Postal Services Bill

My Lords, I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment. The name ““Royal Mail”” has been synonymous with the delivery of the postal service in the United Kingdom for hundreds of years. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has told us the date on which it was established, and I can understand why he seeks reassurance that the name will be preserved. However, I have to say that the choice of the name of the company delivering the universal service provider should be a commercial decision for the company and its shareholders. I do not believe, however, that future owners of the company will rush to change its name, because this would not make commercial sense. I say that because ““Royal Mail”” is, as the noble Lord said, one of the most recognised brands in the UK, perhaps in the world. There is no doubt that the name is a commercial asset to the company—an asset that potential investors will value; and so will we. It is the Government’s firm belief that any future owners of Royal Mail would recognise the power of the brand, and it would be folly on their part to seek to dismantle such a brand in any way. Your Lordships will remember the previous attempt to change the name. Once again I repeat the noble Lord’s point; ““Consignia”” was not a success. It is not a name that you hear mentioned at Royal Mail headquarters these days. As my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said at Second Reading, the BBC summed up the name change as, "““nine letters that spelled fiasco””." It would take a brave, or perhaps foolish, owner to seek to change the name again. Noble Lords will also wish to note that while there might be support for ensuring that Royal Mail continues to be associated with the universal postal service, there are those in the other place who are opposed to a privatised company using the name or the other royal associations currently used by the company. We do not agree and we believe that Royal Mail, as the universal service provider, should continue to be able to use the name and the royal association, provided that suitable safeguards are put in place to ensure that the associations are used respectfully and appropriately at all times. Discussions about these safeguards are ongoing. I am therefore afraid that, although I greatly sympathise with the noble Lord’s request, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.