Postal Services Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt]

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and with everyone else in the House who wishes to protect the relationship between the Royal Mail and the Post Office. We all want that relationship to continue, but I have severe reservations about whether we can enforce that through Government legislation.

If we examine the situation between the two companies, we will see that they rely on one another. There will continue to be a long-term contract in place between them because there will remain an overwhelming commercial imperative for the two businesses to work together as they do now. The chief executive of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, has said that it is “unthinkable” that there will not always be a very strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. However, legislation is not the appropriate way for the commercially sensitive terms of a relationship between two independent businesses to be settled.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady says that legislation is not the appropriate way to make provisions about commercial relationships, but surely it is the appropriate way to make provisions to guarantee public services and public service standards.

[Lorely Burt]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a guarantee of public services built into the Bill.

The Government are not party to the current arrangements between the two businesses, and they will not be in future. There is no statutory precedent for requiring particular commercial terms between two independent businesses. What the Government can do, however, is help to create the conditions in which both businesses can flourish in partnership with one another. We have heard this afternoon about the £1.3 billion funding package that is being provided to post offices, which will help the Post Office to deliver the best possible service to its new business partner.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) mentioned the EU, and I will surprise him again by saying that we in this House are to blame for the EU legislation that has come forward. We have gold-plated the EU directive and created an uncompetitive situation by giving private companies compulsory access to Royal Mail and guaranteeing a margin for competitors. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester mentioned the loss that is made on each competitor’s letter; 2.5p is lost with the delivery of a competitor’s letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. First, it is not the IBA that has led to post office closures in the past. Many factors led to those closures, but many people would argue that we need to maintain the IBA to continue to protect the service. If we do not take this action today, we could deprive Post Office Ltd of 38% of its income. In whose world does depriving an organisation of 38% of its income protect it and its viability? I ask the hon. Gentleman to think long and hard before he argues in favour of and supports the Bill this afternoon.

Those involved in the regeneration of deprived communities and who have considered the different levers available to Government to keep those communities going know that post offices are a critical part of the process. We should not—particularly not under any Government who would ever try to claim the word “progressive”—be undermining the regeneration of those communities and making the lives of individuals, particularly those in the greatest need, more difficult. I disagree with the Bill fundamentally and think that the privatisation of Royal Mail will critically undermine post office services, but if we do not take the opportunity offered by this new clause, not one of us could ever with any credibility stand outside a post office and campaign to save it.

[Mark Durkan]

Like many others who have spoken in this debate, I completely opposed the direction of travel of the last Government on Royal Mail and post offices. I therefore oppose this Bill. I very much support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), because it at least seeks to mitigate some of the most likely impacts and effects of the privatisation measures on the post office network.

As legislators, and collectively in this House, we have a duty of intelligent care when it comes to the impact and effects of the legislation that we pass. It is not enough for any of us to say that our judgment of what, as many Members have said, is predictable as regards the future of the post office network—many have recalled the toll of business loss, the loss of Post Office Counters and the loss of post offices in many constituencies in every area—is somehow washed away by the Secretary of State’s telling us that it is unthinkable that there would not be a long-term ongoing relationship. It is not washed away if we are told that that is unthinkable by Richard Hooper or the chief executive of Royal Mail. We all know that it is entirely thinkable— and it is not just thinkable, but predictable.

The truth about why the Government do not want us to legislate against the unthinkable—surely, as legislators, that is the first thing we should be doing—is not because such a change is unthinkable, but because they think that legislation against it is undesirable for the potential investors that they seek for Royal Mail. The Government believe that the sort of measures contained in the new clause would be repellent to potential investors and would-be future buyers of Royal Mail. It has little to do with what the EU will say or anything else. The real business is that such changes are entirely thinkable, which is why it is completely dishonest for people to rely on the claims that a change in the long-term relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office would be unthinkable.

I was struck by the points made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He began by saying that, in his view, the post office side of the business had always suffered from being a bit of a Cinderella and that the driving force was very much on the Royal Mail side of the business. At the end of his interesting and welcome comments, he suggested that he thought that at some point the Government would consider the need for a clearer contract between Royal Mail and the post office counters side, but, again, it was telling that that contract would be revised because of the interests of Royal Mail and the future of that business, not so much because of the post office end of the business. In those circumstances, it is right and proper that this House—now we have been given the opportunity offered by this useful new clause—should make very clear the particular regard that we, collectively and individually, have for the service that post offices provide and could provide in future.

There is a danger, which some of us might have added to in this debate, of creating a sense that the demise of post offices as we know them is inevitable and terminal, but I do not believe it is. As many hon. Members have said, there are services into which post offices could better diversify, such as providing a range of different financial services with other businesses or having a much stronger service portal relationship with government and public services in many ways. The best way of allowing the post office network to reinvent and develop itself over a period of years in the aftermath of this privatisation would be to provide a margin of reliability for post offices in terms of the business from Royal Mail on which they have traditionally depended. A figure oft quoted in this debate is the amount of post office business that involves post offices fronting for Royal Mail services. If we deny them that margin of reliability and say, “It’s up to you to find all sorts of new services and new markets and to reinvent yourself,” we give them an impossible task. It would be an absolute dereliction of our public and legislative duty to do so. I therefore ask all hon. Members to support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as postmasters and postmistresses retire and opportunities become available for people to take on public post offices, a 10-year, rather than a three-year, agreement would make that more attractive? If he were considering taking over such a business, would a 10-year agreement give him some confidence in the future?

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. The proposed agreement would make a difference not just for the individual business people who make a commitment to individual post offices, but collectively for the network and for those who will have responsibility for the broader Post Office enterprise in future. It is meant to give a period of confidence and space, to reduce the unknowns and to give at least some stability and reliability regarding some of the knowns in that context. It would not solve all the other problems—and there are many other issues and challenges—but it would at least give people some measure of assurance.

[Lorely Burt]

I think we are all on the same page in wanting a long agreement. Donald Brydon has said that he would push for the longest agreement possible, so I am not too sure why hon. Members are so worried about the fact that we are trying to impose a 10-year agreement on two businesses for which 10 years may or may not be an optimum time.

[Mark Durkan]

We are not worried about why we should impose an agreement of 10 years; most of us are worried about why the Government would not impose an agreement of 10 years. If someone says they want the maximum agreement possible, it is entirely reasonable for us as a legislative body to say that 10 years is a reasonable period. Given that the legislation is going to construct new realities and impose new conditions on these businesses, we at least have a duty and responsibility to make sure that one of them can have a measure of confidence that it will not have if this new clause is not accepted.

[Gordon Banks]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument put by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is not assisted by the fact that people such as Mr Brydon are unable or unwilling to put a figure on what the maximum number of years will be? That undermines her argument.

[Mark Durkan]

I accept fully the point that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is making. In the absence of other indications, that is why we as legislators have a duty at least to indicate what we think is a reasonable time. It is unreasonable for us to do otherwise in the circumstances.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if legal advice to the Minister is that it is not practical to legislate for an agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd for the IBA, and if we all accept that both companies wish to agree a long IBA, surely that will happen in due course, before there is any IPO—initial public offering—of Royal Mail?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman may be easily reassured on that point, but I certainly would not be and I doubt whether many other Members would be either. Perhaps we should have tested the question more during the debate—the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) referred to it—so that we knew exactly why the Minister says that we cannot include the new clause. It seems that there would be a legal challenge on the basis of EU legislation.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I sincerely hope that the Minister responds to my hon. Friend, but I think the answer to the question he is posing is simply that the Government are trying to privatise an asset, but they think it will become a liability as soon as it has the sentence of a 10-year IBA around its neck.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and he reinforces a point that was made earlier. The real issue is that the Government believe that potential investors will be put off if the agreement is seen to impose restrictions on their options for a period of years.

[Mr Binley]

Whatever happens, the recognition of 900 mail centres means that whoever buys Royal Mail will have to work with those people. They cannot possibly cut off those centres straight away, so an agreement of some kind has to be made for Royal Mail to continue working. Is it not right to say that we want to include the provision so that we know that an agreement will certainly be made?

[Mark Durkan]

I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s welcome point. That is precisely what we as legislators are being asked to do—provide some back-up certainty and reinforcement on such an agreement.

There is a suggestion that the EU would upset an agreement, or frown on it. Let us remember that we are not talking about the House suddenly legislating to impose an agreement on two currently free, private and commercial enterprises; we are talking about a very different starting point. All Members of the House and of the devolved Assemblies have dealt with lots of situations where, through legislation and other means, we provide for various restraints, guarantees, restrictions and obliged agreements in contracts over a period of years. Such provisions could relate to restrictive gas and energy licences over long periods, guaranteed contracts between providers in different markets to create stability, or even to opening and developing markets. Such things are done all the time, and the measures are respected and accepted by the EU.

[Gordon Banks]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the people who believe that it may not be legal pressure that prevents the Minister from making the proposed arrangement possible, but Treasury pressure?

[Mark Durkan]

I join my hon. Friend in that suspicion; no doubt the Treasury is asking where the proposal will go and what would be the margin of attraction if there were changes. Because the Treasury believes that the proposal would make the business less attractive to the market, it has drawn conclusions and made an assessment.

On that point, I shall close to allow other Members to participate. I stress that we cannot hide behind the assumptions and presumptions that have been casually made, either in Committee or in the House, that the new clause is neither necessary nor feasible because other things are unthinkable.