Wednesday 10 November, 8.30pm on BBC ALBA
Award-winning current affairs series, Eòrpa will bring BBC ALBA viewers a compelling programme marking Armistice Day, as the programme follows the story of German U-boat sailor Karl Heinz Golz who was washed ashore on the Isle of Skye.
On the 23rd March 1945, 17-year old Angus MacPhee was beachcombing with his cousins on the shores of Loch Bracadale, Skye when he made a discovery that would stay with him forever.
On the shore lay the body of a German U-boat sailor, Karl Heinz Golz. Golz had been a machinist on board U-Boat 1003, which had come under attack on 20th March 1945 by Canadian frigate ‘New Glasgow’ off the north-west coast of Ireland. His body was laid to rest in Portree cemetery temporarily and later interred in Cannock Chase, the German military cemetery in Staffordshire.
Many years later the events of that day still affected Angus MacPhee. Wanting to find out more about the young man whose body he had found on the shore, BBC Scotland contacted the local paper in the home town of Karl Heinz Golz asking for family members and friends to get in touch. It transpired that nobody in his family knew Karl Heinz had been found and buried in the UK.
A team from Eòrpa visited the town of Neumünster in northern Germany to find out more about Karl Heinz Golz, and to speak to his great niece, Jessica Lucht. Jessica then accompanied the Eòrpa team to Scotland to meet Angus MacPhee and to see the place where he made his discovery, as well as travelling to Cannock Chase to the grave where Karl Heinz Golz was finally laid to rest.
Jessica Lucht said: “As far as I knew he had just died in the sea off Scotland and he had not been found. And there was an anonymous grave where apparently fallen German soldiers were buried. But no one ever told us explicitly that that was where Heinz Golz was. And it was difficult to find these anonymous graves because no one had the money then to travel to them. It was great that someone was interested in it, in our family history, and that there was a person who had found him. That was what struck me most at that point. And the thing I wanted most at that point was to get to know this person, who had been so big-hearted to have concerned himself with this.”
Angus MacPhee said: “This man has been on my mind all my life. It gave me a huge lift to find out who he was and that he had relatives alive today. It's done me the world of good to meet one of his relatives. It’s like closure. I'm so glad that Jessica will now see his grave and she too will have closure.”
This programme follows the story of Karl Heinz Golz and the discoveries made by Angus MacPhee and by Jessica Lucht as they embark upon their fact finding missions.
Produced by BBC Gàidhlig, Eòrpa will broadcast on BBC ALBA on Wednesday 10 November at 8.30pm and weekly thereafter. The programme will also be broadcast on Friday 12 November at 7.30pm on BBC 2 Scotland and available on BBC iPlayer.
Friday, 5 November 2010
Rural Primary Schools (Argyll and Bute)
Parliamentary Question
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to prevent the closure of rural primary schools in Argyll and Bute. (S3O-11761)
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell): Argyll and Bute Council is responsible for decisions on school closures in its area, in accordance with legal requirements, and the democratically elected local councillors will be accountable for the decisions that they take. As members will be aware, the council has postponed its decision and has asked officers to complete further work on the proposals.
As the member knows, the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, which was proposed by this Government, establishes a presumption against the closure of rural schools by ensuring that a decision by a council to consult on a closure proposal is only a last resort. Argyll and Bute Council must, like all councils, follow the robust consultation process set out in that act, and if there is strong evidence that that has not been properly done, Scottish ministers will call in and could refuse consent to any closure decisions.
Jamie McGrigor: I am glad to hear that. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the anger felt by parents and communities throughout Argyll and Bute at the council's shocking plans to close 26 primary schools? Many of those people are already questioning the basis for the proposals and whether the council has genuinely explored all the other options before considering what should be the last resort of closure. Does he agree that rural primary schools such as Southend, Glenbarr, Barcaldine, Keills, Ulva, Luing and all the others are fundamental to the socioeconomic fabric of fragile rural and island communities and that government at all levels should be working to support them? Finally, will he assure local parents that he is doing so?
Michael Russell: I am very pleased that the 2010 act, which members unanimously supported, empowers parents in precisely these circumstances and that that empowerment is being assisted by other groups. I pay tribute to the Scottish National Party group on the council, which decided to press the other councillors for a delay, and I am glad that the councillors agreed to it. I praise the rural schools network on its information campaign, which has laid bare some of the arguments on the importance of providing information, and the website forargyll.com on its tremendous job in bringing together information. Most of all, I praise the communities themselves. They need to know about the rights, protections and defence that they have through the 2010 act, which, as I say, was introduced by this Administration. When any such proposals are made, they should be well-informed proposals of last resort. Even then, communities have substantial rights that they should know about, and I am taking steps to ensure that that information is available to every rural community in Scotland.
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to prevent the closure of rural primary schools in Argyll and Bute. (S3O-11761)
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell): Argyll and Bute Council is responsible for decisions on school closures in its area, in accordance with legal requirements, and the democratically elected local councillors will be accountable for the decisions that they take. As members will be aware, the council has postponed its decision and has asked officers to complete further work on the proposals.
As the member knows, the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, which was proposed by this Government, establishes a presumption against the closure of rural schools by ensuring that a decision by a council to consult on a closure proposal is only a last resort. Argyll and Bute Council must, like all councils, follow the robust consultation process set out in that act, and if there is strong evidence that that has not been properly done, Scottish ministers will call in and could refuse consent to any closure decisions.
Jamie McGrigor: I am glad to hear that. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the anger felt by parents and communities throughout Argyll and Bute at the council's shocking plans to close 26 primary schools? Many of those people are already questioning the basis for the proposals and whether the council has genuinely explored all the other options before considering what should be the last resort of closure. Does he agree that rural primary schools such as Southend, Glenbarr, Barcaldine, Keills, Ulva, Luing and all the others are fundamental to the socioeconomic fabric of fragile rural and island communities and that government at all levels should be working to support them? Finally, will he assure local parents that he is doing so?
Michael Russell: I am very pleased that the 2010 act, which members unanimously supported, empowers parents in precisely these circumstances and that that empowerment is being assisted by other groups. I pay tribute to the Scottish National Party group on the council, which decided to press the other councillors for a delay, and I am glad that the councillors agreed to it. I praise the rural schools network on its information campaign, which has laid bare some of the arguments on the importance of providing information, and the website forargyll.com on its tremendous job in bringing together information. Most of all, I praise the communities themselves. They need to know about the rights, protections and defence that they have through the 2010 act, which, as I say, was introduced by this Administration. When any such proposals are made, they should be well-informed proposals of last resort. Even then, communities have substantial rights that they should know about, and I am taking steps to ensure that that information is available to every rural community in Scotland.
BBC ALBA – WEEKLY PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS
Saturday 13 November – Friday 19 November 2010
Title: Trusadh - Beatha Ghlaiste/Imprisoned
Scotland sends more people per head of population to prison than any other country in Europe. There are approximately 8000 prisoners behind bars in this country, and the prisons are full to capacity, with overcrowding being a major problem. Are new prisons the answer though? Or should we look at other options to reduce the prison population?
Most of Scotland's prisoners have also been imprisoned before. So why is the situation so bad in this country?
By speaking to those who used to work in the old prison system, and those who work in the prisons today, Trusadh explores the way ahead.
Transmitted: Monday 15th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Uaigneas
Uaigneas highlights the role of women in times of family crisis or trauma, giving a thought-provoking and heart-wrenching understanding of how they cope. In a personal and candid account, Marion MacKay tells how she coped when her young son was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.
Transmitted: Tuesday 16th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Soillse - Sireadh Cliu
Karaoke singing and talent shows are a national obsession in the Philippines. Soillse looks at the children from across the country who see these shows as route out of poverty and into the ultimate dream of singing on national TV.
Transmitted: Wednesday 17th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Fear Chanaidh
The late John Lorne Campbell of Canna rightly earned a reputation as one of the leading scholars and folklore collectors of Gaeldom. This programme explores the work, motivation and dedication of the man himself who combined the profession of collector with that of a farmer.
Transmitted: Thursday 18th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Grinn/Makeover
Style a-plenty tonight as Moira MacLean and John Jo MacNeil get a makeover. With Lynda Martin, Donna MacLeod and John Bowers.
Transmitted: Friday 19th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Trusadh - Beatha Ghlaiste/Imprisoned
Scotland sends more people per head of population to prison than any other country in Europe. There are approximately 8000 prisoners behind bars in this country, and the prisons are full to capacity, with overcrowding being a major problem. Are new prisons the answer though? Or should we look at other options to reduce the prison population?
Most of Scotland's prisoners have also been imprisoned before. So why is the situation so bad in this country?
By speaking to those who used to work in the old prison system, and those who work in the prisons today, Trusadh explores the way ahead.
Transmitted: Monday 15th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Uaigneas
Uaigneas highlights the role of women in times of family crisis or trauma, giving a thought-provoking and heart-wrenching understanding of how they cope. In a personal and candid account, Marion MacKay tells how she coped when her young son was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.
Transmitted: Tuesday 16th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Soillse - Sireadh Cliu
Karaoke singing and talent shows are a national obsession in the Philippines. Soillse looks at the children from across the country who see these shows as route out of poverty and into the ultimate dream of singing on national TV.
Transmitted: Wednesday 17th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Fear Chanaidh
The late John Lorne Campbell of Canna rightly earned a reputation as one of the leading scholars and folklore collectors of Gaeldom. This programme explores the work, motivation and dedication of the man himself who combined the profession of collector with that of a farmer.
Transmitted: Thursday 18th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Grinn/Makeover
Style a-plenty tonight as Moira MacLean and John Jo MacNeil get a makeover. With Lynda Martin, Donna MacLeod and John Bowers.
Transmitted: Friday 19th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Monday, 1 November 2010
ENERGY MINISTER AND BBC JOURNALIST TO CHAIR FARMER-FOCUSED RENEWABLES CONFERENCE
Land managers will have a unique opportunity to find out more about collaborative approaches to developing on-farm renewables projects at a free conference taking place in Argyll in November. The conference, ‘Sustainable Communities – the Way Forward’ will take place at Lochgilphead High School Joint Campus on Saturday 13 and Sunday 14 November and has been arranged in partnership with NFU Scotland.
BBC Scotland broadcaster Ken MacDonald will chair day one of the conference, which will explore what makes a sustainable community. Delegates will learn from good practice in sustainable development from around the world, before focusing their thoughts on how they can apply this good practice to their own communities.
Scottish Energy Minister, Jim Mather will chair day two of the conference, titled ‘Route to Market — generating income through renewable energy’, which is specifically aimed at farmers, crofters, estate owners and land managers. Participants will gain an understanding of proven routes to market involving collaboration between communities and landowners. In addition, there will be an opportunity to meet others wishing to develop renewables projects and learn about funding options for renewable technology development.
Jim McLaren, NFUS President said:
“There are many challenges when embarking on a renewable energy project. Ensuring that the maximum value from the project is retained in the local area is a key concern, after issues of planning permission, access to capital and securing the support of neighbours and local communities have been overcome. I believe that many of these challenges are linked directly to the issue of local community support, and that by securing an income stream from large scale renewable projects, the benefits can be felt by all those most closely affected.”
Lucy Sumsion, NFUS Argyll & Islands Regional Manager said:
“The conference has been organised at a weekend to give everyone the best opportunity to attend. The event is free with all refreshments and lunch provided. Some people may be interested in attending both days of the conference; however, you can just attend one of the two days. If you are currently thinking about the options for income generation from renewables then this event is for you.
BBC Scotland broadcaster Ken MacDonald will chair day one of the conference, which will explore what makes a sustainable community. Delegates will learn from good practice in sustainable development from around the world, before focusing their thoughts on how they can apply this good practice to their own communities.
Scottish Energy Minister, Jim Mather will chair day two of the conference, titled ‘Route to Market — generating income through renewable energy’, which is specifically aimed at farmers, crofters, estate owners and land managers. Participants will gain an understanding of proven routes to market involving collaboration between communities and landowners. In addition, there will be an opportunity to meet others wishing to develop renewables projects and learn about funding options for renewable technology development.
Jim McLaren, NFUS President said:
“There are many challenges when embarking on a renewable energy project. Ensuring that the maximum value from the project is retained in the local area is a key concern, after issues of planning permission, access to capital and securing the support of neighbours and local communities have been overcome. I believe that many of these challenges are linked directly to the issue of local community support, and that by securing an income stream from large scale renewable projects, the benefits can be felt by all those most closely affected.”
Lucy Sumsion, NFUS Argyll & Islands Regional Manager said:
“The conference has been organised at a weekend to give everyone the best opportunity to attend. The event is free with all refreshments and lunch provided. Some people may be interested in attending both days of the conference; however, you can just attend one of the two days. If you are currently thinking about the options for income generation from renewables then this event is for you.
NFUS TAKES TO THE ROAD ON LESS FAVOURED AREAS
NFU Scotland is to hold a series of meetings around Scotland to explain the ongoing changes to the current Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS) and also discuss with farmers the future of LFA, particularly in light of ongoing discussions around reform of the CAP.
Almost 85 percent of Scotland is recognised by Europe as being disadvantaged. This allowed payments under LFASS last year to deliver £64 million to almost 13,000 businesses in these areas. New rates were introduced to the fragile and very fragile areas last scheme year and 2011 will see new rates introduced for producers in the standard LFA areas.
The current debate around CAP Reform has also opened up discussion on how LFA support might be delivered in the future. LFA funding at a European level is delivered as part of the rural development pot, known as Pillar 2 of the CAP. Several European documents related to the planned CAP Reform in 2013 have suggested that such funding should be shifted to Pillar 1 – the pot of European funding that currently delivers direct payment schemes such as the Single Farm Payment (SFP). That is something the Union is minded to oppose.
In addition, NFUS wants to talk with producers about how Europe may actually define Less Favoured Areas in the future.
NFUS Head of Rural Policy, Jonnie Hall, who will be speaking at all 11 meetings said:
“Funding delivered through the LFASS is crucial to a huge number of livestock enterprises across Scotland but with changes to payment rates, discussion on how LFA will be defined and question marks over where LFA support will sit within the CAP architecture, the time is right to go out and speak to members about this lifeline scheme.
“For existing LFASS recipients, a series of changes to payment rates and how the payment will be calculated will mean that their LFASS payments will be changing. Payments will now better reflect activity on farms but those changes will be far from uniform - affecting every claimant in different ways between now and 2013.
“We know how important it is that farmers and crofters are aware of current and future changes to this vital component of support for Scottish agriculture - worth over £60 million annually – and we would encourage them to attend any one of our series of meetings to learn about changes to LFASS and discuss the future of Less Favoured Area support.
Members who would like further details can contact NFUS Head Office on 0131 472 4000
Members of the media are welcome to attend. Further details can be obtained from Bob Carruth on 0131 472 4006 or Email: HYPERLINK mailto:bob.carruth@nfus.org.uk bob.carruth@nfus.org.uk
Almost 85 percent of Scotland is recognised by Europe as being disadvantaged. This allowed payments under LFASS last year to deliver £64 million to almost 13,000 businesses in these areas. New rates were introduced to the fragile and very fragile areas last scheme year and 2011 will see new rates introduced for producers in the standard LFA areas.
The current debate around CAP Reform has also opened up discussion on how LFA support might be delivered in the future. LFA funding at a European level is delivered as part of the rural development pot, known as Pillar 2 of the CAP. Several European documents related to the planned CAP Reform in 2013 have suggested that such funding should be shifted to Pillar 1 – the pot of European funding that currently delivers direct payment schemes such as the Single Farm Payment (SFP). That is something the Union is minded to oppose.
In addition, NFUS wants to talk with producers about how Europe may actually define Less Favoured Areas in the future.
NFUS Head of Rural Policy, Jonnie Hall, who will be speaking at all 11 meetings said:
“Funding delivered through the LFASS is crucial to a huge number of livestock enterprises across Scotland but with changes to payment rates, discussion on how LFA will be defined and question marks over where LFA support will sit within the CAP architecture, the time is right to go out and speak to members about this lifeline scheme.
“For existing LFASS recipients, a series of changes to payment rates and how the payment will be calculated will mean that their LFASS payments will be changing. Payments will now better reflect activity on farms but those changes will be far from uniform - affecting every claimant in different ways between now and 2013.
“We know how important it is that farmers and crofters are aware of current and future changes to this vital component of support for Scottish agriculture - worth over £60 million annually – and we would encourage them to attend any one of our series of meetings to learn about changes to LFASS and discuss the future of Less Favoured Area support.
Members who would like further details can contact NFUS Head Office on 0131 472 4000
Members of the media are welcome to attend. Further details can be obtained from Bob Carruth on 0131 472 4006 or Email: HYPERLINK mailto:bob.carruth@nfus.org.uk bob.carruth@nfus.org.uk
BBC ALBA – WEEKLY PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS
Saturday 6 November – Friday 12 November 2010
Title: SPL St. Johnstone V Kilmarnock
The latest full-match coverage from the SPL as St Johnstone host Kilmarnock at McDiarmid Park.
Transmitted: Saturday 6th November 2010
Time: 17:30
Title: Horo Ghealaidh/Celtic Music Sessions
World class musicians from the Celtic Connections festival drop in to give special, intimate performances at the Horo Gheallaidh ceilidh session's filmed in Glasgow and presented by Sarah Cruickshank.
This week, famous singer Kate Rusby, folk group Shetland Bus and Darren MacLean are among the guests. This is a unique opportunity to watch world-class artists up close, performing stripped down versions of their songs live on our sofa in a way you won't have seen them before.
Transmitted: Saturday 6th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: Tir nan Òran / Heartland Music
As part of the BBC’s Year of Gaelic Song, Tìr nan Òran (Heartland Song) brings you five of the most popular songs from Harris, including performances from Donna MacSween and Ewen MacLeod. The series is narrated by popular Gaelic singer Kirsteen MacDonald.
Transmitted: Monday 8th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Partaig / Partick
The MacLeod clan are out and about the fortnightly Farmers Market in the heart of Partick, trying foods from across Europe.
With the FilmG award ceremony at Eden Court in Inverness and the opening night of Aileen's pub, the Partick residents enjoy a bit of glitz this week.
Meanwhile, Donnie is with the lads down at Partick Bowling Club and Rev Murdo Angus is out and about visiting his Partick parishioners, whilst Nan takes a Gaelic class with a twist and Shona attends the GGs choir practice.
Transmitted: Monday 8th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: Uaigneas / Solitude
Uaigneas highlights the role of women in times of family crisis or trauma, giving a thought-provoking and heart-wrenching understanding of how they cope. In a personal and candid account, Nannie Kearney tells how she helped her family deal with Alzheimers and cancer.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Ceol Country / Country Music
Evelyn Coull takes you to the Kelso Country and Western Festival in the Scottish Borders. Among the bands and singers on show at the festival are Raising Cain, The Haleys and Jonny Williams.
In addition to the music, Evelyn meets with the festival organisers to learn more about this popular event. She also takes a trip to the Kelso Races in the company of local country band, Rockin' Horse.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: SPL Aberdeen v Inverness Caledonian Thistle
The latest full-match coverage from the SPL as Aberdeen host Inverness Caledonian Thistle at Pittodrie.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: An Cuiltheann / The Cuillin
The Skye Cuillin has been an important landmark since early times, a lure for mountaineers since the early 1800s, and a favoured haunt of poets, artists and writers.
An Cuiltheann charts the history, climbs, characters and artistry associated with the longest mountain ridge in Britain. Featuring interviews with artists, climbers, and local people, the programme illustrates the challenge and inspiration of the "Alps" of Skye.
Transmitted: Thursday 11th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Grinn / Makeover
Mairi Wetton and Marie Matheson styled and groomed by Grinn team, Lynda Martin, Donna MacLeod and John Bowers.
Transmitted: Friday 12th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: SPL St. Johnstone V Kilmarnock
The latest full-match coverage from the SPL as St Johnstone host Kilmarnock at McDiarmid Park.
Transmitted: Saturday 6th November 2010
Time: 17:30
Title: Horo Ghealaidh/Celtic Music Sessions
World class musicians from the Celtic Connections festival drop in to give special, intimate performances at the Horo Gheallaidh ceilidh session's filmed in Glasgow and presented by Sarah Cruickshank.
This week, famous singer Kate Rusby, folk group Shetland Bus and Darren MacLean are among the guests. This is a unique opportunity to watch world-class artists up close, performing stripped down versions of their songs live on our sofa in a way you won't have seen them before.
Transmitted: Saturday 6th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: Tir nan Òran / Heartland Music
As part of the BBC’s Year of Gaelic Song, Tìr nan Òran (Heartland Song) brings you five of the most popular songs from Harris, including performances from Donna MacSween and Ewen MacLeod. The series is narrated by popular Gaelic singer Kirsteen MacDonald.
Transmitted: Monday 8th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Partaig / Partick
The MacLeod clan are out and about the fortnightly Farmers Market in the heart of Partick, trying foods from across Europe.
With the FilmG award ceremony at Eden Court in Inverness and the opening night of Aileen's pub, the Partick residents enjoy a bit of glitz this week.
Meanwhile, Donnie is with the lads down at Partick Bowling Club and Rev Murdo Angus is out and about visiting his Partick parishioners, whilst Nan takes a Gaelic class with a twist and Shona attends the GGs choir practice.
Transmitted: Monday 8th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: Uaigneas / Solitude
Uaigneas highlights the role of women in times of family crisis or trauma, giving a thought-provoking and heart-wrenching understanding of how they cope. In a personal and candid account, Nannie Kearney tells how she helped her family deal with Alzheimers and cancer.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 20:30
Title: Ceol Country / Country Music
Evelyn Coull takes you to the Kelso Country and Western Festival in the Scottish Borders. Among the bands and singers on show at the festival are Raising Cain, The Haleys and Jonny Williams.
In addition to the music, Evelyn meets with the festival organisers to learn more about this popular event. She also takes a trip to the Kelso Races in the company of local country band, Rockin' Horse.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: SPL Aberdeen v Inverness Caledonian Thistle
The latest full-match coverage from the SPL as Aberdeen host Inverness Caledonian Thistle at Pittodrie.
Transmitted: Tuesday 9th November 2010
Time: 22:00
Title: An Cuiltheann / The Cuillin
The Skye Cuillin has been an important landmark since early times, a lure for mountaineers since the early 1800s, and a favoured haunt of poets, artists and writers.
An Cuiltheann charts the history, climbs, characters and artistry associated with the longest mountain ridge in Britain. Featuring interviews with artists, climbers, and local people, the programme illustrates the challenge and inspiration of the "Alps" of Skye.
Transmitted: Thursday 11th November 2010
Time: 21:00
Title: Grinn / Makeover
Mairi Wetton and Marie Matheson styled and groomed by Grinn team, Lynda Martin, Donna MacLeod and John Bowers.
Transmitted: Friday 12th November 2010
Time: 21:00
UNION TO COLLATE REPORTS OF CATTLE CLIPPING INJURIES
NFU Scotland is to collate reports of injuries sustained by farmers whilst clipping cattle ahead of sending the animals to market or abattoir for slaughter.
The reason for clipping is that farmers are required to present animals in as clean a condition as possible when they are entering the food chain. This occasionally requires dirty hair to be removed from the animals. Clipping cattle on farm before presenting them for slaughter is hazardous and a number of Scottish farmers are hurt each year - including some that are severely injured - while getting their animals ready for selling.
With the support of the Health and Safety Executive, the Union will be distributing an injury report form and encouraging anyone injured while carrying out cattle clipping to fill out and return the form, anonymously if they wish, to NFUS. The Union will then discuss the results with HSE in due course.
As an alternative to clipping on farm, NFUS has supported developments in on-line clipping facilities that would see dirty cattle clipped post-mortem at the abattoir. To date, the only known abattoir in Scotland to have installed on-line clipping facilities is the ABP Perth plant.
NFU Scotland’s Livestock Policy Manager Penny Johnston said:
“An unfortunate consequence of the requirement for farmers to supply clean cattle into abattoirs is that many farmers and their staff continue to be injured each year, some seriously, as they attempt the hazardous job of clipping their cattle pre-slaughter on farm.
“The incidence of injuries is generally thought to be under-reported as many hurt worry over logging such incidents with the authorities for fear of follow-up inspections or reprisals. We continue to work with the HSE on the issue and, with their agreement, we will collate evidence of injuries anonymously and present the results to HSE for discussion.
“We would urge any farmers or their staff injured while carrying out cattle clipping to complete our injury form. These will be available from local group secretaries, regional staff, head office and on our website with the completed forms to be sent to us for analysis.
“While cattle clipping on farm is likely to remain a requirement for most cattle finishers this autumn and winter, the availability of a post-slaughter clipping facility at abattoirs would reduce the risk of injury to farmers and animals. NFUS supports the introduction of on line facilities into abattoirs across Scotland as a way of reducing the stress on both farmers and cattle and improving the welfare of man and beast alike. There would also be knock-on benefits to meat quality of such an approach.
“This is not a green light to producers to start consigning dirty cattle to the food chain but would help to address the considerable health and safety concerns around clipping animals live on farm. That is a dangerous job and farmers across the country are crying out for an alternative to clipping cattle because of the acute risk of serious injury.”
The reason for clipping is that farmers are required to present animals in as clean a condition as possible when they are entering the food chain. This occasionally requires dirty hair to be removed from the animals. Clipping cattle on farm before presenting them for slaughter is hazardous and a number of Scottish farmers are hurt each year - including some that are severely injured - while getting their animals ready for selling.
With the support of the Health and Safety Executive, the Union will be distributing an injury report form and encouraging anyone injured while carrying out cattle clipping to fill out and return the form, anonymously if they wish, to NFUS. The Union will then discuss the results with HSE in due course.
As an alternative to clipping on farm, NFUS has supported developments in on-line clipping facilities that would see dirty cattle clipped post-mortem at the abattoir. To date, the only known abattoir in Scotland to have installed on-line clipping facilities is the ABP Perth plant.
NFU Scotland’s Livestock Policy Manager Penny Johnston said:
“An unfortunate consequence of the requirement for farmers to supply clean cattle into abattoirs is that many farmers and their staff continue to be injured each year, some seriously, as they attempt the hazardous job of clipping their cattle pre-slaughter on farm.
“The incidence of injuries is generally thought to be under-reported as many hurt worry over logging such incidents with the authorities for fear of follow-up inspections or reprisals. We continue to work with the HSE on the issue and, with their agreement, we will collate evidence of injuries anonymously and present the results to HSE for discussion.
“We would urge any farmers or their staff injured while carrying out cattle clipping to complete our injury form. These will be available from local group secretaries, regional staff, head office and on our website with the completed forms to be sent to us for analysis.
“While cattle clipping on farm is likely to remain a requirement for most cattle finishers this autumn and winter, the availability of a post-slaughter clipping facility at abattoirs would reduce the risk of injury to farmers and animals. NFUS supports the introduction of on line facilities into abattoirs across Scotland as a way of reducing the stress on both farmers and cattle and improving the welfare of man and beast alike. There would also be knock-on benefits to meat quality of such an approach.
“This is not a green light to producers to start consigning dirty cattle to the food chain but would help to address the considerable health and safety concerns around clipping animals live on farm. That is a dangerous job and farmers across the country are crying out for an alternative to clipping cattle because of the acute risk of serious injury.”
COUNCIL WINS NATIONAL AWARD FOR FOOD CONTRACT
Argyll and Bute Council has won a prestigious national award for a food contract initiative in Bute.
The council’s procurement team won the Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility category at the third annual Government Opportunities (GO) Excellence in Public Procurement Awards Scotland 2010-11.
The aim of the Bute project was to link the supply of food into the educational curriculum, involving teachers as well as catering staff in developing the sourcing strategy for butcher meat, eggs and cheese.
The pilot project had a number of positive outcomes, including a 25% increase in school meals take up, an increase in the level of pupil satisfaction with school meals, overall economic benefit to the catering service and high levels of sustainability.
Argyll and Bute Council’s graduate recruitment and training programme for procurement officers was also a finalist in the awards, in the Innovation or Initiative of the Year category.
Council leader, Councillor Dick Walsh, said: “We are obviously delighted to have won this high profile award.
“It was a major achievement for Argyll and Bute council to have been shortlisted in two categories, and it is very exciting to have triumphed in one of them over what was some very stiff competition.
“GO is the only magazine in the UK dedicated to public procurement, so any award it presents is based upon in depth knowledge of the marketplace.
“Argyll and Bute’s shortlisted projects are examples of the sort of exciting and innovative initiatives on which this council prides itself. I congratulate all those who worked so hard to see them come to fruition.”
GO Managing Editor Grahame Steed said: “This year’s GO Awards Scotland have underlined the quality of procurement staff across the country and also highlighted that there are many suppliers prepared to go the extra mile in order to deliver quality services.
“Procurement will see some radical changes over the coming years but, on the evidence of these awards, there are many individuals and organisations in Scotland with the right mindset and ambition to ensure a successful outcome.”
A full list of the award winners is at http://www.govopps.co.uk/awardscotland/winners_2010.htm
The council’s procurement team won the Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility category at the third annual Government Opportunities (GO) Excellence in Public Procurement Awards Scotland 2010-11.
The aim of the Bute project was to link the supply of food into the educational curriculum, involving teachers as well as catering staff in developing the sourcing strategy for butcher meat, eggs and cheese.
The pilot project had a number of positive outcomes, including a 25% increase in school meals take up, an increase in the level of pupil satisfaction with school meals, overall economic benefit to the catering service and high levels of sustainability.
Argyll and Bute Council’s graduate recruitment and training programme for procurement officers was also a finalist in the awards, in the Innovation or Initiative of the Year category.
Council leader, Councillor Dick Walsh, said: “We are obviously delighted to have won this high profile award.
“It was a major achievement for Argyll and Bute council to have been shortlisted in two categories, and it is very exciting to have triumphed in one of them over what was some very stiff competition.
“GO is the only magazine in the UK dedicated to public procurement, so any award it presents is based upon in depth knowledge of the marketplace.
“Argyll and Bute’s shortlisted projects are examples of the sort of exciting and innovative initiatives on which this council prides itself. I congratulate all those who worked so hard to see them come to fruition.”
GO Managing Editor Grahame Steed said: “This year’s GO Awards Scotland have underlined the quality of procurement staff across the country and also highlighted that there are many suppliers prepared to go the extra mile in order to deliver quality services.
“Procurement will see some radical changes over the coming years but, on the evidence of these awards, there are many individuals and organisations in Scotland with the right mindset and ambition to ensure a successful outcome.”
A full list of the award winners is at http://www.govopps.co.uk/awardscotland/winners_2010.htm
Postal Services Bill Second Reading – Vince Cable Opening Speech – 27 October 2010
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making it clear why we are here: Royal Mail and the Post Office are two cornerstones of our society. They are different businesses, they are both essential to everyday life in the UK.
Royal Mail is responsible for collecting and delivering our letters. It provides the universal postal service which ensures the collection and delivery of letters and parcels from any postbox to any address in the country. And all at uniform, affordable prices.
The Post Office is an unrivalled network of shops, spread throughout the country. It allows people local access to essential services in the heart of their communities.
The aim of this Bill is to secure the future of these two great institutions and the services they provide and I look forward to the support of members opposite who have genuinely tried to secure the future of Royal Mail and the Post Office network before. They will no doubt agree with me that this must be the last and successful attempt.
HOOPER AND BACKGROUND
Mr Speaker, the sad fact is that the country that pioneered postal services in the 19th Century has been left behind in the 21st Century. The rise of email and the internet has led to a dramatic fall in the number of letters we send. The previous Government were well aware that problem. They commissioned an independent review into the future of the universal postal service, chaired by Richard Hooper. This review found that letter volumes were in structural decline, Royal Mail was in grave financial difficulty, and the universal postal service was under threat. Its conclusion was encapsulated in its title – “Modernise or Decline”. All sides of this House accepted the conclusion that the current system was broken. The company, the union, businesses and commentators – all agreed with the Hooper conclusion when he said “the status quo is untenable.”
But Mr. Speaker, the status quo then is still the status quo now. In fact, Richard Hooper has been clear that Royal Mail is now actually in a worse position. How has this happened? The previous Government endorsed Richard Hooper’s recommendations and acted on them. They put forward a bill which we in the Liberal Democrats and our coalition partners supported. But sadly it never reached this House and the future of Royal Mail was thereby not secured. The previous Government’s Bill would have allowed private sector investment in Royal Mail. It would have enabled Government to tackle the pension deficit. It would have reformed the regulatory regime for postal services. They are all measures with which we agree, and which form the basis of this current Bill. We agree with these measures because, as Richard Hooper says, they are essential if the universal postal service is to survive.
ROYAL MAIL’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
When I came into Government, I was left in no doubt of the real difficulties faced by Royal Mail. I asked Richard Hooper to update his report from December 2008. I wanted to make sure that the conclusions were still valid. They are. Mr Speaker, let none of us in this House be in any doubt as to Royal Mail’s predicament. Yes, there has been some progress and I recognise that. Unions and Management are now working better together. But its pension deficit has ballooned to over £8 billion. Royal Mail now has proportionately the largest pension deficit of any major company in the UK. In addition it loses almost £1million a day on its trading activities. It is an inefficient business in a market that is declining faster than anyone predicted. Hooper now forecasts that letter volumes could fall by as much as 40% over the next five years if nothing is done. That is why we are moving faster and further
WHY WE NEED THIS BILL
The question is what happens if we do not act? We, in this Government, believe we still need a universal postal service, collecting from all postboxes and delivering to all 28 million postal addresses six days a week. And we will still be required under EU law to fund the universal service if no one can provide it commercially. So the taxpayer could be left to pick up the pieces. We cannot predict how much this would cost, or when this would happen if no action is taken. But we know that it would not be cheap. We are not prepared to take this risk with taxpayers’ money. Not with the public finances in the state that they are in. That is why we are determined to press ahead with this Bill.
This is not simply just about making sure that taxpayers do not have to cover the costs. It is also about doing what is right for the future of the company and its employees. Richard Hooper is clear that if his recommendations are taken forward urgently, then Royal Mail does have a potentially healthy future. As my predecessor said, almost 2 years ago, “I believe that Royal Mail and the postal market can thrive in the future, provided that decisive action is taken now”. Well, we are taking action now.
The problems Royal Mail faces are problems we can address through this Bill. After all, it is the only company with the ability to visit all 28 million addresses on a daily basis. It has an unrivalled customer base. And it can build on its position as the leading provider of letters and parcels by providing a new range of digital products to its customers. This Bill is the only way to make that positive future a reality.
SUMMARY OF BILL
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the substance of the Bill itself.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House will find much in this Bill that is familiar. As I have said, in drafting this Bill, we have drawn on much the same evidence as the previous Government. The facts are not in dispute. We have also reached much the same conclusion – that the company needs private sector investment, the pension deficit must be tackled, and the regulatory regime must be reformed. But this Bill is not identical to that of the previous Government. We have taken the opportunity to learn from what has gone before and to develop a new Bill that builds on this Government’s commitment to employee participation. As the member for Wolverhampton South East said when he was minister for postal services “We need a longer-term plan, with a proper buy-in from the work force”. That is exactly what this bill hopes to deliver.
THE POST OFFICE
Let me turn in some detail first of all to the Post Office. As I have said, the Post Office and Royal Mail are different businesses. They face very different challenges. That means our approach has to be different.
The Post Office network is unique. It has around 11,500 branches across the country. It operates in places where other retailers do not. It offers services that other retailers do not. Above all, the Post Office plays an essential social and economic role in our communities.
For that reason, the Post Office will not be for sale. The Bill is absolutely clear on this.
But I am concerned that the current structure of the company is holding the network back. It seems to me that the Post Office is ideally suited to a Co-Operative Group style structure – where employees, sub postmasters and communities get a greater say in how the company is run. The Bill therefore includes a provision that would allow for a possible future mutualisation of the Post Office. Let me be clear that no firm decision on the mutualisation of the Post Office has yet been taken. And there would be a full public consultation before any move to a mutual structure. In the meantime, I have asked Co-operatives UK to explore options for how a mutualised Post Office would work best.
I know that this means setting out on a new course. And I know that before any changes can be made, the network will have to be put on a more secure financial footing. But, and subject to consultation, if it is the right outcome for the network, then I hope that the Post Office could make this transition before the end of this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, let me further reassure the House on how we are going to put the Post Office on a more secure financial footing.
Communities up and down the country have rightly been concerned about the shrinkage of the Post Office network over previous years. Despite the efforts of members opposite - notably the shadow Chancellor - there has been remorseless decline over the last three decades. The last Government’s closure programmes shut 5000 post offices. I would like to commend Members on all sides of the House who fought against these closures.
Mr. Speaker, those days are over. I would like to echo the words of the shadow chancellor from some years ago. “We had a choice. One was to continue to watch decline turn to crisis and crisis turn to collapse, leaving it as someone else's problem down the road.” But this Government doesn’t believe in passing on problems so we are going to fund in the post office network. When I say fund I don’t mean set aside millions to buy off sub-postmasters when we close their business. We had the option of keeping the network on a care and maintenance basis and letting it decline – this is one we have rejected. I can today announce £1.34bn of new funding for the Post Office over the spending review period. Our funding will be used to reform the current network, to change the underlying economics, and so reverse the years of decline and secure its long term future. I am grateful; particularly to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for understanding, even in a tough spending round. I repeat, there will be no programme of closures under this Government and the Post Office will be able to invest, improve its offer and win new revenue streams.
In addition to funding, we are also injecting new ideas. We have been re-thinking the role of Post Offices in providing Government and banking services, and we will be coming forward shortly with a fuller statement on the Post Office, setting out some new and positive ideas which I hope will command support on all sides of the House and in the country.
Secondly, I would like to reassure the House with respect to the relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. The Post Office is currently a subsidiary of Royal Mail. But they are already separate companies and they are very different businesses. As part of our plans for both companies, the Bill will therefore allow for the separation of Royal Mail and the Post Office. Separation will give the Post Office management greater freedom to focus on the branch network and providing new services.
But Mr Speaker, in this case at least, separation is not a first step towards divorce. The Post Office and Royal Mail will continue to work closely together. Each company needs the other. Post Offices carried out over three billion mail transactions for Royal Mail last year. The two companies are closely linked in the public mind, and are bound together by an overwhelming commercial imperative. There is currently a long-term contract in place between the two companies. And there will continue to be a long-term commercial contract in place. The Chief Executive of Royal Mail has said that it would be “unthinkable” that there won’t always be a strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail.
ROYAL MAIL OWNERSHIP
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to Royal Mail.
For the foreseeable future, Royal Mail will be the only company capable of providing the universal postal service. That means that if we want to continue to benefit from a universal service with uniform and affordable prices, we have to equip Royal Mail to survive, and indeed thrive. There is no choice. That was the conclusion of the original Hooper Review commissioned by those opposite and his recent update for the coalition.
Some Members of this House will say that Royal Mail can modernise and survive while remaining in the public sector. They will say that Government can provide the funding Royal Mail needs. That the modernisation agreement in place between the Union and the company is sufficient to stave off the decline in the market.
That is not a view I share. I didn’t share it in Opposition. And I don’t share it now. Nor is it shared by Richard Hooper, or the company itself. Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. Government is the wrong shareholder for this company. Given the government’s financial constraints, we cannot invest enough, quickly enough. We cannot invest flexibly enough. And every investment we now make has to be cleared by the European Commission under state aid rules.
Richard Hooper is also clear that Royal Mail cannot modernise properly, cannot take the decisions it needs to take, while it has the threat of political interference hanging over it. Private sector capital will bring with it private sector disciplines, which will allow the company to modernise faster to keep pace with the changes in the market. As the last minister for postal services wisely said, “Unless modernisation happens, the company will be ill equipped to deal with its challenges”.
The Bill will therefore lift the restrictions that currently exist on the sale of shares in Royal Mail.
This is a departure from the previous Government’s Bill. But Mr. Speaker I should remind the House that the purpose of this Bill is not the sale of shares in Royal Mail for its own sake, but rather the protection of the universal postal service and Royal Mail as the only company capable of providing it. It is therefore right that we allow the flexibility to seek the investment required to secure the future of both Royal Mail and the universal postal service.
So I see no reason at this stage for setting an arbitrary target for how much we must sell by when and by which method. These are critical decisions that need to be taken with proper advice and in the full knowledge of market conditions, assessing both value for money and the company’s needs. Of course, Parliament must be kept informed of these decisions, and this Bill requires a report to Parliament once a decision has been taken to begin a sale process. I hope to be in a position to report to Parliament on a sale process in the first half of this Parliament.
In the longer term, I do not believe that there is a need for Government to keep a stake in Royal Mail. But I will ensure that the Government has the flexibility to ensure the right outcome for taxpayers, Royal Mail, and its employees.
EMPLOYEES
Mr. Speaker, it is to the employees that I would now like to turn. The employees of Royal Mail are critical to its ability to modernise and thrive. It will come as no surprise to Members of this House, when I say that Royal Mail has a history of poor industrial relations. Members may have noticed that UNITE announced just two days ago that it would be balloting Royal Mail managers on industrial action.
This recent development aside, I have been heartened by some of the positive steps that have taken place to improve industrial relations. In particular, the agreement with the Communication Workers Union on the modernisation of the business. This agreement accepted that, unfortunately, there would be job losses associated with the modernisation of the business. It accepted too that there would need to be changes to working practices, and that mail centres would close. This plan has already been agreed with the CWU and the company is implementing it right now.
So, yes, there will be job losses. The company is losing money and the market is declining. This is regrettable, but unavoidable. But what happens if we don’t take action? What happens if Royal Mail fails and the market collapses? Which is the current trend.
I know the CWU have been here in Parliament today talking to many Hon. members about their views on this Bill. Both I and my Honourable Friend, the Minister for Postal Affairs, have met with the CWU to discuss Royal Mail. And we look forward to continuing to talk to them as we take this Bill through Parliament.
But I have one thing to say to them directly today: the worst thing for the union members, Royal Mail’s employees, would be to do nothing. This is the real threat to jobs at Royal Mail.
The employees of Royal Mail also deserve better than constant battles between the union and the management. They deserve to be properly engaged in the business that they work for, and to have a real stake in its future. That is the only way that we can break forever the cycle of antagonism and mistrust that has bedevilled the company.
The Bill therefore requires the creation of an employee share scheme, which will hold at least 10% of the equity in Royal Mail in the future.
This is very far from a token gesture, as some have claimed. It is nothing less that the largest employee share scheme of any major privatisation.
PENSIONS
The employees of Royal Mail will also be concerned about their pensions. They have good reason to be concerned. Royal Mail’s pension deficit is huge and growing and extremely volatile. Put simply, it’s not sustainable. Even the recent agreement between the Royal Mail Pension Plan trustees and the company is fragile. It requires that Royal Mail pay off its deficit over 38 years. That’s at least twice as long as any other UK company’s repayment plan. And The Pensions Regulator has already said that it has substantial concerns about this agreement.
The pension deficit threatens the very existence of the company. It is draining cash away from Royal Mail’s modernisation, and prevents it from undertaking the reforms it needs to survive. That is why the Government has to take action. As part of the sale, this Bill will allow Government to take on responsibility for the pension deficit. Not only will we address the deficit but we will also reduce the size of the Royal Mail pension plan to a more manageable level for the business going forward. The liabilities in the Royal Mail are over fifty times annual profits. By comparison the liabilities of the average FTSE 100 company are closer to one times profits. We intend to reduce the plan to about one tenth of its size today. We will do this by creating a new public sector pension scheme which will assume responsibility for paying out the past pension benefits of Royal Mail employees. In effect all members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan will have their past service moved to a new Government scheme like that of the NHS or teachers. It is the same solution to Royal Mail’s pension problems proposed by the Opposition in their 2009 Bill.
I know that honourable members will be concerned about the detail of the proposed pension arrangements and we will be providing a note to Parliament to explain the practical effect of these very complex changes.
But Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the House on two points today. Firstly, let me be clear that this is by far the best outcome for the employees of Royal Mail. The action we are taking in the Bill will ensure that all the benefits that employees have earned will be safeguarded. The benefits which will become the responsibility of Government will be protected on the face of the Bill. And all members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan will benefit from this support – Post Office and Royal Mail employees alike.
As a bottom line, the Bill places an obligation on Government to ensure that our action leaves members in no worse position than they were before. That means that the amount of benefits they receive will be as least as good as if the Government had not acted.
There will also be a restriction on Government’s ability to make any changes to the new public scheme in future which would adversely impact members. The Government intends to use this restriction to reflect as closely as possible the current protection members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan are afforded under Section 67 of the 1995 Pensions Act.
Secondly, this is not a cunning plan to massage the Governments accounts. The Royal Mail Pension Plan has a deficit of £8 billion. This is the cost to Government of implementing this solution on behalf of the company and its employees.
Let me be clear: the government is taking on liabilities, which are much bigger than the assets. I have seen reports in recent weeks that the Government will be selling off the Royal Mail Pension Plan’s £24 billion of assets. It is true that the surplus assets above the level needed to leave the ongoing Royal Mail Pension Plan fully funded will be transferred to Government. And it is true these transferred assets will be sold. This is because it makes no sense for Government to sit on a massive investment portfolio. I, for one, do not wish to see Central Government taking a huge investment risk with taxpayers’ money.
So yes, we will sell the portfolio of assets which will transfer across to Government. And yes this is likely to involve over £20 billion of asset sales over time. But the important point is that we will also be making payments to members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan for at least the next fifty years.
The Government’s support to the Royal Mail Pension Plan is subject to State-Aid approval by the European Commission. The House can rest assured that we will be going to Brussels to make this case in the strongest possible terms.
Let there be no doubt – this is a good deal for the employees of Royal Mail. In all important respects, it is exactly the same deal as for my predecessor’s Bill. But coupled with the legal requirement for employee shares, it is a much better deal for employees. It is a solution on which I hope that all sides of the House can agree.
REGULATION
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the reform of the regulatory regime. At the heart of this Bill, just as the last Bill, is protection of the universal postal service.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill will maintain the universal postal service at its current level. That means six days a week delivery and collection at uniform, affordable prices. I would like to reassure the House that I have no intention of downgrading this service.
I know that some Members in this House have been concerned about their constituents receiving a reduced service. I share that concern. I have therefore ensured that the Bill contains new and stronger protections around the service than is currently the case. Stronger protections too than were in the Bill put forward by my predecessor.
Members may not be aware, but the Government already has the power to reduce the minimum requirements of the universal postal service without even requiring a debate in Parliament. Through the European Communities Act 1972, it can reduce them down to the minimum requirements of the European Postal Directive. That means five days a week and no requirement for uniform pricing.
I do not think that this is an acceptable situation. The Bill therefore puts in place three new safeguards. Firstly, the Bill ensures that no proposal to reduce the minimum requirements of the universal postal service can be proposed until the new regulator, Ofcom, has conducted a review of user needs. Secondly, any proposal to reduce the requirements of the universal postal service must be subject to a majority vote in both Houses. Thirdly, any reduction in the minimum requirements cannot change the uniform nature of the service. The Bill states that the service and the price must be the same across the whole of the UK. I hope members on all sides of the House will support these new protections for the universal postal service.
We will also be taking other measures to secure the universal postal service. The greatest threat to the universal postal service comes from the decline in mail volumes and the rise of email and the internet. It therefore makes sense for the postal sector to be regulated alongside the broader communications market. For that reason, this Bill will transfer responsibility for the regulation of the postal services sector from Postcomm to Ofcom. Ofcom has a deep understanding of the wider communications markets, and will be well placed to take decisions as regulator of postal services. The Bill will also give Ofcom a primary duty to exercise its function as regulator of postal services in a way which it considers will secure the universal postal service. And it will need to consider the financial viability and efficiency of the universal service in taking its decisions.
We want to ensure that the new regulatory framework is proportionate to the needs of the market. We want to allow for rapid deregulation where there is competition. All mail providers need to be able to operate in a fair and effective market as soon as possible.
As an ultimate protection for the universal service, the Bill does include provisions for special arrangements should a universal service provider be at risk of entering into insolvency proceedings. The arrangements would allow the appointment of a postal administrator whose objective would be to ensure that the universal service is maintained. We do not expect ever to have to use these provisions, but they provide an additional safeguard for the universal service. These measures mirror those that have been taken in the energy and water sectors.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Speaker, previous attempts at legislation on Royal Mail have not had a great history of success. There may be opposition to this Bill both inside this House and elsewhere though I think, after 20 years of false starts, that there is now a willingness to do what needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is no easy way out. The problems that Royal Mail faces will not go away. And there will be no winners if we fail to act. Royal Mail’s employees will face continued uncertainty over their pensions and their jobs; customers will face a declining service; and taxpayers will continue to bear all the risk. Ultimately, Richard Hooper is clear that, without this action, Royal Mail will fail.
Royal Mail needs this Bill. The company says so. Richard Hooper says so. The previous Government said so. I say so. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making it clear why we are here: Royal Mail and the Post Office are two cornerstones of our society. They are different businesses, they are both essential to everyday life in the UK.
Royal Mail is responsible for collecting and delivering our letters. It provides the universal postal service which ensures the collection and delivery of letters and parcels from any postbox to any address in the country. And all at uniform, affordable prices.
The Post Office is an unrivalled network of shops, spread throughout the country. It allows people local access to essential services in the heart of their communities.
The aim of this Bill is to secure the future of these two great institutions and the services they provide and I look forward to the support of members opposite who have genuinely tried to secure the future of Royal Mail and the Post Office network before. They will no doubt agree with me that this must be the last and successful attempt.
HOOPER AND BACKGROUND
Mr Speaker, the sad fact is that the country that pioneered postal services in the 19th Century has been left behind in the 21st Century. The rise of email and the internet has led to a dramatic fall in the number of letters we send. The previous Government were well aware that problem. They commissioned an independent review into the future of the universal postal service, chaired by Richard Hooper. This review found that letter volumes were in structural decline, Royal Mail was in grave financial difficulty, and the universal postal service was under threat. Its conclusion was encapsulated in its title – “Modernise or Decline”. All sides of this House accepted the conclusion that the current system was broken. The company, the union, businesses and commentators – all agreed with the Hooper conclusion when he said “the status quo is untenable.”
But Mr. Speaker, the status quo then is still the status quo now. In fact, Richard Hooper has been clear that Royal Mail is now actually in a worse position. How has this happened? The previous Government endorsed Richard Hooper’s recommendations and acted on them. They put forward a bill which we in the Liberal Democrats and our coalition partners supported. But sadly it never reached this House and the future of Royal Mail was thereby not secured. The previous Government’s Bill would have allowed private sector investment in Royal Mail. It would have enabled Government to tackle the pension deficit. It would have reformed the regulatory regime for postal services. They are all measures with which we agree, and which form the basis of this current Bill. We agree with these measures because, as Richard Hooper says, they are essential if the universal postal service is to survive.
ROYAL MAIL’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
When I came into Government, I was left in no doubt of the real difficulties faced by Royal Mail. I asked Richard Hooper to update his report from December 2008. I wanted to make sure that the conclusions were still valid. They are. Mr Speaker, let none of us in this House be in any doubt as to Royal Mail’s predicament. Yes, there has been some progress and I recognise that. Unions and Management are now working better together. But its pension deficit has ballooned to over £8 billion. Royal Mail now has proportionately the largest pension deficit of any major company in the UK. In addition it loses almost £1million a day on its trading activities. It is an inefficient business in a market that is declining faster than anyone predicted. Hooper now forecasts that letter volumes could fall by as much as 40% over the next five years if nothing is done. That is why we are moving faster and further
WHY WE NEED THIS BILL
The question is what happens if we do not act? We, in this Government, believe we still need a universal postal service, collecting from all postboxes and delivering to all 28 million postal addresses six days a week. And we will still be required under EU law to fund the universal service if no one can provide it commercially. So the taxpayer could be left to pick up the pieces. We cannot predict how much this would cost, or when this would happen if no action is taken. But we know that it would not be cheap. We are not prepared to take this risk with taxpayers’ money. Not with the public finances in the state that they are in. That is why we are determined to press ahead with this Bill.
This is not simply just about making sure that taxpayers do not have to cover the costs. It is also about doing what is right for the future of the company and its employees. Richard Hooper is clear that if his recommendations are taken forward urgently, then Royal Mail does have a potentially healthy future. As my predecessor said, almost 2 years ago, “I believe that Royal Mail and the postal market can thrive in the future, provided that decisive action is taken now”. Well, we are taking action now.
The problems Royal Mail faces are problems we can address through this Bill. After all, it is the only company with the ability to visit all 28 million addresses on a daily basis. It has an unrivalled customer base. And it can build on its position as the leading provider of letters and parcels by providing a new range of digital products to its customers. This Bill is the only way to make that positive future a reality.
SUMMARY OF BILL
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the substance of the Bill itself.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House will find much in this Bill that is familiar. As I have said, in drafting this Bill, we have drawn on much the same evidence as the previous Government. The facts are not in dispute. We have also reached much the same conclusion – that the company needs private sector investment, the pension deficit must be tackled, and the regulatory regime must be reformed. But this Bill is not identical to that of the previous Government. We have taken the opportunity to learn from what has gone before and to develop a new Bill that builds on this Government’s commitment to employee participation. As the member for Wolverhampton South East said when he was minister for postal services “We need a longer-term plan, with a proper buy-in from the work force”. That is exactly what this bill hopes to deliver.
THE POST OFFICE
Let me turn in some detail first of all to the Post Office. As I have said, the Post Office and Royal Mail are different businesses. They face very different challenges. That means our approach has to be different.
The Post Office network is unique. It has around 11,500 branches across the country. It operates in places where other retailers do not. It offers services that other retailers do not. Above all, the Post Office plays an essential social and economic role in our communities.
For that reason, the Post Office will not be for sale. The Bill is absolutely clear on this.
But I am concerned that the current structure of the company is holding the network back. It seems to me that the Post Office is ideally suited to a Co-Operative Group style structure – where employees, sub postmasters and communities get a greater say in how the company is run. The Bill therefore includes a provision that would allow for a possible future mutualisation of the Post Office. Let me be clear that no firm decision on the mutualisation of the Post Office has yet been taken. And there would be a full public consultation before any move to a mutual structure. In the meantime, I have asked Co-operatives UK to explore options for how a mutualised Post Office would work best.
I know that this means setting out on a new course. And I know that before any changes can be made, the network will have to be put on a more secure financial footing. But, and subject to consultation, if it is the right outcome for the network, then I hope that the Post Office could make this transition before the end of this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, let me further reassure the House on how we are going to put the Post Office on a more secure financial footing.
Communities up and down the country have rightly been concerned about the shrinkage of the Post Office network over previous years. Despite the efforts of members opposite - notably the shadow Chancellor - there has been remorseless decline over the last three decades. The last Government’s closure programmes shut 5000 post offices. I would like to commend Members on all sides of the House who fought against these closures.
Mr. Speaker, those days are over. I would like to echo the words of the shadow chancellor from some years ago. “We had a choice. One was to continue to watch decline turn to crisis and crisis turn to collapse, leaving it as someone else's problem down the road.” But this Government doesn’t believe in passing on problems so we are going to fund in the post office network. When I say fund I don’t mean set aside millions to buy off sub-postmasters when we close their business. We had the option of keeping the network on a care and maintenance basis and letting it decline – this is one we have rejected. I can today announce £1.34bn of new funding for the Post Office over the spending review period. Our funding will be used to reform the current network, to change the underlying economics, and so reverse the years of decline and secure its long term future. I am grateful; particularly to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for understanding, even in a tough spending round. I repeat, there will be no programme of closures under this Government and the Post Office will be able to invest, improve its offer and win new revenue streams.
In addition to funding, we are also injecting new ideas. We have been re-thinking the role of Post Offices in providing Government and banking services, and we will be coming forward shortly with a fuller statement on the Post Office, setting out some new and positive ideas which I hope will command support on all sides of the House and in the country.
Secondly, I would like to reassure the House with respect to the relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. The Post Office is currently a subsidiary of Royal Mail. But they are already separate companies and they are very different businesses. As part of our plans for both companies, the Bill will therefore allow for the separation of Royal Mail and the Post Office. Separation will give the Post Office management greater freedom to focus on the branch network and providing new services.
But Mr Speaker, in this case at least, separation is not a first step towards divorce. The Post Office and Royal Mail will continue to work closely together. Each company needs the other. Post Offices carried out over three billion mail transactions for Royal Mail last year. The two companies are closely linked in the public mind, and are bound together by an overwhelming commercial imperative. There is currently a long-term contract in place between the two companies. And there will continue to be a long-term commercial contract in place. The Chief Executive of Royal Mail has said that it would be “unthinkable” that there won’t always be a strong relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail.
ROYAL MAIL OWNERSHIP
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to Royal Mail.
For the foreseeable future, Royal Mail will be the only company capable of providing the universal postal service. That means that if we want to continue to benefit from a universal service with uniform and affordable prices, we have to equip Royal Mail to survive, and indeed thrive. There is no choice. That was the conclusion of the original Hooper Review commissioned by those opposite and his recent update for the coalition.
Some Members of this House will say that Royal Mail can modernise and survive while remaining in the public sector. They will say that Government can provide the funding Royal Mail needs. That the modernisation agreement in place between the Union and the company is sufficient to stave off the decline in the market.
That is not a view I share. I didn’t share it in Opposition. And I don’t share it now. Nor is it shared by Richard Hooper, or the company itself. Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. Government is the wrong shareholder for this company. Given the government’s financial constraints, we cannot invest enough, quickly enough. We cannot invest flexibly enough. And every investment we now make has to be cleared by the European Commission under state aid rules.
Richard Hooper is also clear that Royal Mail cannot modernise properly, cannot take the decisions it needs to take, while it has the threat of political interference hanging over it. Private sector capital will bring with it private sector disciplines, which will allow the company to modernise faster to keep pace with the changes in the market. As the last minister for postal services wisely said, “Unless modernisation happens, the company will be ill equipped to deal with its challenges”.
The Bill will therefore lift the restrictions that currently exist on the sale of shares in Royal Mail.
This is a departure from the previous Government’s Bill. But Mr. Speaker I should remind the House that the purpose of this Bill is not the sale of shares in Royal Mail for its own sake, but rather the protection of the universal postal service and Royal Mail as the only company capable of providing it. It is therefore right that we allow the flexibility to seek the investment required to secure the future of both Royal Mail and the universal postal service.
So I see no reason at this stage for setting an arbitrary target for how much we must sell by when and by which method. These are critical decisions that need to be taken with proper advice and in the full knowledge of market conditions, assessing both value for money and the company’s needs. Of course, Parliament must be kept informed of these decisions, and this Bill requires a report to Parliament once a decision has been taken to begin a sale process. I hope to be in a position to report to Parliament on a sale process in the first half of this Parliament.
In the longer term, I do not believe that there is a need for Government to keep a stake in Royal Mail. But I will ensure that the Government has the flexibility to ensure the right outcome for taxpayers, Royal Mail, and its employees.
EMPLOYEES
Mr. Speaker, it is to the employees that I would now like to turn. The employees of Royal Mail are critical to its ability to modernise and thrive. It will come as no surprise to Members of this House, when I say that Royal Mail has a history of poor industrial relations. Members may have noticed that UNITE announced just two days ago that it would be balloting Royal Mail managers on industrial action.
This recent development aside, I have been heartened by some of the positive steps that have taken place to improve industrial relations. In particular, the agreement with the Communication Workers Union on the modernisation of the business. This agreement accepted that, unfortunately, there would be job losses associated with the modernisation of the business. It accepted too that there would need to be changes to working practices, and that mail centres would close. This plan has already been agreed with the CWU and the company is implementing it right now.
So, yes, there will be job losses. The company is losing money and the market is declining. This is regrettable, but unavoidable. But what happens if we don’t take action? What happens if Royal Mail fails and the market collapses? Which is the current trend.
I know the CWU have been here in Parliament today talking to many Hon. members about their views on this Bill. Both I and my Honourable Friend, the Minister for Postal Affairs, have met with the CWU to discuss Royal Mail. And we look forward to continuing to talk to them as we take this Bill through Parliament.
But I have one thing to say to them directly today: the worst thing for the union members, Royal Mail’s employees, would be to do nothing. This is the real threat to jobs at Royal Mail.
The employees of Royal Mail also deserve better than constant battles between the union and the management. They deserve to be properly engaged in the business that they work for, and to have a real stake in its future. That is the only way that we can break forever the cycle of antagonism and mistrust that has bedevilled the company.
The Bill therefore requires the creation of an employee share scheme, which will hold at least 10% of the equity in Royal Mail in the future.
This is very far from a token gesture, as some have claimed. It is nothing less that the largest employee share scheme of any major privatisation.
PENSIONS
The employees of Royal Mail will also be concerned about their pensions. They have good reason to be concerned. Royal Mail’s pension deficit is huge and growing and extremely volatile. Put simply, it’s not sustainable. Even the recent agreement between the Royal Mail Pension Plan trustees and the company is fragile. It requires that Royal Mail pay off its deficit over 38 years. That’s at least twice as long as any other UK company’s repayment plan. And The Pensions Regulator has already said that it has substantial concerns about this agreement.
The pension deficit threatens the very existence of the company. It is draining cash away from Royal Mail’s modernisation, and prevents it from undertaking the reforms it needs to survive. That is why the Government has to take action. As part of the sale, this Bill will allow Government to take on responsibility for the pension deficit. Not only will we address the deficit but we will also reduce the size of the Royal Mail pension plan to a more manageable level for the business going forward. The liabilities in the Royal Mail are over fifty times annual profits. By comparison the liabilities of the average FTSE 100 company are closer to one times profits. We intend to reduce the plan to about one tenth of its size today. We will do this by creating a new public sector pension scheme which will assume responsibility for paying out the past pension benefits of Royal Mail employees. In effect all members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan will have their past service moved to a new Government scheme like that of the NHS or teachers. It is the same solution to Royal Mail’s pension problems proposed by the Opposition in their 2009 Bill.
I know that honourable members will be concerned about the detail of the proposed pension arrangements and we will be providing a note to Parliament to explain the practical effect of these very complex changes.
But Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the House on two points today. Firstly, let me be clear that this is by far the best outcome for the employees of Royal Mail. The action we are taking in the Bill will ensure that all the benefits that employees have earned will be safeguarded. The benefits which will become the responsibility of Government will be protected on the face of the Bill. And all members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan will benefit from this support – Post Office and Royal Mail employees alike.
As a bottom line, the Bill places an obligation on Government to ensure that our action leaves members in no worse position than they were before. That means that the amount of benefits they receive will be as least as good as if the Government had not acted.
There will also be a restriction on Government’s ability to make any changes to the new public scheme in future which would adversely impact members. The Government intends to use this restriction to reflect as closely as possible the current protection members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan are afforded under Section 67 of the 1995 Pensions Act.
Secondly, this is not a cunning plan to massage the Governments accounts. The Royal Mail Pension Plan has a deficit of £8 billion. This is the cost to Government of implementing this solution on behalf of the company and its employees.
Let me be clear: the government is taking on liabilities, which are much bigger than the assets. I have seen reports in recent weeks that the Government will be selling off the Royal Mail Pension Plan’s £24 billion of assets. It is true that the surplus assets above the level needed to leave the ongoing Royal Mail Pension Plan fully funded will be transferred to Government. And it is true these transferred assets will be sold. This is because it makes no sense for Government to sit on a massive investment portfolio. I, for one, do not wish to see Central Government taking a huge investment risk with taxpayers’ money.
So yes, we will sell the portfolio of assets which will transfer across to Government. And yes this is likely to involve over £20 billion of asset sales over time. But the important point is that we will also be making payments to members of the Royal Mail Pension Plan for at least the next fifty years.
The Government’s support to the Royal Mail Pension Plan is subject to State-Aid approval by the European Commission. The House can rest assured that we will be going to Brussels to make this case in the strongest possible terms.
Let there be no doubt – this is a good deal for the employees of Royal Mail. In all important respects, it is exactly the same deal as for my predecessor’s Bill. But coupled with the legal requirement for employee shares, it is a much better deal for employees. It is a solution on which I hope that all sides of the House can agree.
REGULATION
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the reform of the regulatory regime. At the heart of this Bill, just as the last Bill, is protection of the universal postal service.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill will maintain the universal postal service at its current level. That means six days a week delivery and collection at uniform, affordable prices. I would like to reassure the House that I have no intention of downgrading this service.
I know that some Members in this House have been concerned about their constituents receiving a reduced service. I share that concern. I have therefore ensured that the Bill contains new and stronger protections around the service than is currently the case. Stronger protections too than were in the Bill put forward by my predecessor.
Members may not be aware, but the Government already has the power to reduce the minimum requirements of the universal postal service without even requiring a debate in Parliament. Through the European Communities Act 1972, it can reduce them down to the minimum requirements of the European Postal Directive. That means five days a week and no requirement for uniform pricing.
I do not think that this is an acceptable situation. The Bill therefore puts in place three new safeguards. Firstly, the Bill ensures that no proposal to reduce the minimum requirements of the universal postal service can be proposed until the new regulator, Ofcom, has conducted a review of user needs. Secondly, any proposal to reduce the requirements of the universal postal service must be subject to a majority vote in both Houses. Thirdly, any reduction in the minimum requirements cannot change the uniform nature of the service. The Bill states that the service and the price must be the same across the whole of the UK. I hope members on all sides of the House will support these new protections for the universal postal service.
We will also be taking other measures to secure the universal postal service. The greatest threat to the universal postal service comes from the decline in mail volumes and the rise of email and the internet. It therefore makes sense for the postal sector to be regulated alongside the broader communications market. For that reason, this Bill will transfer responsibility for the regulation of the postal services sector from Postcomm to Ofcom. Ofcom has a deep understanding of the wider communications markets, and will be well placed to take decisions as regulator of postal services. The Bill will also give Ofcom a primary duty to exercise its function as regulator of postal services in a way which it considers will secure the universal postal service. And it will need to consider the financial viability and efficiency of the universal service in taking its decisions.
We want to ensure that the new regulatory framework is proportionate to the needs of the market. We want to allow for rapid deregulation where there is competition. All mail providers need to be able to operate in a fair and effective market as soon as possible.
As an ultimate protection for the universal service, the Bill does include provisions for special arrangements should a universal service provider be at risk of entering into insolvency proceedings. The arrangements would allow the appointment of a postal administrator whose objective would be to ensure that the universal service is maintained. We do not expect ever to have to use these provisions, but they provide an additional safeguard for the universal service. These measures mirror those that have been taken in the energy and water sectors.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Speaker, previous attempts at legislation on Royal Mail have not had a great history of success. There may be opposition to this Bill both inside this House and elsewhere though I think, after 20 years of false starts, that there is now a willingness to do what needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is no easy way out. The problems that Royal Mail faces will not go away. And there will be no winners if we fail to act. Royal Mail’s employees will face continued uncertainty over their pensions and their jobs; customers will face a declining service; and taxpayers will continue to bear all the risk. Ultimately, Richard Hooper is clear that, without this action, Royal Mail will fail.
Royal Mail needs this Bill. The company says so. Richard Hooper says so. The previous Government said so. I say so. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS SIGNED FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA
The parties involved in a landmark partnership aimed at improving care for people with dementia in Argyll and Bute will come together next week to officially adopt the Charter of Rights for People with Dementia.
Earlier in the summer, Argyll and Bute Council teamed up with NHS Highland and Alzheimer Scotland to sign a ground-breaking partnership.
Together, the three agencies are providing local community service for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute. Funding for the establishment of community dementia teams has been provided from the closure of continuing care beds at Argyll and Bute Hospital.
There are now link workers and community psychiatric nurses in post in each of the local areas, and these are merging with the pre-existing dementia services to form the local teams.
There is also an over-arching steering group which is guiding the development of the joint services for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute.
The partnership arrangements are in keeping with the Dementia Strategy for Scotland, launched by the Scottish Government on June 1, 2010.
Next Monday (November 1) at 11am Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive Director of Community Services Cleland Sneddon, Argyll and Bute Community Health Partnership General Manager Derek Leslie and Henry Simmons, Alzheimer Scotland Chief Executive will be at the council Chamber at Kilmory to officially sign up to the Charter of Rights for People with Dementia. You are invited to send a photographer/reporter to the event.
Councillor Donald McIntosh, Argyll and Bute’s spokesperson for Social Services, said that Argyll and Bute was delighted to be among the first councils in Scotland to sign up to the charter.
He added that the council was committed to promoting the charter, and that staff will be involved in awareness-raising training.
“The goodwill of the partner agencies to work together with people who have dementia and their carers will genuinely improve community services for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute,” he said.
“We are delighted to be involved in such a valuable partnership, and look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in both the Community Health Partnership and Alzheimer Scotland for the benefit of people with dementia and their carers.”
Earlier in the summer, Argyll and Bute Council teamed up with NHS Highland and Alzheimer Scotland to sign a ground-breaking partnership.
Together, the three agencies are providing local community service for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute. Funding for the establishment of community dementia teams has been provided from the closure of continuing care beds at Argyll and Bute Hospital.
There are now link workers and community psychiatric nurses in post in each of the local areas, and these are merging with the pre-existing dementia services to form the local teams.
There is also an over-arching steering group which is guiding the development of the joint services for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute.
The partnership arrangements are in keeping with the Dementia Strategy for Scotland, launched by the Scottish Government on June 1, 2010.
Next Monday (November 1) at 11am Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive Director of Community Services Cleland Sneddon, Argyll and Bute Community Health Partnership General Manager Derek Leslie and Henry Simmons, Alzheimer Scotland Chief Executive will be at the council Chamber at Kilmory to officially sign up to the Charter of Rights for People with Dementia. You are invited to send a photographer/reporter to the event.
Councillor Donald McIntosh, Argyll and Bute’s spokesperson for Social Services, said that Argyll and Bute was delighted to be among the first councils in Scotland to sign up to the charter.
He added that the council was committed to promoting the charter, and that staff will be involved in awareness-raising training.
“The goodwill of the partner agencies to work together with people who have dementia and their carers will genuinely improve community services for people with dementia across Argyll and Bute,” he said.
“We are delighted to be involved in such a valuable partnership, and look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in both the Community Health Partnership and Alzheimer Scotland for the benefit of people with dementia and their carers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
