Debates between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Hoyle during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Royal Mail: Universal Postal Service

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Hoyle
Thursday 19th June 2014

(10 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hoyle Portrait Lord Hoyle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts



To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assurances they received from the privatised Royal Mail that they would maintain the universal postal service; and what such assurances they have given to Parliament.

Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
- Hansard - -

Royal Mail, as the UK’s designated universal service provider, is required to provide postal deliveries to all UK addresses in accordance with minimum requirements set by Parliament under the Postal Services Act 2011, and quality standards set by Ofcom, the regulator. Only Parliament can change the minimum requirements of the universal service in the UK.

Lord Hoyle Portrait Lord Hoyle (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for that reply. Royal Mail is committed to providing a universal service. However, it is facing competition from other companies seeking to cherry pick from the direct delivery service. Ofcom has promised to review the situation but that could take at least two years. Will the Minister join me in pressing Ofcom to begin the review immediately in order to save the universal service?

Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord is correct: this is a matter for Ofcom. The Government’s policy on competition in the UK postal services market is clear: although competition can bring benefits to consumers, it should not undermine the provision of the universal postal service. That is why the Government have ensured that Ofcom’s primary statutory duty is to secure the ongoing provision of the universal service. However, should competition threaten the universal service, the Act is clear that securing the universal service must take precedence.