My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what he describes is precisely why he and I welcome what the Secretary of State said. I also pay tribute to the detailed work done by the Post Office Minister before this debate.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) called for a Postal Services Bill-lite. It would be light in every way when it comes to investment because by trying to insist on Government retention of a majority stake—precisely what the previous Labour Government proposed in their Bill, which they unfortunately failed to take forward—he is condemning Royal Mail to not being able to get that investment. No private investor would be able to match the sort of investment in Deutsche Post, to which I alluded, of £15 billion unless they had a controlling stake in the company.
As we have heard, the Bill makes it clear that the Hooper report's essential demand for greater investment and modernisation, despite the progress made in the modernisation agreement between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union, is vital to the future of this great British asset. The Labour party has not left this Government the luxury of providing that investment themselves. We can provide it only by attracting it from the business sector.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Graham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 27 October 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
517 c398-9 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:23:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_673817
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_673817
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_673817