on hopes and aspirations about what will happen after the sale—other noble Lords picked up on this, I think—and very little on what many people in the country would regard as sensible and appropriate public interest measures, which are being taken on board by the Government or even considered in a serious way.
From what the Minister has said, there is a grave danger of cherry picking. That will still be a possibility. If the successful owner is robust and strong enough, they will be able to do what they wish once they have control of the assets. It is particularly important to register that the Government have not ruled out dismantling the Royal Mail and cherry picking the most popular parts, in particular GLS, which is the most successful European parcels service, as I said earlier. That must be a worry as we go forward.
The assets can be taken away; they do not have to be very large or prestigious to be capable of being sold. On the first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, considered selling the Oxford sorting office at a profit. Heaven knows why. I have not visited it yet, but perhaps the Minister has. If that is his vision of it, then clearly the assets are valuable and they will go. There is also the possibility of the Royal Mail being split in a geographical way or by function, which would undermine the viability of the universal service provision, which in effect cross-subsidies rural and other diverse locations. We think this is an important issue, but on this occasion we shall not push the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, somewhat later than planned, I rise to support both Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and Amendment 16A in the name of my noble friend Lord Touhig.
We can be proud that the universal service includes the six day a week, price goes anywhere letter service, but there are other important elements to it. Following representations from the noble Lord, Lord Low, in particular, the previous Government agreed to incorporate into the universal service minimum requirements the service to blind and partially-sighted customers and to put it into their 2009 Bill.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for the way in which he made the case in 2009 that carried the day. Nine million items a year are sent free of charge through the Articles for the Blind service. This Bill carries through that decision, a move that will be welcomed on all sides of the House.
It can be argued that there is a general duty on Ofcom to take into account the interests of vulnerable groups. Other Members have said this, and it bears repeating. People with a disability are more likely to use mail services as a means of communication and more disabled people visit the post office to post mail than the average. It can be argued that since Ofcom must consider the cost of the universal service as part of its statutory duties, it may weigh against its general duties to have regard to vulnerable groups.
Regarding the question of delivery costs, I do not know whether it is quite as axiomatic as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, says. I just point out that it is odd that the competitors seem to gather in the urban areas. They do not seem to be flocking to the rural areas as if it was that good a deal. For once this evening, we are not actually talking through each other and I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. If we had the facts put in the Library, it would sustain us in further debates on this issue because this seems counter-intuitive. However, I may well be wrong so I am willing to go along with the point that the noble Baroness made.
Ofcom is currently consulting on abolishing its advisory committee on older and disabled customers, which should be a cause for concern. Equally, there are concerns in those parts of the UK which would be most vulnerable to any reduction in the universal service obligation or in the post office network. It has been remarked that small and medium businesses are also heavy users of the Post Office and Royal Mail services. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland certainly feel more at risk than other parts of the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, put it very well in expressing carefully the value that business and the community put on the services provided by the Post Office and Royal Mail. It is therefore right that there should be an obligation to consult user groups, including small businesses, pensioners, people with disabilities and people in remote and rural areas. I urge support for these amendments.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I suppose that I ought to start by saying that I live in Cornwall, which may put the Committee’s mind at rest. I have some idea about the differences of living in Cornwall and in the centre of London. Indeed, I apologise, for so does the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. There are quite a few of us around the Committee tonight.
Amendments 16 and 16A touch on the issues that we will be debating under Clause 11, about the annual report on the post office network, as well as under Part 3 on the regulatory framework for the postal sector. Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to consult various groups before a disposal of shares and to lay a report before Parliament setting out how the minimum requirements for the universal postal service, set out in Clause 30, will be maintained. Amendment 16A requires the Secretary of State to submit reports to the devolved Administrations about the impact of proposals in the Bill on post offices, small and medium-sized businesses, communities in remote areas, pensioners and those with disabilities. I hope to reassure noble Lords that the existing and future duties of Ofcom and existing reporting requirements are sufficient to meet their concerns.
I will first address the points raised in Amendment 16 by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Under Part 3, Ofcom will have responsibility for regulating the postal sector and its primary duty in that regard will be to ensure the provision of the universal postal service. The noble Lord, Lord Low, was concerned that Clause 29 would allow the minimum requirements of the USO, particularly the requirement for Articles for the Blind, to be reviewed by Ofcom and changed within 18 months. Let me reassure him that the requirement for a review within 18 months is for the very particular products and services that Royal Mail is required to deliver. It can have no impact on the statutory protections for the minimum USO requirements in Clause 30, including free services for the blind.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, was also concerned that a private Royal Mail could charge higher prices to customers in rural areas. Again, let me reassure him that Clause 30 also provides that pricing of the universal service must be,
“uniform throughout the United Kingdom”.
As I said when we debated Amendment 10, Ofcom will report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities, including the provision of the universal service, and the Secretary of State is required to lay that report before each House of Parliament.
Baroness Wilcox
I thank the noble Lord for expressing that more clearly than I did. The Government have already produced an impact assessment on the proposals in the Bill. It looked at the impact of the proposals on all parts of the United Kingdom. The universality of the universal postal service means that the impact is the same across the UK. The assessment also looked at the impact on small firms, rural communities and disadvantaged groups.
As I said in my remarks on Amendment 16, it will be the regulator, Ofcom, that will have responsibility for ensuring the provision of the universal postal service. Ofcom will report annually on its activities, including ensuring the provision of the universal service throughout the United Kingdom. In addition, we expect that Royal Mail will report, as now, on its quality of service performance broken down by postcode areas, so that there continues to be transparency about the provision of the universal postal service to all parts of the United Kingdom.
With regard to post offices, Clause 11 requires a Post Office company to send a report annually to the Secretary of State on its network of post offices. The report on the post office network must contain information about the accessibility of post offices to, among others, individuals living in rural areas, small businesses, individuals with disabilities and elderly individuals. In recognition of the importance of post offices to all communities, Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to give a copy of the report to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, as well, of course, as laying the report before this Parliament. I expect that we will discuss this reporting requirement in great detail when we come to Clause 11.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised a number of specific points on the post office network and I am sure that we will consider these issues in full when we debate the proposed amendments to Clauses 4 to 7 and to Clause 11. The report in Clause 2 is specific to when a decision has been made to undertake a disposal of shares. I reiterate that, regardless of any change in ownership from the public to the private sector, the obligation on Ofcom to ensure the provision of the universal service will remain. The universal service is protected by Parliament through this regulatory framework, not by the Government’s ownership of Royal Mail.
The information that is already in the public domain and that which will be provided as a result of the Bill will provide long-term transparency on the protection of the universal postal service and the accessibility of post offices throughout the United Kingdom. I therefore, at this late hour, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken. At times I felt caught in the crossfire to the right and the left of me when I was simply moving a simple amendment designed to secure a fair deal for users of postal services. I am certainly most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for his intervention. I am sorry that I was not in my place earlier when he made his point and he had to repeat it, but I am grateful to him for repeating it because I yield place to nobody in my commitment to evidence-based legislation. The point that the noble Lord brought to our attention for a second time struck me as being counterintuitive, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, said, but there are many things that are counterintuitive and may yet be true. I will certainly take the opportunity, before we come to Report, to follow the lead that the noble Lord has helpfully given us.
I assure the noble Lord that I was not making any party-political points; I was simply interested in curbing the rough justice that the market can sometimes cause in the interests of the consumer. I am sorry that the noble Lord felt it necessary to make his point with such acerbity. I may unwittingly have said something that was not correct, as the evidence and my further researches may reveal, but I assure the House that while I may have been mistaken there was no intention to mislead the House or to say anything that was untrue. I will follow that up and will be able to set the record straight by the time that we come to Report.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has pointed out that the Secretary of State has a power to alter the minimum requirements of the universal postal service. Without following the conclusions of the Ofcom review, this is, as the Committee pointed out, a significant power for the Secretary of State to have. It would not be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to be obliged to consult the groups that we have mentioned in the amendment before having the opportunity to exercise that power.
At this late hour I do not wish to press the amendment, but I will look carefully at the Minister’s reply—I repeat that it was very full and I am sure that it was helpful—to ensure that it contains the safeguards that we are looking for and I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.