Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
My Lords, how pleased I am that the Secretary of State has tabled Amendment 22, which we are discussing with Amendment 18; it refers directly to an employee share scheme. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for speaking in support of Amendment 18. As both noble Lords will know, we raised the question of employee share ownership schemes in Committee. The amendment tabled by the Government gives us some reassurance, but does not go as far as we would like. On these Benches, we feel that employee share schemes are one of the most effective ways of engaging employees in the development and success of their employer. By being encouraged to take a stake in the overall profitability of the company, employees are able to share the benefits of Royal Mail’s transformation. However, on this matter I do not see quite eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and his colleagues. Their preferred type of employee share scheme is not ours. I feel strongly that the incentives and benefits are best enjoyed when the scheme involves ordinary, fully transferable shares. Past examples of employees’ enthusiasm, when offered the chance to take up a proper share in their employer, support our view. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, has just raised, as I understood it, the existence of Colleague Share. The existence of that need not present an insuperable obstacle. Given its popularity, I cannot imagine that members would pass up the chance to upgrade their phantom shares into real ones; that is what I mean. Having said all that, the amendment does not go as far as we would like, although it is a welcome reassurance for Royal Mail employees to realise that the Government have not totally closed off all chances for them to buy into the future of their company. Sadly, it does not promise that the Government will actively support such a scheme. That is a pity, and I hope that the private partner will be much more enthusiastic about pursuing such a worthwhile route.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c856
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Companies Directors Annual reports Finance Government shareholding Protection Pensions Post offices Prices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Regulation Taxation Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation Shared ownership schemes TNT Employee ownership
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:34:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555475
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555475
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555475