| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Johnson: It must be borne in mind that, at the time of the Labour party conference last year, the issue of share sales to cement an alliance or a joint venture had not arisen. We have ensured that, if any future Government wish to sell shares in the Post Office, that would require primary legislation. However, we recognise that the communications industry is heading towards further globalisation.
I can put it no better than the Communication Workers Union, which is very perceptive on such issues. It has said:
- Mail services have been seen as predominantly domestic markets met by national operators. However, the growth of international mail, the opportunities for e-mail and developments in the parcels market are all leading to a more international marketplace that is likely to be dominated by a small number of global players or alliances. The British Post Office cannot afford to stand apart from such powerful trends.
Our battle in the early 1990s was not to maintain the status quo but to give the Post Office genuine commercial freedom in the public sector. That freedom will allow the British Post Office to move with the major international players. Our competitors have had the same freedom for many years.
Mr. McDonnell: The CWU has stated today:
- In our view, the current open-ended nature of Clause 66 is inconsistent with the spirit of the Labour party motion at the conference and, if the Government persists in the current wording, it is bound to raise doubts in the minds of Labour Party members and Labour voters as to the commitment of the Labour Government to the public ownership of the Post Office.
I know exactly what the CWU position is, but it is stated on the face of the Bill that Governments cannot bring proposals forward to divest shares. Only the Post Office can do that.
The Post Office begins the process when it makes a proposal to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is convinced that that is in the best commercial interests of the Post Office, he or she will put it forward for affirmative vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Post Office Acts come along only every 15 or 20 years. For example, such Acts were passed in 1953, 1969 and 1981. We cannot be tied to an arbitrary share limit--whether it be 5 or 10 per cent.--that will prevent the Post Office from securing a joint venture or alliance that is wanted by its work force, the Government and by the business itself. If we were so tied, we would have to ask the major market player with which we might be negotiating a deal to hang on for a couple of years until a slot appeared in the Queen's Speech for the necessary primary legislation. That would cause the deal to be lost, which would not be in the best interests of the work force or of the business.
Mr. McDonnell: I believe that we should listen to the work force. The CWU statement today was in support of the 10 per cent. limit.
Mr. Johnson: The triple lock that we have on the mechanism means that it would be senseless to impose an arbitrary figure, but in fact the situation is worse than that.
Hon. Members from all parties--including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom I see in his place--opposed the privatisation of the Post Office. We said that there was a way a forward that would allow genuine commercial freedom in the public sector. If the Government diluted or inhibited that commercial freedom by placing caps on joint ventures or acquisitions, that would leave us open to the argument that the only way to deliver commercial freedom was by privatisation. In other words, that would destroy the argument that Labour Members have supported for the past eight or nine years.
The Government have looked at ways to resolve the concerns expressed by CWU members, and we have studied the provision of a special share. However, mergers will take place at the level not of the Post Office holding company, but of the subsidiaries. That is why amendment No. 78 would not have had the effect that its supporters wanted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the Minister considerable latitude, as I understand that he is addressing an argument to hon. Members on the Benches behind him, but equally he should be addressing me at the same time.
Mr. Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I have been listening to the Minister's argument, and to the answer that he has given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, as I am sure the House understands, is clearly seeking to represent the best interests of the Post Office work force. Will the Minister say that the changes that these Government amendments bring about not only safeguard the position of the employees, the interests of the Post Office and the
interests of Government but, more than that, represent the interests of the consumer who is served by the Post Office? If the Minister could give us that assurance, we would be much happier with his brief explanation.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, I can give that assurance. This series of amendments establishes the definition of relevant subsidiaries. Following a report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we went to the extent of ensuring that future Governments could not get around the block on selling shares in the Post Office by putting them into one of its subsidiaries, such as German Parcel, one of the organisations that it purchased recently, by defining what is a relevant subsidiary. So there is no way around this.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Johnson: No, I am not giving way again.
My final point is that, if anyone seriously wanted to privatise the Post Office, they would not go down the tortuous route of exchanging swaps and joint ventures. There is no money for the Exchequer in floating shares on the stock exchange. All those shares will, in a sense, be undervalued because they are used to secure an alliance or joint venture. They will not be worth their full weight.
All the arguments suggest, as they did last July, that our proposals in the White Paper and the Bill represent the way forward in terms of genuine commercial freedom in the public sector.
Amendment made: No. 16, in page 39, line 46, leave out "in this subsection" and insert--
'any other subsidiary of the Post Office company which holds shares or share rights in, or is connected to, any such subsidiary.
( ) For the purposes of subsection (8), a subsidiary of the Post Office company is connected to another such subsidiary which falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection ("the operating subsidiary") if it forms part of a chain of subsidiaries of the Post Office company which leads to the operating subsidiary and which is identified by the fact that each member of the chain holds shares or share rights in the next subsidiary in the chain.
( ) In subsection (8)'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 65
Amendments made: No. 17, in page 40, line 37, leave out "such person" and insert--
'person falling within this subsection'.
No. 18, in page 40, line 37, at end insert--
'( ) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to any disposal by the Post Office company, any subsidiary of that company or any nominee of the company or subsidiary to any other person falling within this subsection.'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 69
Amendments made: No. 79, in page 43, line 16, at end insert--
'( ) Before exercising any power under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to liabilities of the Post Office company, the Secretary of State shall consult that company.
( ) Before exercising any power under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to liabilities of a subsidiary of the Post Office company, the Secretary of State shall consult the Post Office company and the subsidiary.'.
No. 80, in page 43, line 16, at end insert--
'( ) The Secretary of State may by order repeal this section.'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 73
Amendment made: No. 81, in page 46, line 4, after "power" insert--
'(other than the power under subsection (6))'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 93
Amendments made: No. 36, in page 55, line 26, after "customs" insert "or excise".
No. 37, in page 55, line 27, leave out--
'16 of the Post Office Act 1953'
and insert--
'(Application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets)'.
No. 38, in page 55, line 30, leave out "17 of that Act" and insert--
'(Power to detain postal packets containing contraband)'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 97
Amendments made: No. 19, in page 57, line 31, at end insert--
', a member of the National Assembly for Wales'.
No. 20, in page 57, line 38, after "Parliament", insert--
', the National Assembly for Wales'.
No. 21, in page 57, line 40, after "Parliament", insert--
', a member of the National Assembly for Wales'.
No. 22, in page 58, line 10, after second "Parliament" insert--
', the National Assembly for Wales'.--[Mr. Alan Johnson.]
Clause 105
Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 62, line 16, at end insert--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |