| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'(1A) The requirements of this subsection are that the Commission shall--
(a) give notice of the proposed modifications to the Council, and
(b) consider any representations made in accordance with the notice and not withdrawn.'.
No. 3, in page 18, line 30, after "requirements", insert "of this subsection".
No. 4, in page 18, line 34, leave out "The notice" and insert--
'A notice under subsection (1A) or (2)'.
No. 5, in page 18, line 37, leave out "publication of the notice'and insert--
'the giving of the notice under subsection (1A) or (as the case may be) the publication of the notice under subsection (2)'.
No. 6, in page 19, line 13, at end insert--
'(7A) If, after giving notice under subsection (1A), the Commission decides not to make a final order or confirm a provisional order, it shall give notice of that decision to the licence holder concerned and the Council.'.
No. 7, in page 19, line 13, at end insert--
'(7B) A notice under subsection (1A) shall be given by serving a copy of the notice on the Council and a notice under subsection (7A) shall be given by serving a copy of the notice on the licence holder and the Council.'.
No. 8, in page 19, line 14, leave out "A" and insert "Any other".--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 38
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 24, line 40, leave out "variation" and insert "modification".--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 41
Amendment made: No. 34, in page 27, line 17, leave out "section" and insert "Act".--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 43
Amendments made: No. 10, in page 28, line 10, after "Kingdom", insert ", other member States".
No. 11, in page 28, line 12, after "Kingdom", insert ", other member States".
No. 35, in page 28, leave out lines 30 to 32.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 53
Amendments made: No. 12, in page 33, line 38, after "functions" insert--
'in relation to relevant postal services'.
No. 13, in page 33, line 40, leave out--
'and matters affecting their different interests'.
No. 14, in page 33, line 41, at end insert--
'( ) The Council shall, in exercising its functions, have regard to the interests of--
(a) individuals who are disabled or chronically sick,
(b) individuals of pensionable age,
(c) individuals with low incomes, and
(d) individuals residing in rural areas,
but that is not to be taken as implying that regard may not be had to the interests of other descriptions of persons.'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 62
Mr. Alan Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 39, line 10, after "its", insert "wholly owned".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
Amendment No. 78, in clause 66, page 41, line 21, at end insert--
'( ) the effect of the proposed issue or disposal would be that no more than 10 per cent. of the total share capital of the Post Office company at the time of the transfer would have been disposed of.'.
Government amendments Nos. 79 to 81.
Mr. Johnson: The amendments provide further evidence that the Government are sticking to our commitment to keep the new Post Office company and its relevant subsidiaries within public ownership by ensuring that we allow only a narrow portal for share sales or swaps, while allowing it greater commercial freedom.
Amendment No. 16 plugs a potential loophole in the restrictions on the disposal of shares in subsidiaries carrying out the core business by applying the restrictions on the disposal of shares to any subsidiaries owning shares in a relevant subsidiary.
Amendment No. 15 amends clause 62 and seeks to ensure that the Government do not prejudice the rights of any external shareholders in the subsidiaries of the Post Office company by restricting the Secretary of State's power to direct subsidiaries of the Post Office company to issue shares to subsidiaries which are wholly owned.
Amendment No. 17 is a minor drafting amendment to bring the wording of clause 65(3) into line with that of the new subsection (5).
Amendment No. 18 supports the Government's policy of allowing the Post Office greater commercial freedom by allowing the Post Office company and its subsidiaries flexibility to reorganise its structure as it thinks fit. It relaxes the restriction in subsection (2) of clause 65 on the disposal of shares or share rights in a relevant subsidiary by the Post Office company, any of the subsidiaries or their nominees to allow disposal among themselves. Again, there is no harm in the shares being passed round in this way, as each of the parties concerned is subject to the restrictions on disposing of shares to a third party. There is great benefit, because it allows the company flexibility in its structure.
Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 are technical amendments which bring the provisions in those clauses into line with each other.
Amendment No. 79 to clause 69 adds a provision requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Post Office company before exercising his powers to extinguish any of its liabilities and to consult the Post Office company and the subsidiary in question if any of a subsidiary's liabilities are to be extinguished.
Amendment No. 80 provides power for the Secretary of State to make an order to repeal the clause when its purpose is spent. This power mirrors the provision in
clause 73 which provides for the Secretary of State to make an order to repeal clause 73 when its purpose is spent.Amendment No. 81 removes the requirement in clause 73(7) to consult the Post Office if an order is to be made to repeal the section under subsection (6).
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford): Who drafted these amendments, and why is it necessary to introduce them at this stage? Has the Bill been improperly drafted? Does it reflect Ministers' desires and objectives? Why are we being subjected to this long list of tiny amendments that should have been taken care of in the original drafting of the Bill?
Mr. Johnson: It is not a long list at all. On Second Reading, Opposition Front Benchers were suggesting that there would be over 1,000 amendments. In fact, there were 185, of which only 80 have been Government amendments. I am not as experienced in this place as the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that that number of amendments compares very well with Bills under the previous Government.
9.45 pm
I also make the point that the Post Office is the Methuselah of public sector industries, because it has been publicly owned since 1631, and there is a lot of legislation to tidy up when making changes to the Post Office. I assure the House that I would have preferred not to have had so many amendments this evening, but these are minor, technical amendments and I have ensured that Opposition Front Benchers have been kept informed about our changes.
As I was saying, there is no need to consult the Post Office in the same way if we intend to repeal the clause, as the repeal would not affect it in the same way as the creation of debt.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): I wish to speak to amendment No. 78 and give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is suffering from a heavy cold, that I will not press it to a Division. Amendment No. 78 would affect clause 66, which will enable a partial share sale in the Post Office company to further a joint venture or a partnership. However, no limit is set on the volume of shares that may be sold. As a result, any amount of the Post Office company could be sold off.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, we obviously wish to ensure that we fulfil our policy of maintaining the Post Office company within the public sector. That is why we need clarity with regard to clause 66. There are concerns that the Government have not tabled an amendment, as requested in Committee, to limit the amount of shares that could be sold. For example, amendment No. 78 suggests a 10 per cent. maximum. The Government argument has been that that would restrict commercial flexibility and the room to manoeuvre of the company in cementing joint venture deals. However, the Post Office itself, in its evidence to the Select Committee, suggested that that problem would be highly unlikely to arise.
There have been joint ventures and share swaps elsewhere, but they have been restricted to the 5 per cent. level. That has happened occasionally in the telecommunications industry, and has never involved a share swap of more than 10 per cent. France Telecom and Deutsche Telecom, for example, had a swap agreement that involved a 5 per cent. exchange of shares only.
The Government's legislative proposals arise from a Labour party conference motion that stated that there must be no uncertainty or ambiguity, now or in the future, about the commitment of a Labour Government to the continued public ownership of the Post Office. Clause 66, as drafted, is inconsistent with the spirit of that motion. It will raise doubts among the workers in the Post Office and among the electorate about our commitment to the public ownership of the Post Office in the long term. It gives the wrong signals to those in the industry and to the electorate.
I am aware that, today, further talks have gone on that may resolve the problem, and therefore I urge the Government to table a clear amendment on the issue in the other place to prevent any back-door threat to the public ownership of the Post Office.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |