Post Office

Debate between Jo Swinson and Adrian Bailey

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many examples across the country of local government and voluntary services working in strong partnership with the Post Office and that can be of great mutual benefit.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I broadly welcome the Minister’s announcement, which reflects the difficulties successive Governments have had in sustaining the sort of post office network we all want. The future of the network will depend, however, on the perception of sub-postmasters and would-be sub-postmasters of the long-term viability of the model. Will the Minister explain what that perception is following Royal Mail’s arrangement with Post Office Ltd?

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome that contribution and those words of welcome from the Chair of the Select Committee. He is right that this Government and previous Governments have faced the challenge of how a much-loved institution reforms and modernises for a very different retail environment from that of some decades ago. That is not necessarily always an easy process. He asks about the perception of the future viability of the network. The range of different services for which the Post Office can bid—not just Government services but the huge opportunities in the parcels market and financial services—are very significant. We must bear in mind the 10-year intra-business agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office. The chief executive of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene, has said that it would be unthinkable for there not to be that commercial relationship between the two companies, so I hope that hon. Members will also respect that and not indulge in the scaremongering that has gone on in some corners about the future of the Post Office following Royal Mail privatisation.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jo Swinson and Adrian Bailey

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his support for the Bill. The code is already legally enforceable by suppliers should they take legal action, but yes, it will also be legally enforceable by the adjudicator, who will make recommendations to supermarkets, which will recognise that they have a legal duty to comply with the code as it is. If the adjudicator thinks that they are not complying with the code, I suspect that that will be taken as a clear sign that they need to change their behaviour.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will certainly give way to the Chair of the Business, Skills and Innovation Committee.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady; I recognise that she has given way several times already. I delayed my intervention to see whether she would give the answer I was looking for in response to somebody else.

One of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills was that evidence be allowable from trade associations and other third parties. In the other place, the Minister gave that specific assurance and we welcomed that as a Committee. However, I cannot find anything in the Bill that spells it out. All I can find is clause 15(10), which gives the Secretary of State the right to insert after clause 4 proposed new section 4A, which under subsection (2) will enable the adjudicator to consider any appropriate information. Is that the legal base that underlines the right of the adjudicator to take evidence from a third party? If so, can the adjudicator do that before the two-yearly review specified as the basis for the Secretary of State’s introduction of it?

[Jo Swinson]

I will happily confirm the reference in that clause:

“When carrying out an investigation the Adjudicator may consider any information that it seems appropriate to consider and is not limited to considering the information mentioned in subsection (1)”—

subsection (1), of course, lists a range of places from which information could be provided. The point of that phrasing is to ensure that the adjudicator has flexibility in considering information from whatever source. That includes, but is not limited to, information from trade associations, as the Chair of the Select Committee mentions, from a whistleblower, or others who might have concerns or evidence of malpractice about compliance with the code. We do have—