My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend tabled his amendment, given his long association which started at the GPO—an association which I shared, although not on the postal but on the telecoms side, so we both have a long-standing and abiding interest. We want Royal Mail to have the ability to be profitable as the universal service provider meeting its universal service obligation. That has been the Government’s aim in removing the burden of the pension and in making it clear in today’s comments that they are in favour of competition, but not to the point that it undermines the Royal Mail’s ability to function. If that ““profitable”” was to take into account the full costs of providing the universal service obligation, we could see the benefit of that. There are some concerns about what implications there might be when that test is applied, such as on stamp tariffs et cetera, but I will certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Young of Norwood Green
(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 c1771 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:35:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734805
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734805
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734805