09/06/2011 House of Commons

to summon the Secretary of State to give evidence to his committee

rather than summon him to the floor of the House. Order, statement of

the Attorney-General. With permission I would like to

make a statement about the death of Dr David Kelly and whether an

application should be made by me to the High Court for an inquest to be

held into his death. Mr Speaker, as a law officer of the Crown I am

asked to consider such applications as part of my public interest roll.

It is in that role I make this statement today. I wouldn't

normally present the results of my considerations so publicly, but

given the interest in this case has attracted, both from members of the

House and in the media, I think it is right this House has the chance

to consider my conclusions and ask any questions. The House will be

worth Dr Kelly was a distinguished Government scientist who became one

of the cheap weapons inspectors in Iraq on behalf of the United

Nations special commissions. From 1991, he was deeply involved in

investigating the biological warfare programme of the Iraqi

regime. Dr Kelly built up a high reputation as a weapons inspector,

not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. Against the

background of allegations of information having been leaked to

the media, on Thursday 10th July 2003, both the foreign affairs

committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee requested Dr

Kelly to appear before them to give evidence. Dr Kelly subsequently

gave evidence to the foreign affairs committee in a hearing

televise to the public on 15th July and gave evidence to the

Intelligence and Security Committee in a private hearing on 16th July.

In the afternoon of the following day he left his home to take a walk.

By the late evening he had not returned and his family contacted

the police. A search was commenced and resulted in his body being

found it on the morning of the 18th July in woodland on Harrow downhill,

Oxfordshire. It appeared he had taken his own life by cutting his

wrists. Thames Valley Police and nevertheless, commenced an

investigation into the case as a potential homicide. That day, the

then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer set up an inquiry chaired by Lord

Hutton to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death

of Dr Kelly. The Oxfordshire coroner also opened an inquest into

the death as he was obliged to do. In August, the Lord Chancellor

exercised his powers under the Coroners Act 1988, transferring the

functions of the inquest to the inquiry. The inquest was adjourned

on 14th August after sending a registrar a certificate of death in

which the causes were stated to be, first haemorrhage and incised wombs

to the left wrist. Secondly, Coproxamol injection and coronary

artery atherosclerosis. When the Hutton Inquiry reported in January

2004, it confirmed the causes of death as they appeared in the death

certificate. There after on 16th March 2004, the coroner indicated

there was no basis or need to resume the inquest and its

functions were accordingly, at an end. Because of the interest and

the political issues that form the backdrop to Dr Kelly's death, a

significant number of people have raised concerns about his death and

the process used to investigate it. They have called for a new inquest

At this stage, only the High Court can call for an inquest, and only

with my consent. I was asked last year to make such an application,

but since then, I have been provided a large amount of

information for an inquest. I have taken -- I am grateful for all

those who have taken the time to put that together. I have to

exercise a non-political role as guardian of the public inquest.

Recognising the importance of the matter, I have sought the help of

independent experts to look at the information supplied to me. This

has involved help from Dr Richard Shepherd, a and Doc Joe Flanagan. I

have also considered the views of Lord Hutton, potent Nicholas Hunt

to be carried out the initial investigation, and I have also been

greatly assisted by officers from Thames Valley Police. I would like

to place my thanks with all those who helped, and those of the

Attorney-General's office who have held me. Having given all the

evidence the -- there has been given to me, I'm an convinced he

took his own life. There has not been any conspiracy or cover-up. No

purpose would be served by making an application to the High Court.

Indeed, I have no reason the -- reason for doing so. There is no

possibility that at an inquest, a verdict other than suicide would be

returned. It is not possible in that short time I have now to give

the reasons. I have placed in the library of both houses today a more

detailed statement of my own reasons, copied of -- copies of the

independent report a commission, the responses of Lord Hutton and

others, and a schedule, a 60 page list, which covers most if not all

of the arguments that have been put any, and might responses to that

argument. -- those arguments. The suggestion that David Kelly not

taking his own lives, is not a positive observation, but a

criticism of the inquiry. It began with the queues of a number of

doctors, experts in their own areas, but not qualified as forensic

pathologist, he said that David Kelly could not have died with the

wins prescribed. They did not have access to the material before

making their own arguments. One such doubt had been created, those

who believe Dr Kelly was murdered but far matters but were not

followed up by the police and other issues that might have been

considered suspicious. Much has been made, for example, at the

position at which Dr Kelly's body was found. All of the witnesses,

bar two, gave evidence that Dr Kelly was lying on his back. Two

witnesses who found the body found but he was propped against the tree.

Lord Hutton recognised the honest witnesses will nevertheless

recalled the same at seeing differences -- the same thing

This is not a criticism of that witness. But this minor compared --

contradiction gave the impression that the body should have been

moved. For what purpose? This has proved a fertile ground for in

medicine as sieve speculation to takeover. All the evidence

presented at the time, and the detailed review I have taken,

supports the the finding of that Dr Carey was found the way -- died the

way he was found. There was no cover-up or conspiracy whatsoever.

My conclusions and decisions are entirely my own, based on -- based

on my assessment. I have not received any representation from

the Prime Minister or any other ministerial colleague on the matter.

The material is in the library for all to consider. Anyone considering

this with an open mind, no matter what their previous misgivings,

will find it to -- convincing. I pass my condolences to Dr David

Kelly's family, not just for their loss, but to have to do with the

publicity for such a long time. They have held that load with such

dignity. It will always be important -- in always be

impossible not to satisfy everyone. I had to draw a line under the

matter. I thank the Right Honourable and learned Gentleman

for his insight and the reason for his decision. Having been afforded

the opportunity to read to Documentation, the shadow law

officers are grateful for the chance to review the documents,

from which we derive confidence that the Attorney General has David

given himself fully to the evidence. We applaud the quality of the

document produced. The allegations have been taken seriously and

inquired into, and I would like to commend the way the Attorney

General has handled this issue, which will give the members of the

Lord Hutton was satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life, and he was

further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of

Dr Kelly. The Attorney-General's decision asserts the find of the

toxicology reports, and the Ministry of Justice last October.

The opposition accepts the Attorney General's decision today on the

basis that he has carefully and clearly outlined his detailed

reasons to not apply it for the High Court for an investigation

into Dr Kelly's death, in the lack of evidence that Dr Carey did not

commit suicide. We are grateful for the document as statements which

will be placed in the lobbies of boast houses. Nonetheless, I am

aware that few in this House will yet have had the advantage of

perusing the documents. I wonder whether the Attorney General will

provide, for members of this House and members of their public who

listen to this statement but may not peruse the statement in the

library, confirmation that he is satisfied the evidential burden of

proof beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Bob -- Doctor Kelly

has been met. -- the investigation into the death. Finally, I would

like to extend my sincere sympathy to the Kerry family for their

tragic loss and the extensive publicity that it has caused.

most grateful for the horrible lady for her words. A sure they would be

repeated by all those who had been involved in preparing this case.

She raised a number of important points that I would do my best to

answer. So far as finality is concerned, I hope for the sake of

all concerned that this will produce finality, but it is

absolutely right that in -- at some point in the future, some new and

compelling evidence would come to light that suggested that there

would be something wrong in the original inquiries, then in the

case of any inquiry, but it could be looked at again. There is no bar

as a result of this statement I have made today. Secondly, she

asked me if I could just explain a little bit about my legal powers.

May I first of all say that the background to this is that the

inquest process was raised originally by a decision by Lord

Falconer to have an inquiry pursued. That decision was never challenged

at the time. Some people might have done if they wanted to, but there

was nothing improper about a decision at the time. It marked the

seriousness with which Lord Falconer took the decision at the

time. It could have gone further in its scope than an inquest,

particularly looking at some of the surrounding circumstances, which an

inquest could do. The subject of this review arose from the

representation of doctors who indicated that they thought that

the lack of certainty as to the cause of death specifically was

such that I could exercise my powers under section 13 to make an

application to the court for the inquest to take place. I think we

have to face up to the fact that no inquest had been taking place. It

had been adjourned without being completed. I do not want to get

involved in legal technicalities, but they are of a technical nature.

I approached this matter if -- on the basis that if there was

evidential basis to call into question the inquiry's findings

into the cause of death, I did make such an abdication, no matter what

the technical difficulties might be, because Arbor be minded to allow

this investigation -- this situation to be reinvestigated? I

have looked at this very carefully. They were being made by sensible

and reasonable people. I am grateful to them for bringing the

problems forward. That is the basis on which I operated, but having

reviewed all the evidence, as she has seen from the schedule, which I

hope will be very helpful to run this, the evidence is overwhelming

that this was a tragic case of suicide. And it is suicide that

caused Dr Kelly's death, and for the medical reasons there were

correctly identified at the time. As a member of the foreign affairs

committee who took evidence from Dr Kelly at the -- before his death, I

have no doubt that he committed suicide. I have known the Attorney-

General for many years, and I know that he would have done a thorough

and diligent job. Will he accept that the evidence is clear, and it

is time to bring closer to this matter and move on? I certainly

think the evidence is clear, and I also think that there is no

evidence to the contrary. That is the point that I think will be

quite clear from anyone who goes to the schedule. Every question that

was raised with me, I found in my mind, I was able to give birth at

least satisfactory of -- answers, all of which led to the suicide

verdict. I agree with my friend. I hope that we will be able to draw a

line under it. It is a matter of huge public concern, and legitimate

public concern for a whole variety of reasons, giving but it is taken

-- taking place in a difficult political environment. I think the

review and the findings are very clear cut. I was not having to do a

balancing decision. Having reviewed all the evidence, the original

I can congratulate the Attorney General on the clarity of his

statement and the decision he has taken, quite rightly on the basis

of the scientific evidence that I have read. Will he confirm that in

the bundle of papers that he has placed in the library, the detailed

scientific reports are included in that, including to those which he

referred from Richard Shepherd and Robert Flanagan. Will he ensure if

this isn't already in the bundle, that part of that includes an

interpretation written by the scientists, for lay people to

understand, so that some of the conspiracy theories don't develop

again. Well, the honourable gentleman will have to be the best

judge. Yes, Professor Flanagan and Dr Shepherd's report also both be

in the library of the House. I must say I think they are written in

plain English. Clearly they are also medically based and that is

inevitable. The schedule, I have used that material, and other

material, to seek to set it out perhaps in slightly plainer terms.

About each matter, but I think it is readily come hen is -- come

hencable and I hope it will help and inform members of public as

well as the House. Will the attorney note when I questioned Dr

Kelly two days before he died, I formed the view that a very

distinguished public servant was deeply distressed, by the situation

in which he had placed himself, but although I am wholly unpersuaded by

any of the theories that have been put forward to suicide, can the

attorney spell out what he thinks would be lost by allowing the

process of inquiry to be completed by an inquest? Well, the first

problem, I have to say to my right honourable friend is that there is

no basis on which the high court could possibly order and inquest,

so in my judgment I were to go the high court and make an application

it would be dismissed with a certain amount of irritation,

because there has to be an evidential basis on which such an

application can be made. We have also had an inquiry, and I have to

say, and it is a point I make in the schedule, that this suggestion

that the inquiry was in some way inferior to an inquest, and wasn't

able to look at some of the things which an inquest could have looked

at, really doesn't bear any reasoned either logical or legal

examination. So, in practical terms the inquest has already taken place,

or something tantamount and equivalent to an inquest. On top of

that, we now have a review, a review carried out with the

knowledge of public anxiety, by eminent professionals, who have

looked specifically at the anxietys that have been raised. Either by

the memorialistsor or others and have I had the original findings

were correct. There was one exception to that I should make the

point and that was the timing of death was reviewed, because a

conclusion was reached that the tables that had been used by the

pathologist at the time, through no fault of that pa pathologist were

not a accurate. This is a question of medical development and science,

but with that exception, there is nothing to call into question any

of the detailed findings or comments made then. Can I warmly

welcome the statement by the Attorney General today. He will

know, of course, that this will do nothing to discourage the paranoid

conspiracists but on the other hand even if an inquiry had gone ahead,

they wouldn't have been changed their mind because of the existence

of evidence. But talking of paranoid conspiracy theorists where

is the member for Lewis when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for transport told the media last year that the Hutton Inquiry

had cut corner, was he speaking on behalf of the Government? I am sure

that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. I am in any case,

the Government as far as I am concerned doesn't have a position

on this matter. I have a position on the matter, based on my review.

Large numbers of members of this House I am sure have individual

views on the subject across the spectrum and that is their

entitlement as it is of anybody in this country. I listened intently

to my right honourable friend's statement, particularly the part

where he mentioned that he had not received any represent takes from

ministerial colleagues but can he please clarify if he has consulted

with the Prime Minister in advance of making his decision and coming

to the House to make this statement? Most certainly not. It

wouldn't be proper for know do so. Nobody has spoken to me about it

and that applies right across all my ministerial colleagues. As a

member of the then Foreign Affairs committee who took evidence from Dr

Kelly, as the member for Leeds neeftd. We have followed

proceedings but probably more carefully than other members in

this House. Can I thank the Attorney General for his statement.

Can I ask him to remind those who remain unsatisfied they have a

responsibility to the family of Dr Kelly, and unless they can really

sub Stan shait that evidence they should look at the evidence that is

in front of them and be satisfied. Well, the evidence is there in the

library to see and will be available to the public of course

as well, and I hope those who have concerns will take a bit of time

and look that the material, and yes, of course, the background of this

is a human tragedy, of great pain for the family, and for those

reasons, I hope that people will be convinced that this matter should

now be laid to rest. What in my view distinguishs this case from

the one, the sad case of J ab tan who was died on the 29th Jan 1999

where an increst was held ten years later and new evidence did come

forward, in this case there does r doesn't seem to be new witnesss or

evidence to become available. In relying on the work of Lord

Hutton's team and others, I hope my friend will accept that those who

believe Lord Hutton came to the wrong conclusion on the main part,

can go on having that be leaf and if he used a different form, he

would have had a near perfect ending to what was a very bad

episode where in my view the previous Government behaved

appallingly. Well, I understand the point that my honourable friend

makes. I will make my point, that the review I carried out started

and was really focused on the issue of cause of death. Because it was

the calling into question of the inquiry's findings and the signing

of the death certificate, which started, I think, it would be right

to say, the spiral of speculation which has run from it. So I focused

on that and my conclusions are directed to that. I appreciate

there are wider issues which Lord Hutton tried to address, they not

matters I have sought to re-open. I know they remain among many

controversial. My honourable friend who has left the chamber referred

in passing to the book written by the honourable member for Lewis,

now members of the Government. Did the Attorney General respond

specifically if his judgment to some of the points made in that

book, would he care to say briefly what he thought of that book at

this moment? I have looked at the book. I think on a number of

occasions. The book is partly a critique of the process and the

evidential process of the inquiry, and partly a speculation and I

don't think has ever been suggested to the contrary it is a speculation

of other alternative possibilitys of what might have happened to Dr

Kelly. The position is having focused on the evidence, I have

come to the conclusions on the evidence, and I hope that as a

result of doing so, my honourable friend the member for Lewis may

conclude that in fact this was a case of suicide. Can I thank the

Attorney General for the clarity that has been shed on this subject.

However, there is no doubt that certain bodies will ask for a

judicial review now into his decision, would the Government care

to undertake not to order costs to be raised against them in the event

of that application being unsuccessful? Well, I have to say

to my honourable friend, that is a hypothetical question. It is

obviously open to individuals or to judicially review me, and my

reasonings and decisions, at the moment I simply expressed the hope

they won't feel the need to do so. I am grateful. Could the minister

set out whether or not he would be content if one of his ministerial

colleagues was to dissent with his decision, given the quasi-judicial

role he has taken? I am not aware of any ministerial colleague having

expressed any view that dissents from my decision. Does the Attorney

General understand why when key witnesss were not called during the

Hutton Inquiry, the inquiry did not have legal standing and further

evidence has come to light since, some including Dr Frost consider

that inquiry to have been inadequate, and why doubts will

remain about the process followed, if not necessarily the cause of his

death? Well, I am aware that doubts were expressed about the process, I

would simply say this. I have reviewed the process but above all

I have reviewed the evidential conclusions based on the process

and reviewed the evidence and the conclusion I have reached is that

the process came to the correct conclusion, so on that basis, it

seems to me that it achieved what it set out to do and did properly.

Can I say to my right honourable friend in the house I came to this

statement prepared to be dissatisfyed with what I have heard

I. I have spoken to a leading cardio vascular surge, who said to

me on several occasion that Dr Kelly could not have died from a

slit to the wrist, because that would not cause death. However he

was not of course including in that judgment what other chemicals and

drugs Dr Kelly might have taken. So, may I commend my friend, from what

I have heard today, I think he has conducted an extremely thorough and

impartial inquiry, and may say to him, that while I reserve judgment

and wish to read what he has put in the library, unless new evidence

comes to light I think this matter should have a line drawn under the

sand, allow the family to put it behind them. And may I commend my

right honourable friend. Well I am most grateful to my honourable

friend. I simply say this, I listed in my statement the causes of death

that were found and put in the death certificate and that has been

reviewed with great detail, and the unequivocal view of Dr Shepherd and

Professor Flanagan is those causes are death of entirely correct, and

that the combination of those factors as listed is what caused

the death of Dr Kelly, and of course the primary cause was the

fact he both took slit his wrists and took an overdose. As someone

who also harboured doubts about the quality of the process prior to the

Attorney General's review, may I welcome the clarity of his

statement, and does his statement come to this, that in focusing on

the function of a coroner's inquiry which is to look into the cause of

death, nothing more, nothing less, to reach a verdict from a one of a

range of options that would be available as a matter of law, is he

not telling this House, that any inquest would have been driven to a

verdict of suicide? I am grateful to my hoif. There is no other

possible conclusion on the evidence I have seen, including the material

that has been produced on the review that could lead to an

inquest coming to any other conclusion whatsoever. Thank you

Madame Deputy Speaker. Would the Attorney General agree with me,

that his statement today should put to bed some of the outrageous and

false speculations that members of our security forces might have

murdered Dr Kelly. Well, I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I

have to say, that those have struck me as being in the far-fetched area

of the spectrum. The fact of the matter is the evidence shows that

Dr Kelly committed suicide, he wasn't killed by anyone. I think

the Attorney General has done the House a great favour, by coming

here and making such a full statement. It should be an example

to other ministers. The Attorney General in his statement said that

he ha routinely asked to apply to the high court for inquest. So the

House can be informed, could the Attorney General tell me how many

times he's has gone to the high court? I explained to my honourable

friend. Generally speaking I won't do this myself, I will give

permission for it to be done. I have done it recentfully a case

where a body fb found and never been identified and some

considerable time afterwards, and identification became possible, and

therefore the inquest had to be re- opened, for the purpose of

identifying that the person who died and was long buried was in

fact the person who concerned, that is an example if I may give it to

him, it is part of my functions to do it. I have to review each such

case buzz generally speaking I give my permission to others to do it,

and I don't have to take that role I commend him for his statement,

and I hope it will draw a line against all these conspiracy

theorists. But does that mean the conspiracy theorists came about

because of the Government's handling of the original claims?

honourable friend is asking me to stray away from the role but from

me to the dispatch box, and I will restrain myself from doing so.

Thank you very much. I know the hold -- whole house appreciates the

detail you have given to a statement. We can move now to the

main business. Minister to propose The question is on the order paper.

The ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the order of

today. The first amendment should be taken in the Lords amendments.

That is Lords' amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to

consider Lords' amendments number two to Number 11. I beg to move

that the House agrees with Lords amendment one. A bid to take it

This coalition government was shown to be at its most radical and

confident. Other like to add to that that the Lords' amendments

before us today shows the government at its most open-minded

and collaborative. These amendments showed the desire of all sides of

the other place to improve the bell. -- Bilic. When it comes to a

indicating -- undertaking a sale of the shares of Royal Mail, the

government must have the ability to negotiate the bridle at the right

time. I know that members have been keen to hear more about our plans

for Royal Mail, and in the interests of transparency, I will

set out the news -- to new steps. The Government intends to take

Royal Mail's pension deficit as preparation for the sale of the

current -- company. It will be a relief to the 45,000 members of the

pension plan that they rise will be protected sooner rather than later.

The universal service must be protected. To do this, Royal Mail

is to be on a sustainable commercial footing. The company

currently has around �1.7 billion deficit with the government. We

need to restructure the company's balance sheet in due course, in

order to put Royal Mail on its sustainable commercial footing. We

will need to relief the debt. We will need a European Commission

help. We have already begun negotiations with the commission. I

hope the process will be completed by 20th March 12. We will discuss

the amendments to a par three of the bell later wrong, but of course,

it is another step. I would like to assure Honourable Members that work

to establish this is under way. In particularly, of com, the new

I hope the update is helpful. I would commend the opposition

benches for pushing us on given a our our commitment to transparency.

Clause 2 of the Bill already commits the government to report to

Parliament when a decision to dispose of shares has been made.

And men and one adds three new requirements to that report. First,

it must include the objective for the sale, second, it must include

details of the expected commercial relationship between Royal Mail and

Post Office Ltd following the disposal of shares. The move report

must include details of any scheme. As I have previously stated, I will

a short that shares will be placed from the Times -- from the time of

a brave first sale. The second amendment is about the commercial

relationship after the cells. It is a key concern but is held by many

in this House. After much debate in this House and elsewhere, I can

still see no reason why the Scots despite strong commercial

relationship should weakened after two companies have been separated.

The senior management at Royal Mail have been clear that this

relationship will continue. That is why the chairman of Royal Mail felt

able to say to the Bill committee that prior to the shares sale, they

will put in place a contract for the longest time legally possible.

I am happy to go on record to say that the government as sole

shareholder will ensure that the two companies fulfil this

commitment. The negotiation of that contract is Riley a commercial

matter for the two companies and not a matter for government or

legislation. Lords are men and one will insure that prior to sex --

share of sales in Royal Mail, Parliament will have a snapshot

They must provide information each and every year. Too briefly touched

on Lords amendment 10, this is a technical amendment to clarify the

enforcement powers on the Post Office their work. They can be no

doubt that the future of this iconic British institution is of

enormous importance to member notes of this House and the other place.

I think this is a radical and exciting proposal, and one

supported by all parties. However, I acknowledge that our position

means we cannot be as explicit now has we would like as to what the

mutual will the like. Post Office UK have published a report on their

options for the neutral. That will go through public consultation in

due course. Until the conclusion of that process, the government

remains open to all views. We will not dictate a form of -- the form

that mutualisation will take. In order for both houses to have

greater visibility over what the two companies will look like, we

have introduced more Lords amendments. Furthermore, these

amendments will ensure that it must be laid brighter at the boat, so

ministers will have detailed information on mutualisation before.

Let me be clear that these plans will be developed from the bottom

up, and in full consultation with all of the Post Office's major

shareholders. The last amendment, Lords amendment 11, addresses an

issue that is close to the hearts of many members. My Honourable

Friend the business secretary opened the debate. He talked about

his country as a pioneer of postal services in the 19th century. It

prowled and -- its proud history is something that we want to protect.

Having visited the British postal or cut myself, I can say that it

provides a fascinating record of our postal heritage, and it is

deserving of the protection but lot of them and 116 to provide. We are

keen to give the house the benefit of a visit to the museum, and give

the lessons that I learned there. The post -- the first post boxes

were green, Ben Brown, and then be shades of red but we see now. Other

like to conclude by saying that the amendments in this group respond to

a number of concerns that have been raised in both this House and the

other place. Basic to get more information about the implication

of the sale of shares, up more control over Post Office

mutualisation, and greater transparency over Royal Mail's

heritage activities. I believe these are cross-party concerns and

I urge the House to agree them. question... It is a our intention

to be a constructive opposition, but even though we should be

welcoming some of the eminences afternoon, particularly where they

reflect to some degree the position that we ourselves have taken, we

remain totally opposed to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to

sell off the Royal Mail 100 % to private enterprise. A repeat that.

We are remaining 100 % totally opposed to the main purpose of the

Bill, which is the sell-off of the Royal Mail. We want to keep the

Royal Mail in majority public ownership. Selling off the Royal

Mail into one of % public ownership, means that it will not be through

the same regulatory regime. I take your advice on the matter. I think

the Honourable Lady should stick to the amendments on the paper. If I

now turn to a Lords amendment No. 1. It concerns the sell-off of the

Royal Mile and the splitting of the Royal Mail group into a privately

owned postal service. It is against that background that we need to

look at and then a number one. It requires that when the secretary of

state lays before Parliament a report on the disposal of the raw

male company, they should include information about the expected

commercial relationship between the company in question and any post

office company. We do genera -- genuinely welcome such information

in the bow report, but no one should be any -- under any illusion

that this in any way constitutes a business agreement between the

Royal Mail and the Post Office network. Hooper in his report said

they should be a long-term relationship between the two

companies. The National Federation of supposed market has -- suppose

martyrs has asked for minimum of 10 With the very greatest respect,

continuing to use the post office network, it is no good having fine

words. These find work need to translate into a proper bankable

contract. Other countries manage to put it into their legislation, but

there is an intense obstinacy on the part of the garment, which has

set itself against the legislation. A profit-hungry privatised Royal

Mail will be looking to cut costs and maximise profits. This could be

looking to borrow now drawing up legislation for services other than

the own network. -- their own network. That agreement could be

fought much reduced service than that currently provided. It could

be more than just eight... You could take your parcels to hand

them over what other post offices will not offer postal services at

all. It sounds like a children's riddle. When is a post office not a

post office? It would not be a joking matter for our post office

network and the public you want to use those services. Any decision by

a privatised Royal Mail to reduce the number of post offices will

have a catastrophic effect on the Post Office network, and will

threaten the viability of any existence of the Royal Mail chose

not used. It is regrettable but the government has chosen not so review

the chosen Bill, and this amendment requiring asked a report in such an

agreement is the nearest they are prepared to get. This does

nevertheless must include the commercial relationship with raw

male company and any post of his company, and banned -- for that

Turning to the part of the Lords amendment number one dealing with

shares. We accept the principle of employee shares and appreciate the

benefits such schemes can bring, but in in instance employees need

to know more about how any such scheme would work. We have pressed

for greater detail about scheme, so we welcome the proposal in this and

menment that before the disposal of the Royal Mail take place, there

will be a report to Parliament, which will set out the detail of

the proposals for an employee share scheme. In committee we pointed out

ha the bill as it stands only requires employee shares to be

offered when the last crown share in the Royal Mail has been soed. We

argued the case for a trigger that kicks in when the first shares are

sold and the minister for postal services has suggested in fact the

Government would make available some employee shares when the first

disposal is made, so I therefore very much welcome his confirmation

of that point today. So that employees will not have to wait

until the last crown share is sold before being able to apply for

employee shares. The remain however, a number of unanswered questions,

which I would hope that perhaps the minister could give us some

guidance on today. Could he tell us anything about whether shares would

be held on an equal basis with equal voting rights and for each

shareholder or would shom shareholders be more equal than

others? In committee we made the case for a proportion larger than o

10% of the shares to be in the employee share scheme. We have

suggested up to 20%. This case is backed by specialist bodies which

gave evidence to the committee, including the employee ownership

association, and IFS Proshare. Is there any chance the Government

might consider this? We would like to have greater certainty about

theel jilt criteria, who would be entitled to share op unions and

what would it mean in probg -- practise. -- options. Would the

employees backbench able to influence the direction of the

company to some extent, albeit from a minority position? In particular

what is to prevent shares going to employees once day and being sold

within a year or two? We know of previous examples where this has

happen and shares have been sold on very rapidly to big institutions,

what mechanisms is the Government considering to prevent this happen

something we hope to hear from the minister the extent of the detail

the Government intend to report, and how much time the Government

would provide for Parliament to consider the report. Turning to

Lords amendments two to eight. We welcome these which give Parliament

increased control over the mutualisation of a Post Office

company. 2-4 would subject the disposal of the Crown's interest to

a relevant mew church to the affirmtive resolution procedure.

This requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order

before Parliament and for it to be approved by both Houses. Lords

amendment five to eight require the Secretary of State to lay a report

before Parliament before transfer of shares or share rights in Post

Office company. This is an improvement on the original

requirement which was to lay a report after any direction for the

disposal of the Crown's interest in a Post Office company to a relevant

mew church had been made. These amendments strengthen the

opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any proposals for the

mutualisation of the Post Office. This is important, because there

are some considerable challenges to be faced, before there can be any

mutualisation of the Post Office. We welcome the work done and

detailed in the recently produced report. Which includes information

on various mutual option, on the ownership and governance of a

potential muech you'll. But we recognise the real challenge is to

make the Post Office network viable. -- mutual. For their rhetoric we

are concerned about the Government's failure to guarantee

business for the Post Office network. For mutualisation to be a

success we need to see a serious viable business plan for the

network. We are fully aware of the Government's plans to spend money

on the Post Office network but their document securing the network

in the digital age does not address the issue of how to generate new

streams of business for the Post Office network. If we divide Post

Office income into three main categories, Royal Mail business,

Government business and other commercial business, the Government

has failed to provide guarantees of business in any of these categories.

I have just explained how the lack of an interbusiness agreement

between a privatised Royal Mail and Post Office network could result in

the loss of all or part of Royal Mail business from the Post Office.

As for the businesses department claim to be making the Post Office

a front office for Government business, this message does not

seem to be getting across to other Government departments. We have

just seen the DWP award the contract for benefit cheques to a

rival organisation. And apart from a couple of pilot projects there

has been little progress on the suggestions for more Government

business made in a letter from the National Federation of sub-

postmasters to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 23rd

September last year. At the moment, the post bank promised in the

Liberal Democrat manifesto and mentioned in the coalition

agreement looks like another broken promise after Labour laid the

foundation of this before we left Government. Nor is there any sign

of any other substantial new commercial business for the Post

Office network. This complete failure to introduce new streams of

business calls into question The Wiz dom of the way that the 1.3

billion of tax payers' money allocated to the Post Office is

being used. With the subsidy for running the Post Office and the

provision of a few new counters seemingly accounting for the lion's

share of the funds. It begs the question of what will happen in

2015, when the subsidy runs out. The Government has stated that it

wishes to reduce the Government subsidy, but if there are no new

streams of Government business to make the network more viable then

the Post Office network will be in serious trouble, so returning to

Lords amendments two to eight. The fact they improve the opportunity

for Parliamentary scrutiny means we shall be supporting them. Moving on

now to Lords amendments nine and ten which clarifys in the Post

Office companies annual report to the Secretary of State on the Post

Office network details must be included of the Post Offices

services provided under arrangement between a company and the universal

service provider. We welcome any amendments which increase clarity

and the opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny. Turning now

then to Lords amendment 11, this would require the Royal Mail to

report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities in relation

to the British postal museum collection and the Royal Mail

archive. And the clause would require the Secretary of State to

lay the report before Parliament. At committee stage we sought

amendment to ensure the work of the BPMA would continue following the

passage of the bill and the heritage cared for the cur rays of

the the museum could be protected. This needs to be strengthened

because the bill moves us grey a situation in which there is only

one company, Royal Mail, that is owned by the Government and is

responsible for supporting and safeguarding the postal heritage.

There will be two companys with different ownership models. There

will be the potential for a company to be taken ever perhaps by foreign

postal organisations. I do not feel that the Lords amendment before us

is as strong as that which we originally proposed. Nevertheless,

anything that we can do to protect our he targe is to be welcomed.

heritage. The British postal museum is the leading resource for British

postal heritage. It cares for the records of more than 400 yiers,

including stamp, design, photography staff records and

vehicles. It is the custodian of two internationally significant

collection, namely the Royal Mail archive, and the collection of the

former national Postal museum. So together, the museum and the

archive collections form a unique record of a national institution

and offer a fascinating perspective on the history of British society