(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberOur overarching objective is to put Royal Mail in a position to be able to deliver the universal service on a long-term and sustainable basis. When considering value for money, we will assess the sale proceeds together with the long-term value of the taxpayers’ retained stake in the business and the reduced risk to the taxpayer of a stable company with access to private sources of capital.
The shares were sold at £3.30 each and this morning they are selling at £5.32. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer got a raw deal in the share sale, and does he accept full responsibility?
It is not unusual to see some share price volatility in the immediate aftermath of a sale. Let us be clear: this sale was popular, oversubscribed and successful. When the Labour Government tried to sell Royal Mail, they failed.
(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot have a regulatory regime that allows services to be cherry-picked where profitable by the jackals that will buy Royal Mail, and then say they will protect the universal service. We all know it will be broken up, but will the Minister say whether his description of the universal service requires people to collect their mail from a central collection point, rather than its being delivered door to door?
The universal obligation is set out by the regulator and is not—and cannot be—affected by the change in ownership. Any change to the universal obligation would be made by this House, and as I have said, we have no plans to change that. On cherry-picking and so on, it is for the regulator to police the market and ensure there are no unfair practices.