My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one that I tabled in Committee. I was not convinced by the Minister’s response then and said I would bring it back. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect on this. As I said before, people do silly things all the time and doing nothing is, in my opinion, unwise. This amendment would only require the Secretary of State to report on how the name ““Royal Mail”” will be protected. If the noble Baroness is not minded to accept the amendment, can she explain how we avert another Consignia debacle? Saying that this is such a well-known and recognisable brand name that no new owner would ever consider getting rid of it just does not stack up—Consignia proved that. Future owners may decide to change the name to some other well-known name and Royal Mail as a brand would be lost. That, I contend, would be a matter of much regret. I beg to move.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 4 May 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c505 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:55:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738039
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738039
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738039