Mike Weir
Main Page: Mike Weir (Scottish National Party - Angus)
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I have expressed opposition to post office closures for 10 years in the House, and my view is unchanged. My colleagues and I do not think that the Post Office should be privatised, but the Bill is going through. I would laugh if it were not so sad to hear Labour Members slagging off the Government, given the number of post offices that their party closed, but I had better confine my remarks to the amendments so that you do not call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Although I welcome Lords amendment 1 to an extent because it would improve the report, it does not provide a guarantee of business. That remains a difficulty: there is considerable uncertainty in local post offices about future business, and I fear that many more will close if it is not dealt with. Many are closing now, not just because of the Post Office side of the business but because of the general state of the economy. At the risk of opening up another front of argument between the two sides, I will cite Ferryden in my constituency. During the closure programme it was agreed that Ferryden’s post office was needed, but the post office was in the local shop, which recently closed. The reason was not to do with the post office itself—and I appreciate that it is not within the Government’s immediate control—but the fact that the small shop, the last in the village, was considered to be no longer economic. When the shop went, the post office went as well.
The same difficulty exists in rural areas throughout the country. With respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), post offices will not take up the slack in rural areas, because they are closing there as well. It is a simple case of economics. It is unlikely that the Ferryden post office will go to another business, because it does not exist. The chances are that it will end up as an outreach programme and a restricted service to the village. The important thing is to try to keep some postal services in that village. I should have preferred an inter-business agreement that provided certainty about the future level of business. I appreciate the difficulties, but the continued uncertainty does not help.
My main point about the Lords amendment relates to new section (3A)(b), which concerns the proposed share scheme. I wanted to raise the issue at an earlier stage, but unfortunately we ran out of time. The amendment states that when shares are sold for the first time, details of the employee share scheme will be given. However, we do not know what the structure of the scheme will be. Clause 3(2) states that when the Crown no longer owns any part of Royal Mail, the share held by or on behalf of the employee share scheme must be at least 10%. I know that the Minister said that on the first sale of shares the share scheme details would be given, but the 10% is vitally important, because the Bill otherwise allows the sale of 90% of the company to one other entity, such as another postal operator. Leaving aside the argument put by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on behalf of the Opposition about whether 10% is an appropriate figure, the choice of this level does present a potential difficulty, depending on how the shareholding is held. In Committee, the Minister was pressed on whether the shareholding would be held in a trust for the benefit of the employees—the so-called John Lewis model—or whether it would be given in individual shares to the workers. We did not receive an answer to that question.
Fiona O'Donnell
Has the hon. Gentleman’s party had any discussions with the Government about the future of Royal Mail in an independent Scotland?
Mr Weir
The hon. Lady has taken her chances by asking that question, but it goes beyond the scope of the amendments before us. The Post Office is very important to rural areas of Scotland, and I will merely note that the Scottish Government have done much more than the UK Government to help rural post offices in the future—such as through the diversification and rates rebate schemes. That illustrates what we would do in an independent Scotland.
To return to the point I was making before being led down this interesting side road, the lack of detail about the structure presents a dilemma because, depending on what method is chosen, there could be unintended consequences in the future. If the John Lewis method is pursued, there may well be no problem, in that it will be a trust holding and will, in all likelihood, be held at or above the 10% level. However, if the shares are distributed to individual employees, we could have a very different scenario. Experience of previous privatisations suggests that a number of employees would immediately sell their shareholdings, and others would be likely to sell at some future date, either when they retire or, perhaps, by their executors on death. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; they would be their shares so they can dispose of them as they see fit. Such actions could, however, have a serious consequence for the continuation of a workers’ shareholding within the company, because of the operation of our current company law, and especially as Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they would be relaxed about Royal Mail being bought either by one of the major foreign postal operators or by private equity companies up to the remaining 90% figure.
I remind the House that in cases where private equity companies have bought listed companies, they have on occasion de-listed the company and operated it as a private company. I particularly draw Members’ attention to the terms of section 429 of the Companies Act 1985, which gives provision in respect of implementation of the EU directive on takeover bids. One of the purposes of the directive was to deal with the problems of, and for, residual minority shareholders following a successful takeover bid, processes known as “squeeze out” and “sell out”. The provisions in question provide that following a takeover offer:
“If the offeror has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire—
(a) not less than nine-tenths in value of the shares to which the offer relates, and
(b) in a case where the shares to which the offer relates are voting shares, not less than nine-tenths of the voting rights carried by those shares,
he may give notice to the holder of any shares to which the offer relates which the offeror has not acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire that he desires to acquire those shares.”
In effect, therefore, anyone who acquires 90% of the shareholding in a company can force the sale of the shares of the remaining small shareholders and become sole owner of the company. If the Government were to sell 90% of Royal Mail to, say, Deutsche Post, there could clearly be a potential difficulty in regard to the workers’ shareholding in the future if that is held individually by Post Office workers. If at any time the individual shares held by the work force were to fall below 10%, there is the potential for the owner of the remaining 90% to force a sale and therefore wipe out the shareholdings of the workers.
I am sure the Minister will, in his usual inimitable manner, tell me that I am constructing a theoretical problem that would not occur in the real world, but I wanted to propose an amendment on this point because of a real case of this kind involving constituents of mine. My constituents, who are pensioners, were shareholders in Dana Petroleum, and had been for a large number of years. The company was not paying dividends, but the shareholding did increase in value and my constituents regarded it as a nest egg for the future. Unfortunately, Dana Petroleum was subject to a hostile takeover by the Korean National Oil Corporation, which I believe is state-owned—I believe it is part of a sovereign wealth fund. That company purchased the majority of shares, although my constituents did not wish to accept its offer. The new owners decided to de-list the company, with the effect that my constituents were forced to sell their shareholdings, in their case causing a capital gains tax liability.
Unless the Government give us details of the form the shareholding will take, there is a genuine danger that we could face that situation within Royal Mail in the future. If the Minister will stand up and say, “It will be the John Lewis model; it will be a share trust of at least 10% of the shares for all the employees in the company”, I do not think there will be a problem. Alternatively, however, we might go down the same road as with previous utility sales, where individual shares were given to the workers and that shareholding within the companies has been reduced over the years. It is interesting to note that many of the former utilities are now offering special deals to get small shareholders to sell out their remaining shares because they do not want the small shareholders. Although this idea of worker participation is a good one, I would rather the company was not privatised. If that does happen, however, the bigger the workers’ shareholding within it, the better, and the shareholders would, it is to be hoped, have real rights.
As there is a lack of detail on this point, there is a danger that we will end up with nothing for the workers and the company wholly in the hands of one, possibly foreign, postal service or private equity company. The recent experience of private equity companies buying out limited companies is not a good one; we need only look at the current problems with Southern Cross to see that. I ask the Minister to reflect on this issue, and give us an assurance on it, or at least more information as to how the shareholding is to be held.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am aware that you have asked us to focus on the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I intend to do just that. I want to focus my comments on Lords amendment 9 to clause 11, referring in particular to the universal service provider. While some level of provision is given, I am not entirely convinced that we will have a better service. That is my opinion, and it is informed by the views of the people I represent, because they are telling me the same thing. It is being said not only by Post Office personnel, and among them it is stated by both those who own post offices—postmistresses and postmasters—and the Postman Pats of this world who do the hard graft out on the streets. Some Members have spoken about the business plan that post offices need in order to make them sustainable. Can the Minister convince me and other Members—and, through the Hansard report of the debate, convince my constituents—that the service will continue to deliver in the large rural community I represent that stretches from Portaferry to Ballynahinch?
For many of my constituents, post offices are a crucial part of their community. They are the front office of government. I am unconvinced that the revenues of sub-post offices will not decline, and that could lead to some of them closing. We need the Minister to respond to that point.
Some Members have spoken about the continuity of contracts beyond five years, and that is essential. The postmistresses and postmasters of the rural post offices in the areas I represent have told me that they are under absolutely no illusion about how things will progress, and I say on behalf of them that we need to ensure that they have such continuity.
Under the new law, the universal service for six days a week with one price sending post anywhere could be downgraded in just four years, and it is feared that the everyday post office user will experience price hikes and have to pay for the privatisation. The unions have pointed out the possible consequences of privatisation in respect of postal services, and I look forward to hearing the Minister comment on that point. This has already happened in the Netherlands and Germany, where the rural service has been reduced to three days a week, and the costs have risen.
Michael Connarty
I was talking about the amendments; the new requirement in Lords amendment 1 is that the report must include the
“objective intended to be achieved”
by the disposal of shares. That is a specific Lords amendment and I am questioning what will be put before the House as a result. Will it be a report on the progress of fragmentation and of these parts in trying to achieve the Minister’s stated aim for his sale of these shares?
The Minister has spoken repeatedly about finding some way of saving the post office network. I know that great steps have been made on the Bill through the amendments won by the diligent efforts of Labour Members and Cross Benchers in the Lords. There will be some sort of inter-business agreement and it will be extended. I know that the Minister is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, because he is telling us about his aspirations. However, when I hear him talk, I am unsure what his benchmarks for achievement under these amendments will be if it turns out that his idea of having a full network of post offices and post office “locals” does not work, the “locals” fade away and—I believe this will happen—we begin to lose post offices at a faster rate than would have happened under the previous Government’s plans to stop the flood by taking out a number of post offices and hoping to leave enough business for those that remained.
I did not agree with that approach, but I recognised what the previous Government were trying to do. I do not understand how the Secretary of State will report on these matters as a result of these amendments. If the report were honest, it might suggest that we have to do something different. I want the Minister to tell us what he feels his duties now are as a result of these amendments or what he feels the duties will be of whoever succeeds him, should there ever be a change of Minister. I do not wish such a change upon him, because he deserves to come back to apologise for everything he is now bringing about.
Is this about return to the Exchequer? Let us look at the attempts of previous Governments to sell shares and at the way in which they sold those shares. The sale of the first tranche of British Telecom shares achieved a 90% profit in one day for those who bought them, because it was an attempt to get quick money into the Exchequer—or was it just to get British Telecom into the private sector? If it was to get money into the Exchequer, the then Government appear to have greatly short-changed themselves and the country. A better example, also in telecoms, is provided by the sale of level 3 broadband, in which we made a substantial profit for the Exchequer because of the way in which we auctioned it off, although that did not please people in the industry.
I would like the Minister to tell us how these things are going to work. Will the judgment be based on return to the Exchequer? I know that the Government will, if they get their way, want to balance that against their willingness to take on any deficit in the pension fund that comes with taking on the pension assets. These matters have to be clearly spelt out by the Secretary of State so that people can judge what he is going to do in the Bill. That is what is accepted in the amendment. People want more clarity because we have not been given a clear understanding of the benchmarks and targets that the Government hope to achieve. We have had warm words and aspirations, but given the backdrop—the person who has given those assurances has previously given assurances that they were against full privatisation of the Post Office—we would like to see something a bit more solid on the ground. Perhaps the Minister could say something about what the intentions are.
The amendment also asks for more information about the purpose and structure of the mutualisation. It has been suggested to the Government that it might be useful to set up a task force immediately, but I do not think they have taken that idea up. The idea is to give share options to the members of a work force who have seen 55,000 of their members thrown out the door already and who have heard from the chief executive in the past few days that another 40,000 are about to go behind them, so there is hardly going to be an atmosphere in which anything can be done mutually unless a lot of hard work is done.
I agree with the points made my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) about the hard work and dedication of long-term Post Office employees. We know that people go and work there in the short term and realise that it is a difficult job with unbelievably hard hours and that they often have to work in the most inclement weather to get the mail through. However, many of the people who have been there for a long time want the company to succeed and want its work force to be secured and modernised. A task force would be useful, and it would be useful if the Minister would spell out exactly what will be the benchmark for mutualisation so that the amendments have some value when they are in the Bill.
Mr Weir
The proposal is for the mutualisation not of Royal Mail but of Post Office Ltd, so the average postie does not come into this. They are the ones who will be subject to whoever takes over. Mutualisation will apply only to Post Office Ltd after it is demerged from Royal Mail some time in the future.
Michael Connarty
That is even more frightening. People at that end of the business are facing the same problems from the same management. If the management model has changed, I would like to think that the Minister would put that forward.
Those are my concerns about the amendments, which have been hard won and which came with a promise from the Government that there would be real changes that would make a difference to the Bill. I wonder therefore whether the Minister, if he speaks on this again, will give some idea of what is going on to give us an infrastructure for these matters.
My final point is about the sale of shares to employees. The record is exactly as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said. Shares are slowly but surely bought up by large organisations. The famous case is the one with Sid and the idea that Sid had some power, but Sid’s shares are probably now owned by several multinational hedge funds or equity funds or perhaps by insurance companies or a pension fund or two. There is this idea that members of the work force will get shares that will give them some sense of ownership, and I remember the first debates in which this was talked about by Ministers. This is one of the myths that the Liberals like to push—that if someone is given a few shares, that will make them a part of the ownership of the business. It does not do that unless those shares come with some powers. As we have seen from many of the banks’ recent annual general meetings, even having large amounts of shares does not give one any power over bonuses, performance or the behaviour of the people who run the companies. What will come with the deal apart from a few stocks and shares that will be stuck in the bank until they are sold to fund a holiday?
Mr Davey
I am looking forward to doing that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Llanelli welcomed Lords amendment 1 but felt that it did not go far enough. Despite all the arguments we have had in this place, she still believes that an inter-business agreement should be in the Bill, as do a number of her party’s members.
I do not wish to rehearse the long speeches that were made on Report, when our debate on this particular point lasted for about three hours, but let me repeat that putting provisions in the Bill in the way in which the hon. Lady suggests would create a significant risk of legal challenge owing to incompatibility with competition law. In addition, such an approach would almost certainly face a state aid challenge. I would have thought that she would have realised that, because it has been accepted by many who have examined the situation in detail.
The hon. Lady says that the absence of such provisions means that there is no protection for post offices, but the whole point is that the detail set out in our policy statement will enable them to be more profitable. It is real business that will save the post office network, not legal provisions in the Bill, so I disagree with her point.
The hon. Lady spent some time talking about employee shares. The Lords amendments will require the Secretary of State’s report to Parliament at the time of first sale of shares to include details about the employee share scheme. I would have thought that she would have supported that welcome development.
We would certainly want to report on such things as the terms by which shares would transfer to the employee share scheme and the design of the scheme. Such detail might include questions of whether there would be a trust model or individual shares, or a mixture of the two. There would also be consideration of the percentages to be transferred and the governance arrangements.
The hon. Lady asked how the shares will be allocated, but clearly that is a point for later discussion. Such a point might be addressed in the report. We can imagine allocating shares to employees on many bases, such as length of service, grade and salary. The Government would certainly not object to a proposal that shares and their benefits should be allocated evenly across employees to ensure that there is equal entitlement regardless of grade, salary or length of service. We have been clear that the scheme is for all employees of Royal Mail, not just the management, so I hope that people will not run away with the wrong idea.
Several Opposition Members asked what would stop employees selling shares immediately. Again, we are not making premature decisions about the scheme’s design, but we have always said, as I have repeated several times, that we are designing the scheme with longevity in mind—there are many attractions to a trust model for that very reason. However, it is not true that individual employees’ shares are always sold off by those employees. People arguing that point try to pray in aid the BT example, but the Public Bill Committee heard evidence that 66% of BT employees held on to their shares after the share plan had matured, so there is longevity in share ownership, even with the individual model. A lot of myths are cited by those who oppose employee share ownership, which was no doubt why the Labour party did not include employee shares in its 2009 Bill.
Mr Davey
I listened carefully to that interesting point in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and the way in which he eloquently described the situation and referred to the Companies Act 2006 showed that we need to ensure that we design the scheme carefully. We will do so, because we want to deliver on employee share ownership, which is an objective of the Liberal Democrats, the coalition Government and the Bill.
The hon. Member for Llanelli was generally supportive of the proposals on mutualisation, but she spent a lot of time—do tell me if I stray out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—saying that Government front-office services had not been delivered. We are turning around the decline under which the previous Administration took away more than £300 million of Government services from post offices. Our policy statement and the things that we are delivering show that there is a real future for the front office of government.
Mr Davey
There have been Post Office “locals” pilots in all parts of the country. We are up to 80 local schemes, and Post Office Ltd has tried to pilot them in urban, rural, suburban and urban-deprived areas. It is trying to test them out over time, taking account of seasonality and cash flow, so we are learning an awful lot of lessons from them. The recent analysis of the “locals” project by Consumer Focus is publicly available, and although it has some concerns about privacy it was able to show that on issues such as access, longer opening hours and reduced queues, people have found the projects to be a beneficial step forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he was concerned about the universal service obligation and worried that the Bill would undermine it. Far from it: one of the Bill’s main objectives is to secure the universal service, and Opposition Members have failed to realise that clause 30 includes stronger protections for the universal service than was previously the case.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) made a very informed speech. He was a distinguished member of the Public Bill Committee, who failed to attend only on the few occasions when the weather prevented him from flying down to London, but in looking at the amendments before us I have to say that he has made the mistake of calling for guaranteed business for the post office network and, almost, of wanting to keep things in aspic.
On the train down to the annual meeting of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, I read the federation’s account of its 100-year history, which mentions the concerns that existed when telegrams were being phased out, and when postal orders were used. In other words, the business and services that have gone through our post office network have changed hugely, and we have had to develop them and move on, so setting things in aspic—putting things in the Bill, as some Members want—would not help.
Mr Weir
With respect to the Minister, this is not about setting things in aspic. The problem is that there is a great deal of uncertainty, because Royal Mail is up for privatisation, the link between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd now relies on the good will of whoever runs Royal Mail, and with no guarantee of business it is difficult for those trying to sell post offices to find people to take them on, as they are uncertain of what business there will be in one or two years’ time.
Mr Davey
We are in danger of going over old ground. The hon. Gentleman will know, because we have had this debate many times, that it is my view that post offices are in a very strong position in this negotiation, because the idea that Royal Mail is going to absent itself from the post office network and allow its competitors to go in there is, frankly, nonsense. As for the particular issue that he has been raising with Post Office Ltd—the closure of Ferryden post office—he will know that that closed not because of any action of the Government or Post Office Ltd but following the resignation of the sub-postmaster. Post Office Ltd is looking at all available options to keep that service in his constituency open.
Mr Weir
If the Minister reads my remarks, he will see that that is what I said. I understand that the closure at Ferryden is not the Government’s responsibility. I have been in touch with the Post Office and it is trying to get an alternative, but it looks as though it will be an outreach service rather than anything else. That is a reduction in service to that community.
Mr Davey
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be engaging in that debate with Post Office Ltd.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) asked, in the context of the report, what objectives we have for Royal Mail and the Post Office. We have made it very clear that securing the universal service obligation is our top objective. Getting a good deal for Royal Mail and for the taxpayer is essential. There is no objective of fragmenting Royal Mail as he described. When he suggested that employee shares were not a good thing for employees, I began to despair. The only correct thing that he said was that employee share ownership—ownership of the company in which one is working—needs to be combined with involvement in worker participation.
We should look at what is happening in Royal Mail at the moment. Someone who goes to sorting offices such as Gatwick, Greenford or Cardiff, as I have done, sees a world-class mail system and the rolling out of a programme of modernisation that involves the workers directly and has as one of its key objectives the health and safety of those workers. Sorting offices are being made not only more productive but safer. There is great employee involvement. If we link that with employee share ownership, this business will have a real future. I hope that the House will welcome this group of amendments from the other place, and give them its approval.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 21
Restriction on power to transfer assets