Clause 16
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
9:15 am
Mark Prisk (Shadow Minister (Small Businesses and Enterprise), Trade & Industry; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for those opening remarks. However, I think that they focus primarily on the transfer of where we are now to what is proposed in the Bill rather than what is actually in the Bill. The closure of post offices is clearly a matter of great concern to many of our communities. The Minister will know about both the hurt and the anxiety that the policies of the Government and Royal Mail are causing. However, I do not propose to rehearse here all those arguments about the way in which the Government’s policy is failing many of our communities. What I would like to do is to explore the issue and thelikely operation of clause 16, particularly the phrase in subsection 1:
“Without prejudice to the generality of section 11, the Council may investigate any matter relating to—
(a) the number and location of public post offices”.
That is, apparently, a very wide remit and it is welcome in that sense. However, I would like to explore whatthe phrase means in practice. For example, wouldthe council be able to investigate the rationale of the Minister’s policy and of Royal Mail’s decisions in the current round of planned closures? It is unlikely, I would have thought, that every last closure under the current proposals will be completed by the time that this measure comes into force. So, one would like to know whether, in fact, this power would extend backwards, to enable the council to examine something that is brought before it at that point, albeit that the original policy may have occurred before the Bill becomes law. That is one area I would like to examine.
It is not just a question of the retrospective nature of considering something that happened before the Bill becomes law; it is a question of examining the effect of that policy, which will still be current when the Bill becomes law. I do not think that a defence of “It’s retrospective, therefore we cannot look at it” would be sufficient. However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
In particular, thereafter would the council be able to investigate the funding issues that Royal Mail would often cite as being a case for future closures or relocations? Royal Mail is a public company and therefore has certain matters of openness, but it will also have certain matters of confidentiality, which Ministers often cite when they debate these issues in the House. Further to that, if the relevant papers are not forthcoming—whether from Royal Mail, Post Office Counters, or other related sub-units of the organisation, or indeed the Department—how will the council be able to secure those papers in order to fulfil its investigations? I think that those are the principal areas that I would like to explore with the Minister, if I may.