:00:02. > :00:07.to summon the Secretary of State to give evidence to his committee
:00:07. > :00:14.rather than summon him to the floor of the House. Order, statement of
:00:15. > :00:19.the Attorney-General. With permission I would like to
:00:19. > :00:22.make a statement about the death of Dr David Kelly and whether an
:00:22. > :00:28.application should be made by me to the High Court for an inquest to be
:00:28. > :00:32.held into his death. Mr Speaker, as a law officer of the Crown I am
:00:32. > :00:36.asked to consider such applications as part of my public interest roll.
:00:36. > :00:40.It is in that role I make this statement today. I wouldn't
:00:40. > :00:44.normally present the results of my considerations so publicly, but
:00:44. > :00:48.given the interest in this case has attracted, both from members of the
:00:48. > :00:53.House and in the media, I think it is right this House has the chance
:00:54. > :00:56.to consider my conclusions and ask any questions. The House will be
:00:56. > :01:00.worth Dr Kelly was a distinguished Government scientist who became one
:01:00. > :01:06.of the cheap weapons inspectors in Iraq on behalf of the United
:01:06. > :01:08.Nations special commissions. From 1991, he was deeply involved in
:01:08. > :01:12.investigating the biological warfare programme of the Iraqi
:01:12. > :01:17.regime. Dr Kelly built up a high reputation as a weapons inspector,
:01:17. > :01:20.not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. Against the
:01:20. > :01:26.background of allegations of information having been leaked to
:01:26. > :01:29.the media, on Thursday 10th July 2003, both the foreign affairs
:01:29. > :01:34.committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee requested Dr
:01:34. > :01:37.Kelly to appear before them to give evidence. Dr Kelly subsequently
:01:37. > :01:42.gave evidence to the foreign affairs committee in a hearing
:01:42. > :01:46.televise to the public on 15th July and gave evidence to the
:01:46. > :01:51.Intelligence and Security Committee in a private hearing on 16th July.
:01:51. > :01:54.In the afternoon of the following day he left his home to take a walk.
:01:54. > :02:00.By the late evening he had not returned and his family contacted
:02:00. > :02:05.the police. A search was commenced and resulted in his body being
:02:05. > :02:10.found it on the morning of the 18th July in woodland on Harrow downhill,
:02:10. > :02:14.Oxfordshire. It appeared he had taken his own life by cutting his
:02:14. > :02:20.wrists. Thames Valley Police and nevertheless, commenced an
:02:20. > :02:25.investigation into the case as a potential homicide. That day, the
:02:25. > :02:28.then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer set up an inquiry chaired by Lord
:02:28. > :02:32.Hutton to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death
:02:32. > :02:37.of Dr Kelly. The Oxfordshire coroner also opened an inquest into
:02:37. > :02:41.the death as he was obliged to do. In August, the Lord Chancellor
:02:41. > :02:48.exercised his powers under the Coroners Act 1988, transferring the
:02:48. > :02:50.functions of the inquest to the inquiry. The inquest was adjourned
:02:50. > :02:56.on 14th August after sending a registrar a certificate of death in
:02:56. > :03:02.which the causes were stated to be, first haemorrhage and incised wombs
:03:02. > :03:09.to the left wrist. Secondly, Coproxamol injection and coronary
:03:09. > :03:12.artery atherosclerosis. When the Hutton Inquiry reported in January
:03:12. > :03:18.2004, it confirmed the causes of death as they appeared in the death
:03:18. > :03:22.certificate. There after on 16th March 2004, the coroner indicated
:03:23. > :03:26.there was no basis or need to resume the inquest and its
:03:26. > :03:31.functions were accordingly, at an end. Because of the interest and
:03:31. > :03:34.the political issues that form the backdrop to Dr Kelly's death, a
:03:34. > :03:39.significant number of people have raised concerns about his death and
:03:39. > :03:49.the process used to investigate it. They have called for a new inquest
:03:49. > :03:53.At this stage, only the High Court can call for an inquest, and only
:03:53. > :03:59.with my consent. I was asked last year to make such an application,
:03:59. > :04:04.but since then, I have been provided a large amount of
:04:04. > :04:11.information for an inquest. I have taken -- I am grateful for all
:04:11. > :04:18.those who have taken the time to put that together. I have to
:04:18. > :04:24.exercise a non-political role as guardian of the public inquest.
:04:24. > :04:28.Recognising the importance of the matter, I have sought the help of
:04:28. > :04:38.independent experts to look at the information supplied to me. This
:04:38. > :04:40.
:04:40. > :04:48.has involved help from Dr Richard Shepherd, a and Doc Joe Flanagan. I
:04:48. > :04:56.have also considered the views of Lord Hutton, potent Nicholas Hunt
:04:56. > :05:02.to be carried out the initial investigation, and I have also been
:05:02. > :05:09.greatly assisted by officers from Thames Valley Police. I would like
:05:09. > :05:14.to place my thanks with all those who helped, and those of the
:05:14. > :05:24.Attorney-General's office who have held me. Having given all the
:05:24. > :05:29.
:05:29. > :05:34.evidence the -- there has been given to me, I'm an convinced he
:05:34. > :05:39.took his own life. There has not been any conspiracy or cover-up. No
:05:39. > :05:45.purpose would be served by making an application to the High Court.
:05:45. > :05:50.Indeed, I have no reason the -- reason for doing so. There is no
:05:50. > :05:57.possibility that at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be
:05:57. > :06:03.returned. It is not possible in that short time I have now to give
:06:03. > :06:09.the reasons. I have placed in the library of both houses today a more
:06:09. > :06:13.detailed statement of my own reasons, copied of -- copies of the
:06:13. > :06:21.independent report a commission, the responses of Lord Hutton and
:06:21. > :06:25.others, and a schedule, a 60 page list, which covers most if not all
:06:25. > :06:33.of the arguments that have been put any, and might responses to that
:06:33. > :06:40.argument. -- those arguments. The suggestion that David Kelly not
:06:40. > :06:45.taking his own lives, is not a positive observation, but a
:06:45. > :06:51.criticism of the inquiry. It began with the queues of a number of
:06:51. > :06:56.doctors, experts in their own areas, but not qualified as forensic
:06:56. > :07:03.pathologist, he said that David Kelly could not have died with the
:07:03. > :07:08.wins prescribed. They did not have access to the material before
:07:08. > :07:15.making their own arguments. One such doubt had been created, those
:07:15. > :07:20.who believe Dr Kelly was murdered but far matters but were not
:07:20. > :07:25.followed up by the police and other issues that might have been
:07:25. > :07:29.considered suspicious. Much has been made, for example, at the
:07:29. > :07:37.position at which Dr Kelly's body was found. All of the witnesses,
:07:37. > :07:47.bar two, gave evidence that Dr Kelly was lying on his back. Two
:07:47. > :07:57.witnesses who found the body found but he was propped against the tree.
:07:57. > :08:07.Lord Hutton recognised the honest witnesses will nevertheless
:08:07. > :08:07.
:08:07. > :08:17.recalled the same at seeing differences -- the same thing
:08:17. > :08:19.
:08:19. > :08:23.This is not a criticism of that witness. But this minor compared --
:08:24. > :08:31.contradiction gave the impression that the body should have been
:08:31. > :08:35.moved. For what purpose? This has proved a fertile ground for in
:08:35. > :08:45.medicine as sieve speculation to takeover. All the evidence
:08:45. > :08:48.
:08:48. > :08:53.presented at the time, and the detailed review I have taken,
:08:53. > :08:59.supports the the finding of that Dr Carey was found the way -- died the
:08:59. > :09:05.way he was found. There was no cover-up or conspiracy whatsoever.
:09:05. > :09:11.My conclusions and decisions are entirely my own, based on -- based
:09:11. > :09:16.on my assessment. I have not received any representation from
:09:16. > :09:22.the Prime Minister or any other ministerial colleague on the matter.
:09:22. > :09:27.The material is in the library for all to consider. Anyone considering
:09:27. > :09:36.this with an open mind, no matter what their previous misgivings,
:09:36. > :09:42.will find it to -- convincing. I pass my condolences to Dr David
:09:42. > :09:47.Kelly's family, not just for their loss, but to have to do with the
:09:47. > :09:53.publicity for such a long time. They have held that load with such
:09:53. > :10:01.dignity. It will always be important -- in always be
:10:01. > :10:06.impossible not to satisfy everyone. I had to draw a line under the
:10:06. > :10:16.matter. I thank the Right Honourable and learned Gentleman
:10:16. > :10:16.
:10:16. > :10:24.for his insight and the reason for his decision. Having been afforded
:10:24. > :10:28.the opportunity to read to Documentation, the shadow law
:10:28. > :10:35.officers are grateful for the chance to review the documents,
:10:35. > :10:41.from which we derive confidence that the Attorney General has David
:10:41. > :10:45.given himself fully to the evidence. We applaud the quality of the
:10:45. > :10:52.document produced. The allegations have been taken seriously and
:10:52. > :11:02.inquired into, and I would like to commend the way the Attorney
:11:02. > :11:02.
:11:02. > :11:12.General has handled this issue, which will give the members of the
:11:12. > :11:14.
:11:14. > :11:18.Lord Hutton was satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life, and he was
:11:18. > :11:28.further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of
:11:28. > :11:36.Dr Kelly. The Attorney-General's decision asserts the find of the
:11:36. > :11:40.toxicology reports, and the Ministry of Justice last October.
:11:40. > :11:45.The opposition accepts the Attorney General's decision today on the
:11:45. > :11:49.basis that he has carefully and clearly outlined his detailed
:11:49. > :11:56.reasons to not apply it for the High Court for an investigation
:11:56. > :12:02.into Dr Kelly's death, in the lack of evidence that Dr Carey did not
:12:02. > :12:07.commit suicide. We are grateful for the document as statements which
:12:07. > :12:13.will be placed in the lobbies of boast houses. Nonetheless, I am
:12:13. > :12:17.aware that few in this House will yet have had the advantage of
:12:17. > :12:22.perusing the documents. I wonder whether the Attorney General will
:12:22. > :12:26.provide, for members of this House and members of their public who
:12:26. > :12:36.listen to this statement but may not peruse the statement in the
:12:36. > :12:40.
:12:41. > :12:50.library, confirmation that he is satisfied the evidential burden of
:12:51. > :12:52.
:12:52. > :13:02.proof beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Bob -- Doctor Kelly
:13:02. > :13:04.
:13:04. > :13:10.has been met. -- the investigation into the death. Finally, I would
:13:10. > :13:17.like to extend my sincere sympathy to the Kerry family for their
:13:17. > :13:25.tragic loss and the extensive publicity that it has caused.
:13:25. > :13:29.most grateful for the horrible lady for her words. A sure they would be
:13:29. > :13:33.repeated by all those who had been involved in preparing this case.
:13:33. > :13:38.She raised a number of important points that I would do my best to
:13:38. > :13:43.answer. So far as finality is concerned, I hope for the sake of
:13:43. > :13:47.all concerned that this will produce finality, but it is
:13:47. > :13:54.absolutely right that in -- at some point in the future, some new and
:13:54. > :13:58.compelling evidence would come to light that suggested that there
:13:58. > :14:04.would be something wrong in the original inquiries, then in the
:14:04. > :14:08.case of any inquiry, but it could be looked at again. There is no bar
:14:08. > :14:14.as a result of this statement I have made today. Secondly, she
:14:14. > :14:18.asked me if I could just explain a little bit about my legal powers.
:14:18. > :14:22.May I first of all say that the background to this is that the
:14:22. > :14:31.inquest process was raised originally by a decision by Lord
:14:31. > :14:36.Falconer to have an inquiry pursued. That decision was never challenged
:14:36. > :14:42.at the time. Some people might have done if they wanted to, but there
:14:42. > :14:47.was nothing improper about a decision at the time. It marked the
:14:47. > :14:53.seriousness with which Lord Falconer took the decision at the
:14:53. > :15:02.time. It could have gone further in its scope than an inquest,
:15:02. > :15:07.particularly looking at some of the surrounding circumstances, which an
:15:07. > :15:13.inquest could do. The subject of this review arose from the
:15:13. > :15:17.representation of doctors who indicated that they thought that
:15:17. > :15:23.the lack of certainty as to the cause of death specifically was
:15:23. > :15:28.such that I could exercise my powers under section 13 to make an
:15:28. > :15:33.application to the court for the inquest to take place. I think we
:15:33. > :15:38.have to face up to the fact that no inquest had been taking place. It
:15:38. > :15:42.had been adjourned without being completed. I do not want to get
:15:42. > :15:48.involved in legal technicalities, but they are of a technical nature.
:15:48. > :15:51.I approached this matter if -- on the basis that if there was
:15:51. > :15:56.evidential basis to call into question the inquiry's findings
:15:56. > :16:03.into the cause of death, I did make such an abdication, no matter what
:16:03. > :16:11.the technical difficulties might be, because Arbor be minded to allow
:16:11. > :16:21.this investigation -- this situation to be reinvestigated? I
:16:21. > :16:21.
:16:21. > :16:26.have looked at this very carefully. They were being made by sensible
:16:26. > :16:30.and reasonable people. I am grateful to them for bringing the
:16:30. > :16:35.problems forward. That is the basis on which I operated, but having
:16:35. > :16:40.reviewed all the evidence, as she has seen from the schedule, which I
:16:40. > :16:46.hope will be very helpful to run this, the evidence is overwhelming
:16:46. > :16:52.that this was a tragic case of suicide. And it is suicide that
:16:52. > :17:02.caused Dr Kelly's death, and for the medical reasons there were
:17:02. > :17:03.
:17:03. > :17:09.correctly identified at the time. As a member of the foreign affairs
:17:09. > :17:14.committee who took evidence from Dr Kelly at the -- before his death, I
:17:14. > :17:18.have no doubt that he committed suicide. I have known the Attorney-
:17:18. > :17:23.General for many years, and I know that he would have done a thorough
:17:23. > :17:29.and diligent job. Will he accept that the evidence is clear, and it
:17:29. > :17:33.is time to bring closer to this matter and move on? I certainly
:17:33. > :17:37.think the evidence is clear, and I also think that there is no
:17:37. > :17:41.evidence to the contrary. That is the point that I think will be
:17:41. > :17:48.quite clear from anyone who goes to the schedule. Every question that
:17:48. > :17:51.was raised with me, I found in my mind, I was able to give birth at
:17:52. > :17:58.least satisfactory of -- answers, all of which led to the suicide
:17:58. > :18:03.verdict. I agree with my friend. I hope that we will be able to draw a
:18:03. > :18:08.line under it. It is a matter of huge public concern, and legitimate
:18:08. > :18:13.public concern for a whole variety of reasons, giving but it is taken
:18:13. > :18:20.-- taking place in a difficult political environment. I think the
:18:20. > :18:27.review and the findings are very clear cut. I was not having to do a
:18:27. > :18:37.balancing decision. Having reviewed all the evidence, the original
:18:37. > :18:41.I can congratulate the Attorney General on the clarity of his
:18:41. > :18:45.statement and the decision he has taken, quite rightly on the basis
:18:45. > :18:52.of the scientific evidence that I have read. Will he confirm that in
:18:52. > :18:58.the bundle of papers that he has placed in the library, the detailed
:18:58. > :19:02.scientific reports are included in that, including to those which he
:19:02. > :19:09.referred from Richard Shepherd and Robert Flanagan. Will he ensure if
:19:09. > :19:12.this isn't already in the bundle, that part of that includes an
:19:12. > :19:20.interpretation written by the scientists, for lay people to
:19:20. > :19:24.understand, so that some of the conspiracy theories don't develop
:19:24. > :19:29.again. Well, the honourable gentleman will have to be the best
:19:29. > :19:34.judge. Yes, Professor Flanagan and Dr Shepherd's report also both be
:19:34. > :19:38.in the library of the House. I must say I think they are written in
:19:38. > :19:42.plain English. Clearly they are also medically based and that is
:19:42. > :19:47.inevitable. The schedule, I have used that material, and other
:19:47. > :19:51.material, to seek to set it out perhaps in slightly plainer terms.
:19:51. > :19:56.About each matter, but I think it is readily come hen is -- come
:19:56. > :20:01.hencable and I hope it will help and inform members of public as
:20:01. > :20:06.well as the House. Will the attorney note when I questioned Dr
:20:06. > :20:09.Kelly two days before he died, I formed the view that a very
:20:09. > :20:16.distinguished public servant was deeply distressed, by the situation
:20:16. > :20:22.in which he had placed himself, but although I am wholly unpersuaded by
:20:22. > :20:25.any of the theories that have been put forward to suicide, can the
:20:25. > :20:29.attorney spell out what he thinks would be lost by allowing the
:20:29. > :20:34.process of inquiry to be completed by an inquest? Well, the first
:20:34. > :20:39.problem, I have to say to my right honourable friend is that there is
:20:39. > :20:46.no basis on which the high court could possibly order and inquest,
:20:46. > :20:51.so in my judgment I were to go the high court and make an application
:20:51. > :20:54.it would be dismissed with a certain amount of irritation,
:20:54. > :20:59.because there has to be an evidential basis on which such an
:20:59. > :21:03.application can be made. We have also had an inquiry, and I have to
:21:03. > :21:08.say, and it is a point I make in the schedule, that this suggestion
:21:08. > :21:13.that the inquiry was in some way inferior to an inquest, and wasn't
:21:13. > :21:18.able to look at some of the things which an inquest could have looked
:21:18. > :21:24.at, really doesn't bear any reasoned either logical or legal
:21:24. > :21:27.examination. So, in practical terms the inquest has already taken place,
:21:27. > :21:33.or something tantamount and equivalent to an inquest. On top of
:21:33. > :21:39.that, we now have a review, a review carried out with the
:21:40. > :21:47.knowledge of public anxiety, by eminent professionals, who have
:21:47. > :21:51.looked specifically at the anxietys that have been raised. Either by
:21:51. > :21:54.the memorialistsor or others and have I had the original findings
:21:54. > :22:00.were correct. There was one exception to that I should make the
:22:00. > :22:04.point and that was the timing of death was reviewed, because a
:22:04. > :22:09.conclusion was reached that the tables that had been used by the
:22:09. > :22:12.pathologist at the time, through no fault of that pa pathologist were
:22:12. > :22:17.not a accurate. This is a question of medical development and science,
:22:17. > :22:24.but with that exception, there is nothing to call into question any
:22:24. > :22:27.of the detailed findings or comments made then. Can I warmly
:22:27. > :22:32.welcome the statement by the Attorney General today. He will
:22:32. > :22:37.know, of course, that this will do nothing to discourage the paranoid
:22:37. > :22:41.conspiracists but on the other hand even if an inquiry had gone ahead,
:22:41. > :22:45.they wouldn't have been changed their mind because of the existence
:22:45. > :22:49.of evidence. But talking of paranoid conspiracy theorists where
:22:50. > :22:53.is the member for Lewis when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
:22:53. > :23:00.State for transport told the media last year that the Hutton Inquiry
:23:00. > :23:05.had cut corner, was he speaking on behalf of the Government? I am sure
:23:05. > :23:08.that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. I am in any case,
:23:08. > :23:12.the Government as far as I am concerned doesn't have a position
:23:12. > :23:16.on this matter. I have a position on the matter, based on my review.
:23:17. > :23:22.Large numbers of members of this House I am sure have individual
:23:22. > :23:26.views on the subject across the spectrum and that is their
:23:26. > :23:28.entitlement as it is of anybody in this country. I listened intently
:23:28. > :23:35.to my right honourable friend's statement, particularly the part
:23:35. > :23:38.where he mentioned that he had not received any represent takes from
:23:38. > :23:42.ministerial colleagues but can he please clarify if he has consulted
:23:42. > :23:46.with the Prime Minister in advance of making his decision and coming
:23:46. > :23:50.to the House to make this statement? Most certainly not. It
:23:50. > :23:56.wouldn't be proper for know do so. Nobody has spoken to me about it
:23:56. > :24:00.and that applies right across all my ministerial colleagues. As a
:24:00. > :24:05.member of the then Foreign Affairs committee who took evidence from Dr
:24:05. > :24:09.Kelly, as the member for Leeds neeftd. We have followed
:24:09. > :24:12.proceedings but probably more carefully than other members in
:24:12. > :24:17.this House. Can I thank the Attorney General for his statement.
:24:17. > :24:21.Can I ask him to remind those who remain unsatisfied they have a
:24:21. > :24:24.responsibility to the family of Dr Kelly, and unless they can really
:24:24. > :24:29.sub Stan shait that evidence they should look at the evidence that is
:24:29. > :24:32.in front of them and be satisfied. Well, the evidence is there in the
:24:32. > :24:36.library to see and will be available to the public of course
:24:36. > :24:40.as well, and I hope those who have concerns will take a bit of time
:24:40. > :24:45.and look that the material, and yes, of course, the background of this
:24:45. > :24:49.is a human tragedy, of great pain for the family, and for those
:24:49. > :24:54.reasons, I hope that people will be convinced that this matter should
:24:54. > :25:00.now be laid to rest. What in my view distinguishs this case from
:25:00. > :25:05.the one, the sad case of J ab tan who was died on the 29th Jan 1999
:25:05. > :25:09.where an increst was held ten years later and new evidence did come
:25:09. > :25:13.forward, in this case there does r doesn't seem to be new witnesss or
:25:13. > :25:20.evidence to become available. In relying on the work of Lord
:25:20. > :25:24.Hutton's team and others, I hope my friend will accept that those who
:25:24. > :25:31.believe Lord Hutton came to the wrong conclusion on the main part,
:25:31. > :25:35.can go on having that be leaf and if he used a different form, he
:25:36. > :25:38.would have had a near perfect ending to what was a very bad
:25:38. > :25:46.episode where in my view the previous Government behaved
:25:46. > :25:51.appallingly. Well, I understand the point that my honourable friend
:25:51. > :25:55.makes. I will make my point, that the review I carried out started
:25:55. > :25:59.and was really focused on the issue of cause of death. Because it was
:25:59. > :26:05.the calling into question of the inquiry's findings and the signing
:26:05. > :26:08.of the death certificate, which started, I think, it would be right
:26:08. > :26:12.to say, the spiral of speculation which has run from it. So I focused
:26:12. > :26:16.on that and my conclusions are directed to that. I appreciate
:26:16. > :26:22.there are wider issues which Lord Hutton tried to address, they not
:26:22. > :26:30.matters I have sought to re-open. I know they remain among many
:26:30. > :26:36.controversial. My honourable friend who has left the chamber referred
:26:36. > :26:40.in passing to the book written by the honourable member for Lewis,
:26:40. > :26:42.now members of the Government. Did the Attorney General respond
:26:42. > :26:48.specifically if his judgment to some of the points made in that
:26:48. > :26:56.book, would he care to say briefly what he thought of that book at
:26:56. > :27:02.this moment? I have looked at the book. I think on a number of
:27:02. > :27:07.occasions. The book is partly a critique of the process and the
:27:07. > :27:10.evidential process of the inquiry, and partly a speculation and I
:27:10. > :27:15.don't think has ever been suggested to the contrary it is a speculation
:27:15. > :27:18.of other alternative possibilitys of what might have happened to Dr
:27:18. > :27:23.Kelly. The position is having focused on the evidence, I have
:27:23. > :27:29.come to the conclusions on the evidence, and I hope that as a
:27:29. > :27:36.result of doing so, my honourable friend the member for Lewis may
:27:36. > :27:39.conclude that in fact this was a case of suicide. Can I thank the
:27:39. > :27:45.Attorney General for the clarity that has been shed on this subject.
:27:45. > :27:47.However, there is no doubt that certain bodies will ask for a
:27:47. > :27:52.judicial review now into his decision, would the Government care
:27:52. > :27:58.to undertake not to order costs to be raised against them in the event
:27:58. > :28:01.of that application being unsuccessful? Well, I have to say
:28:01. > :28:06.to my honourable friend, that is a hypothetical question. It is
:28:06. > :28:10.obviously open to individuals or to judicially review me, and my
:28:10. > :28:19.reasonings and decisions, at the moment I simply expressed the hope
:28:19. > :28:24.they won't feel the need to do so. I am grateful. Could the minister
:28:24. > :28:29.set out whether or not he would be content if one of his ministerial
:28:29. > :28:34.colleagues was to dissent with his decision, given the quasi-judicial
:28:34. > :28:40.role he has taken? I am not aware of any ministerial colleague having
:28:40. > :28:44.expressed any view that dissents from my decision. Does the Attorney
:28:44. > :28:46.General understand why when key witnesss were not called during the
:28:46. > :28:51.Hutton Inquiry, the inquiry did not have legal standing and further
:28:51. > :28:54.evidence has come to light since, some including Dr Frost consider
:28:54. > :28:59.that inquiry to have been inadequate, and why doubts will
:28:59. > :29:08.remain about the process followed, if not necessarily the cause of his
:29:08. > :29:12.death? Well, I am aware that doubts were expressed about the process, I
:29:12. > :29:15.would simply say this. I have reviewed the process but above all
:29:15. > :29:19.I have reviewed the evidential conclusions based on the process
:29:19. > :29:22.and reviewed the evidence and the conclusion I have reached is that
:29:22. > :29:29.the process came to the correct conclusion, so on that basis, it
:29:29. > :29:34.seems to me that it achieved what it set out to do and did properly.
:29:34. > :29:38.Can I say to my right honourable friend in the house I came to this
:29:39. > :29:45.statement prepared to be dissatisfyed with what I have heard
:29:45. > :29:48.I. I have spoken to a leading cardio vascular surge, who said to
:29:48. > :29:52.me on several occasion that Dr Kelly could not have died from a
:29:52. > :29:56.slit to the wrist, because that would not cause death. However he
:29:57. > :30:00.was not of course including in that judgment what other chemicals and
:30:00. > :30:06.drugs Dr Kelly might have taken. So, may I commend my friend, from what
:30:06. > :30:11.I have heard today, I think he has conducted an extremely thorough and
:30:11. > :30:14.impartial inquiry, and may say to him, that while I reserve judgment
:30:14. > :30:18.and wish to read what he has put in the library, unless new evidence
:30:18. > :30:21.comes to light I think this matter should have a line drawn under the
:30:21. > :30:28.sand, allow the family to put it behind them. And may I commend my
:30:28. > :30:32.right honourable friend. Well I am most grateful to my honourable
:30:33. > :30:36.friend. I simply say this, I listed in my statement the causes of death
:30:37. > :30:42.that were found and put in the death certificate and that has been
:30:42. > :30:47.reviewed with great detail, and the unequivocal view of Dr Shepherd and
:30:47. > :30:50.Professor Flanagan is those causes are death of entirely correct, and
:30:50. > :30:55.that the combination of those factors as listed is what caused
:30:55. > :31:02.the death of Dr Kelly, and of course the primary cause was the
:31:02. > :31:06.fact he both took slit his wrists and took an overdose. As someone
:31:06. > :31:10.who also harboured doubts about the quality of the process prior to the
:31:11. > :31:15.Attorney General's review, may I welcome the clarity of his
:31:15. > :31:18.statement, and does his statement come to this, that in focusing on
:31:18. > :31:22.the function of a coroner's inquiry which is to look into the cause of
:31:22. > :31:25.death, nothing more, nothing less, to reach a verdict from a one of a
:31:25. > :31:31.range of options that would be available as a matter of law, is he
:31:31. > :31:39.not telling this House, that any inquest would have been driven to a
:31:39. > :31:42.verdict of suicide? I am grateful to my hoif. There is no other
:31:42. > :31:45.possible conclusion on the evidence I have seen, including the material
:31:45. > :31:50.that has been produced on the review that could lead to an
:31:50. > :31:55.inquest coming to any other conclusion whatsoever. Thank you
:31:55. > :32:03.Madame Deputy Speaker. Would the Attorney General agree with me,
:32:03. > :32:08.that his statement today should put to bed some of the outrageous and
:32:08. > :32:18.false speculations that members of our security forces might have
:32:18. > :32:19.
:32:19. > :32:24.murdered Dr Kelly. Well, I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I
:32:24. > :32:28.have to say, that those have struck me as being in the far-fetched area
:32:28. > :32:34.of the spectrum. The fact of the matter is the evidence shows that
:32:34. > :32:38.Dr Kelly committed suicide, he wasn't killed by anyone. I think
:32:38. > :32:42.the Attorney General has done the House a great favour, by coming
:32:42. > :32:46.here and making such a full statement. It should be an example
:32:46. > :32:51.to other ministers. The Attorney General in his statement said that
:32:51. > :32:54.he ha routinely asked to apply to the high court for inquest. So the
:32:54. > :33:03.House can be informed, could the Attorney General tell me how many
:33:03. > :33:07.times he's has gone to the high court? I explained to my honourable
:33:07. > :33:11.friend. Generally speaking I won't do this myself, I will give
:33:12. > :33:16.permission for it to be done. I have done it recentfully a case
:33:16. > :33:19.where a body fb found and never been identified and some
:33:19. > :33:22.considerable time afterwards, and identification became possible, and
:33:22. > :33:27.therefore the inquest had to be re- opened, for the purpose of
:33:27. > :33:31.identifying that the person who died and was long buried was in
:33:31. > :33:37.fact the person who concerned, that is an example if I may give it to
:33:37. > :33:40.him, it is part of my functions to do it. I have to review each such
:33:40. > :33:48.case buzz generally speaking I give my permission to others to do it,
:33:48. > :33:53.and I don't have to take that role I commend him for his statement,
:33:53. > :34:00.and I hope it will draw a line against all these conspiracy
:34:00. > :34:09.theorists. But does that mean the conspiracy theorists came about
:34:09. > :34:15.because of the Government's handling of the original claims?
:34:15. > :34:25.honourable friend is asking me to stray away from the role but from
:34:25. > :34:25.
:34:25. > :34:35.me to the dispatch box, and I will restrain myself from doing so.
:34:35. > :34:35.
:34:35. > :34:40.Thank you very much. I know the hold -- whole house appreciates the
:34:40. > :34:50.detail you have given to a statement. We can move now to the
:34:50. > :34:56.
:34:56. > :35:03.main business. Minister to propose The question is on the order paper.
:35:03. > :35:13.The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the order of
:35:13. > :35:16.
:35:16. > :35:25.today. The first amendment should be taken in the Lords amendments.
:35:25. > :35:33.That is Lords' amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to
:35:33. > :35:40.consider Lords' amendments number two to Number 11. I beg to move
:35:40. > :35:50.that the House agrees with Lords amendment one. A bid to take it
:35:50. > :35:50.
:35:50. > :35:54.This coalition government was shown to be at its most radical and
:35:54. > :35:59.confident. Other like to add to that that the Lords' amendments
:35:59. > :36:09.before us today shows the government at its most open-minded
:36:09. > :36:09.
:36:09. > :36:19.and collaborative. These amendments showed the desire of all sides of
:36:19. > :36:23.the other place to improve the bell. -- Bilic. When it comes to a
:36:23. > :36:26.indicating -- undertaking a sale of the shares of Royal Mail, the
:36:26. > :36:33.government must have the ability to negotiate the bridle at the right
:36:33. > :36:37.time. I know that members have been keen to hear more about our plans
:36:37. > :36:47.for Royal Mail, and in the interests of transparency, I will
:36:47. > :36:49.
:36:49. > :36:56.set out the news -- to new steps. The Government intends to take
:36:56. > :37:06.Royal Mail's pension deficit as preparation for the sale of the
:37:06. > :37:06.
:37:07. > :37:14.current -- company. It will be a relief to the 45,000 members of the
:37:14. > :37:17.pension plan that they rise will be protected sooner rather than later.
:37:17. > :37:22.The universal service must be protected. To do this, Royal Mail
:37:22. > :37:26.is to be on a sustainable commercial footing. The company
:37:26. > :37:31.currently has around �1.7 billion deficit with the government. We
:37:31. > :37:36.need to restructure the company's balance sheet in due course, in
:37:36. > :37:43.order to put Royal Mail on its sustainable commercial footing. We
:37:43. > :37:51.will need to relief the debt. We will need a European Commission
:37:51. > :37:55.help. We have already begun negotiations with the commission. I
:37:55. > :38:03.hope the process will be completed by 20th March 12. We will discuss
:38:03. > :38:10.the amendments to a par three of the bell later wrong, but of course,
:38:11. > :38:19.it is another step. I would like to assure Honourable Members that work
:38:19. > :38:29.to establish this is under way. In particularly, of com, the new
:38:29. > :38:29.
:38:29. > :38:39.I hope the update is helpful. I would commend the opposition
:38:39. > :38:44.
:38:44. > :38:48.benches for pushing us on given a our our commitment to transparency.
:38:48. > :38:52.Clause 2 of the Bill already commits the government to report to
:38:52. > :38:57.Parliament when a decision to dispose of shares has been made.
:38:57. > :39:03.And men and one adds three new requirements to that report. First,
:39:03. > :39:07.it must include the objective for the sale, second, it must include
:39:07. > :39:17.details of the expected commercial relationship between Royal Mail and
:39:17. > :39:18.
:39:18. > :39:25.Post Office Ltd following the disposal of shares. The move report
:39:25. > :39:32.must include details of any scheme. As I have previously stated, I will
:39:32. > :39:39.a short that shares will be placed from the Times -- from the time of
:39:39. > :39:45.a brave first sale. The second amendment is about the commercial
:39:45. > :39:49.relationship after the cells. It is a key concern but is held by many
:39:49. > :39:54.in this House. After much debate in this House and elsewhere, I can
:39:54. > :40:00.still see no reason why the Scots despite strong commercial
:40:00. > :40:03.relationship should weakened after two companies have been separated.
:40:03. > :40:07.The senior management at Royal Mail have been clear that this
:40:07. > :40:13.relationship will continue. That is why the chairman of Royal Mail felt
:40:14. > :40:19.able to say to the Bill committee that prior to the shares sale, they
:40:19. > :40:24.will put in place a contract for the longest time legally possible.
:40:24. > :40:27.I am happy to go on record to say that the government as sole
:40:27. > :40:32.shareholder will ensure that the two companies fulfil this
:40:32. > :40:35.commitment. The negotiation of that contract is Riley a commercial
:40:35. > :40:41.matter for the two companies and not a matter for government or
:40:41. > :40:46.legislation. Lords are men and one will insure that prior to sex --
:40:46. > :40:56.share of sales in Royal Mail, Parliament will have a snapshot
:40:56. > :41:00.
:41:00. > :41:06.They must provide information each and every year. Too briefly touched
:41:06. > :41:09.on Lords amendment 10, this is a technical amendment to clarify the
:41:09. > :41:16.enforcement powers on the Post Office their work. They can be no
:41:16. > :41:19.doubt that the future of this iconic British institution is of
:41:19. > :41:23.enormous importance to member notes of this House and the other place.
:41:23. > :41:33.I think this is a radical and exciting proposal, and one
:41:33. > :41:34.
:41:34. > :41:41.supported by all parties. However, I acknowledge that our position
:41:41. > :41:47.means we cannot be as explicit now has we would like as to what the
:41:47. > :41:50.mutual will the like. Post Office UK have published a report on their
:41:50. > :41:54.options for the neutral. That will go through public consultation in
:41:54. > :42:01.due course. Until the conclusion of that process, the government
:42:01. > :42:05.remains open to all views. We will not dictate a form of -- the form
:42:05. > :42:10.that mutualisation will take. In order for both houses to have
:42:10. > :42:16.greater visibility over what the two companies will look like, we
:42:16. > :42:26.have introduced more Lords amendments. Furthermore, these
:42:26. > :42:28.
:42:28. > :42:32.amendments will ensure that it must be laid brighter at the boat, so
:42:32. > :42:36.ministers will have detailed information on mutualisation before.
:42:36. > :42:41.Let me be clear that these plans will be developed from the bottom
:42:41. > :42:50.up, and in full consultation with all of the Post Office's major
:42:50. > :42:53.shareholders. The last amendment, Lords amendment 11, addresses an
:42:53. > :42:59.issue that is close to the hearts of many members. My Honourable
:42:59. > :43:05.Friend the business secretary opened the debate. He talked about
:43:05. > :43:15.his country as a pioneer of postal services in the 19th century. It
:43:15. > :43:17.
:43:17. > :43:23.prowled and -- its proud history is something that we want to protect.
:43:23. > :43:27.Having visited the British postal or cut myself, I can say that it
:43:27. > :43:33.provides a fascinating record of our postal heritage, and it is
:43:33. > :43:39.deserving of the protection but lot of them and 116 to provide. We are
:43:39. > :43:48.keen to give the house the benefit of a visit to the museum, and give
:43:48. > :43:53.the lessons that I learned there. The post -- the first post boxes
:43:53. > :43:58.were green, Ben Brown, and then be shades of red but we see now. Other
:43:58. > :44:02.like to conclude by saying that the amendments in this group respond to
:44:02. > :44:06.a number of concerns that have been raised in both this House and the
:44:06. > :44:10.other place. Basic to get more information about the implication
:44:10. > :44:15.of the sale of shares, up more control over Post Office
:44:15. > :44:23.mutualisation, and greater transparency over Royal Mail's
:44:23. > :44:33.heritage activities. I believe these are cross-party concerns and
:44:33. > :44:35.
:44:36. > :44:41.I urge the House to agree them. question... It is a our intention
:44:41. > :44:44.to be a constructive opposition, but even though we should be
:44:44. > :44:49.welcoming some of the eminences afternoon, particularly where they
:44:49. > :44:53.reflect to some degree the position that we ourselves have taken, we
:44:53. > :44:59.remain totally opposed to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to
:45:00. > :45:05.sell off the Royal Mail 100 % to private enterprise. A repeat that.
:45:05. > :45:14.We are remaining 100 % totally opposed to the main purpose of the
:45:14. > :45:18.Bill, which is the sell-off of the Royal Mail. We want to keep the
:45:18. > :45:26.Royal Mail in majority public ownership. Selling off the Royal
:45:26. > :45:34.Mail into one of % public ownership, means that it will not be through
:45:34. > :45:42.the same regulatory regime. I take your advice on the matter. I think
:45:42. > :45:48.the Honourable Lady should stick to the amendments on the paper. If I
:45:48. > :45:53.now turn to a Lords amendment No. 1. It concerns the sell-off of the
:45:53. > :46:00.Royal Mile and the splitting of the Royal Mail group into a privately
:46:00. > :46:05.owned postal service. It is against that background that we need to
:46:05. > :46:09.look at and then a number one. It requires that when the secretary of
:46:09. > :46:12.state lays before Parliament a report on the disposal of the raw
:46:12. > :46:17.male company, they should include information about the expected
:46:17. > :46:21.commercial relationship between the company in question and any post
:46:21. > :46:25.office company. We do genera -- genuinely welcome such information
:46:25. > :46:29.in the bow report, but no one should be any -- under any illusion
:46:29. > :46:35.that this in any way constitutes a business agreement between the
:46:35. > :46:38.Royal Mail and the Post Office network. Hooper in his report said
:46:39. > :46:47.they should be a long-term relationship between the two
:46:47. > :46:57.companies. The National Federation of supposed market has -- suppose
:46:57. > :47:09.
:47:09. > :47:14.martyrs has asked for minimum of 10 With the very greatest respect,
:47:14. > :47:18.continuing to use the post office network, it is no good having fine
:47:18. > :47:25.words. These find work need to translate into a proper bankable
:47:25. > :47:28.contract. Other countries manage to put it into their legislation, but
:47:28. > :47:35.there is an intense obstinacy on the part of the garment, which has
:47:35. > :47:41.set itself against the legislation. A profit-hungry privatised Royal
:47:41. > :47:51.Mail will be looking to cut costs and maximise profits. This could be
:47:51. > :47:52.
:47:52. > :48:00.looking to borrow now drawing up legislation for services other than
:48:00. > :48:04.the own network. -- their own network. That agreement could be
:48:04. > :48:14.fought much reduced service than that currently provided. It could
:48:14. > :48:14.
:48:14. > :48:20.be more than just eight... You could take your parcels to hand
:48:20. > :48:25.them over what other post offices will not offer postal services at
:48:25. > :48:30.all. It sounds like a children's riddle. When is a post office not a
:48:30. > :48:37.post office? It would not be a joking matter for our post office
:48:37. > :48:41.network and the public you want to use those services. Any decision by
:48:41. > :48:44.a privatised Royal Mail to reduce the number of post offices will
:48:44. > :48:49.have a catastrophic effect on the Post Office network, and will
:48:49. > :48:54.threaten the viability of any existence of the Royal Mail chose
:48:54. > :49:00.not used. It is regrettable but the government has chosen not so review
:49:00. > :49:07.the chosen Bill, and this amendment requiring asked a report in such an
:49:07. > :49:13.agreement is the nearest they are prepared to get. This does
:49:13. > :49:17.nevertheless must include the commercial relationship with raw
:49:17. > :49:26.male company and any post of his company, and banned -- for that
:49:26. > :49:30.Turning to the part of the Lords amendment number one dealing with
:49:30. > :49:35.shares. We accept the principle of employee shares and appreciate the
:49:36. > :49:39.benefits such schemes can bring, but in in instance employees need
:49:39. > :49:43.to know more about how any such scheme would work. We have pressed
:49:43. > :49:46.for greater detail about scheme, so we welcome the proposal in this and
:49:46. > :49:51.menment that before the disposal of the Royal Mail take place, there
:49:51. > :49:54.will be a report to Parliament, which will set out the detail of
:49:54. > :49:58.the proposals for an employee share scheme. In committee we pointed out
:49:58. > :50:02.ha the bill as it stands only requires employee shares to be
:50:03. > :50:08.offered when the last crown share in the Royal Mail has been soed. We
:50:08. > :50:13.argued the case for a trigger that kicks in when the first shares are
:50:13. > :50:16.sold and the minister for postal services has suggested in fact the
:50:16. > :50:20.Government would make available some employee shares when the first
:50:20. > :50:24.disposal is made, so I therefore very much welcome his confirmation
:50:24. > :50:30.of that point today. So that employees will not have to wait
:50:30. > :50:33.until the last crown share is sold before being able to apply for
:50:33. > :50:36.employee shares. The remain however, a number of unanswered questions,
:50:36. > :50:41.which I would hope that perhaps the minister could give us some
:50:41. > :50:47.guidance on today. Could he tell us anything about whether shares would
:50:47. > :50:50.be held on an equal basis with equal voting rights and for each
:50:50. > :50:54.shareholder or would shom shareholders be more equal than
:50:54. > :50:58.others? In committee we made the case for a proportion larger than o
:50:58. > :51:02.10% of the shares to be in the employee share scheme. We have
:51:02. > :51:07.suggested up to 20%. This case is backed by specialist bodies which
:51:07. > :51:10.gave evidence to the committee, including the employee ownership
:51:10. > :51:15.association, and IFS Proshare. Is there any chance the Government
:51:15. > :51:19.might consider this? We would like to have greater certainty about
:51:19. > :51:23.theel jilt criteria, who would be entitled to share op unions and
:51:23. > :51:26.what would it mean in probg -- practise. -- options. Would the
:51:26. > :51:30.employees backbench able to influence the direction of the
:51:30. > :51:34.company to some extent, albeit from a minority position? In particular
:51:34. > :51:37.what is to prevent shares going to employees once day and being sold
:51:37. > :51:43.within a year or two? We know of previous examples where this has
:51:43. > :51:46.happen and shares have been sold on very rapidly to big institutions,
:51:46. > :51:49.what mechanisms is the Government considering to prevent this happen
:51:49. > :51:53.something we hope to hear from the minister the extent of the detail
:51:53. > :51:57.the Government intend to report, and how much time the Government
:51:58. > :52:04.would provide for Parliament to consider the report. Turning to
:52:04. > :52:08.Lords amendments two to eight. We welcome these which give Parliament
:52:08. > :52:12.increased control over the mutualisation of a Post Office
:52:12. > :52:16.company. 2-4 would subject the disposal of the Crown's interest to
:52:16. > :52:19.a relevant mew church to the affirmtive resolution procedure.
:52:19. > :52:25.This requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order
:52:25. > :52:29.before Parliament and for it to be approved by both Houses. Lords
:52:29. > :52:33.amendment five to eight require the Secretary of State to lay a report
:52:33. > :52:36.before Parliament before transfer of shares or share rights in Post
:52:36. > :52:40.Office company. This is an improvement on the original
:52:40. > :52:44.requirement which was to lay a report after any direction for the
:52:44. > :52:48.disposal of the Crown's interest in a Post Office company to a relevant
:52:48. > :52:51.mew church had been made. These amendments strengthen the
:52:52. > :52:55.opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any proposals for the
:52:55. > :53:00.mutualisation of the Post Office. This is important, because there
:53:00. > :53:05.are some considerable challenges to be faced, before there can be any
:53:05. > :53:13.mutualisation of the Post Office. We welcome the work done and
:53:13. > :53:16.detailed in the recently produced report. Which includes information
:53:16. > :53:21.on various mutual option, on the ownership and governance of a
:53:21. > :53:24.potential muech you'll. But we recognise the real challenge is to
:53:25. > :53:28.make the Post Office network viable. -- mutual. For their rhetoric we
:53:28. > :53:32.are concerned about the Government's failure to guarantee
:53:32. > :53:35.business for the Post Office network. For mutualisation to be a
:53:35. > :53:40.success we need to see a serious viable business plan for the
:53:40. > :53:43.network. We are fully aware of the Government's plans to spend money
:53:43. > :53:48.on the Post Office network but their document securing the network
:53:48. > :53:52.in the digital age does not address the issue of how to generate new
:53:52. > :53:54.streams of business for the Post Office network. If we divide Post
:53:55. > :53:58.Office income into three main categories, Royal Mail business,
:53:58. > :54:02.Government business and other commercial business, the Government
:54:02. > :54:06.has failed to provide guarantees of business in any of these categories.
:54:06. > :54:09.I have just explained how the lack of an interbusiness agreement
:54:09. > :54:14.between a privatised Royal Mail and Post Office network could result in
:54:14. > :54:18.the loss of all or part of Royal Mail business from the Post Office.
:54:18. > :54:20.As for the businesses department claim to be making the Post Office
:54:20. > :54:24.a front office for Government business, this message does not
:54:24. > :54:30.seem to be getting across to other Government departments. We have
:54:30. > :54:34.just seen the DWP award the contract for benefit cheques to a
:54:34. > :54:37.rival organisation. And apart from a couple of pilot projects there
:54:37. > :54:41.has been little progress on the suggestions for more Government
:54:41. > :54:45.business made in a letter from the National Federation of sub-
:54:45. > :54:49.postmasters to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 23rd
:54:49. > :54:53.September last year. At the moment, the post bank promised in the
:54:53. > :54:58.Liberal Democrat manifesto and mentioned in the coalition
:54:58. > :55:02.agreement looks like another broken promise after Labour laid the
:55:02. > :55:06.foundation of this before we left Government. Nor is there any sign
:55:06. > :55:10.of any other substantial new commercial business for the Post
:55:10. > :55:15.Office network. This complete failure to introduce new streams of
:55:15. > :55:18.business calls into question The Wiz dom of the way that the 1.3
:55:18. > :55:22.billion of tax payers' money allocated to the Post Office is
:55:22. > :55:26.being used. With the subsidy for running the Post Office and the
:55:26. > :55:30.provision of a few new counters seemingly accounting for the lion's
:55:30. > :55:34.share of the funds. It begs the question of what will happen in
:55:34. > :55:37.2015, when the subsidy runs out. The Government has stated that it
:55:37. > :55:40.wishes to reduce the Government subsidy, but if there are no new
:55:40. > :55:44.streams of Government business to make the network more viable then
:55:44. > :55:48.the Post Office network will be in serious trouble, so returning to
:55:48. > :55:54.Lords amendments two to eight. The fact they improve the opportunity
:55:54. > :55:57.for Parliamentary scrutiny means we shall be supporting them. Moving on
:55:57. > :56:01.now to Lords amendments nine and ten which clarifys in the Post
:56:01. > :56:05.Office companies annual report to the Secretary of State on the Post
:56:05. > :56:09.Office network details must be included of the Post Offices
:56:09. > :56:13.services provided under arrangement between a company and the universal
:56:13. > :56:17.service provider. We welcome any amendments which increase clarity
:56:17. > :56:21.and the opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny. Turning now
:56:21. > :56:24.then to Lords amendment 11, this would require the Royal Mail to
:56:24. > :56:28.report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities in relation
:56:28. > :56:31.to the British postal museum collection and the Royal Mail
:56:31. > :56:36.archive. And the clause would require the Secretary of State to
:56:36. > :56:41.lay the report before Parliament. At committee stage we sought
:56:41. > :56:45.amendment to ensure the work of the BPMA would continue following the
:56:45. > :56:48.passage of the bill and the heritage cared for the cur rays of
:56:48. > :56:53.the the museum could be protected. This needs to be strengthened
:56:53. > :56:57.because the bill moves us grey a situation in which there is only
:56:57. > :57:02.one company, Royal Mail, that is owned by the Government and is
:57:02. > :57:06.responsible for supporting and safeguarding the postal heritage.
:57:06. > :57:14.There will be two companys with different ownership models. There
:57:14. > :57:18.will be the potential for a company to be taken ever perhaps by foreign
:57:18. > :57:22.postal organisations. I do not feel that the Lords amendment before us
:57:22. > :57:29.is as strong as that which we originally proposed. Nevertheless,
:57:30. > :57:34.anything that we can do to protect our he targe is to be welcomed.
:57:34. > :57:40.heritage. The British postal museum is the leading resource for British
:57:40. > :57:43.postal heritage. It cares for the records of more than 400 yiers,
:57:43. > :57:46.including stamp, design, photography staff records and
:57:46. > :57:50.vehicles. It is the custodian of two internationally significant
:57:50. > :57:56.collection, namely the Royal Mail archive, and the collection of the
:57:56. > :58:00.former national Postal museum. So together, the museum and the
:58:00. > :58:03.archive collections form a unique record of a national institution
:58:03. > :58:07.and offer a fascinating perspective on the history of British society