My Lords, it would be extremely helpful if the noble Baroness could explain at some point the precise purpose of this clause because it can be read in more than one way. If we are talking about Royal Mail or the company that will own it alone, that is one thing. If we are talking additionally about those providing only part of the service, that is another. The logic of the situation is that when Royal Mail is 99.9 per cent efficient, if it is using much the same machinery as those currently doing some of the sorting do—I think 10 or 12 have been mentioned—then it seems it would not be able to make a profit. What is more, the service would not be economical. Economies of scale suggest that you sort this mail in one place, or at least in one system, so I would appreciate some clarification. Where I fully agree with the two speakers on this, the mover and the speaker from the Liberal Benches, is that whatever happens we really do not want to revisit this issue. If I am right, and that competition to some degree in universal providers is a myth, we must be sure that we do not have to subsidise a Post Office and that proper charges can be made.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Christopher
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 April 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1770-1 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:35:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734804
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734804
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734804