When privatisation of the Royal Mail was first mooted, it caused widespread disquiet.
There were fears it would lead to the end of the universal service, which delivers to far-flung rural communities and city centre addresses for the same price, and concerns that the sale was taking place in the teeth of widespread opposition. The prospect of the Government making a hash of the whole process, however, was low down the list of potential nightmares. Given the Coalition's pro-business credentials and apparent zeal for privatisation, there was an unspoken assumption that they could be trusted at least to do that properly.
What touching naivete that now seems. Today's highly critical report on the privatisation process by the Commons Business Select Committee, the second damning official report on the affair, underlines once more how poorly managed the sale was. It has found that taxpayers have lost out to the tune of £1 billion because the Government drastically underestimated demand for shares.
Business Committee chairman Adrian Bailey sums the problem up thus: "The basic facts are that the offer price was 330p per share, the price has risen as high as 618p per share, and now stands around 473p." As mistakes go, it was an extremely expensive one.
The committee itemises the Government's failures as follows: it received "poor quality" advice; it failed to get a good return on Royal Mail assets including three sites in London; the Government's priority investors "bought cheaply and sold quickly" at a profit: the list goes on. The MPs' verdict piles pressure on Vince Cable, the Business Secretary. Now it is known that the rise in the Royal Mail's share price cost the Government the price of a couple of hospitals, Mr Cable's dismissive remark that the initial jump in the share price was mere "froth", seems worthy of Marie Antoinette.
In the Government's defence, ministers did indeed receive poor advice, and not just from civil servants. The Business Committee generously shares round the blame between the Shareholder Executive (part of the business department which looks after the Government's financial interest in state-owned businesses), the Government's financial adviser Lazard, and UBS and Goldman Sachs. They failed to gauge demand at higher price levels. In a pre-emptive strike, Mr Cable acted on Wednesday to order a review of state sell-offs and, though this debacle of eight months ago is certainly a blemish on his record, it will probably not put his job in jeopardy.
The question now is what can be done to prevent a repeat of this failure. The committee recommended that companies advising the Government on share issues should be excluded from becoming a preferred investor, which is eminently sensible given the obvious potential for a conflict of interest. The new review will likely result in further reforms.
The arguments for the privatisation always looked questionable. The fact that the market judged The Royal Mail to be worth so much more than the Government estimated suggests it may have been a worthwhile asset to have kept within public ownership.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article