Skip to main content

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 bill on Postal Services Bill.


Postal Services Bill

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1771 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Contracts Devolved matters Competition Finance Insolvency Privatisation Workplace pensions Staff Post offices Prices Pension funds Postal services Parcels Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Postage stamps Reform Wales Surcharges Rural areas Royal Mail Universal service obligation Operating costs British Postal Museum and Archive
Legislation
Postal Services Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk