Proceeding contribution from Ian Davidson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill.
Postal Services Bill
No, we took exactly the opposite view. We accept that Royal Mail would probably want to have the post office network. That network is important to Royal Mail, but it is not utterly and absolutely essential, whereas the converse is not the case. It is a question of ham and eggs. The pig makes a much greater commitment than the hen, so we took the view that, if there were a privatised Royal Mail or a change of ownership, which is free to negotiate with post offices, it would be likely to drive a much, much harder bargain. It would seek, for entirely understandable commercial reasons, to drive the post office network into the ground as much as possible, to extract the maximum possible advantage from those negotiations, because it would not be directly responsible for the future of the post office network. That is why we took the view that the Post Office's position was likely to be strongest before any change of ownership, so it was best agreed now, rather than later.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 521 c341
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts for services Privatisation Post offices Postal services Post Office Standards Royal Mail
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:19:12 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699651