No, we took exactly the opposite view. We accept that Royal Mail would probably want to have the post office network. That network is important to Royal Mail, but it is not utterly and absolutely essential, whereas the converse is not the case. It is a question of ham and eggs. The pig makes a much greater commitment than the hen, so we took the view that, if there were a privatised Royal Mail or a change of ownership, which is free to negotiate with post offices, it would be likely to drive a much, much harder bargain. It would seek, for entirely understandable commercial reasons, to drive the post office network into the ground as much as possible, to extract the maximum possible advantage from those negotiations, because it would not be directly responsible for the future of the post office network. That is why we took the view that the Post Office's position was likely to be strongest before any change of ownership, so it was best agreed now, rather than later.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ian Davidson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
521 c341 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:19:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651