| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Johnson: I suppose that when I become an old lag I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman's example. He has made fleeting visits to the Chamber during this debate. He came in halfway through the debate on new clause 1, raised a number of points--having not even heard the opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State--and then disappeared before my right hon. Friend had a chance to reply. Now he comes and raises not a single point on the amendments, but instead asks why we have to remove elegant wording on page 75.
I note that the question does not come from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who know full well that throughout the Committee stage we explained that those measures were there temporarily so that we could carry forward a whole host of issues that are very complicated, as pension matters are. I advise hon. Members to read Hansard. I cannot understand why anyone would not have read the Hansard report of the
Committee stage by now. We explained that we could not just leave the position on the basis of that simple wording. We need to ensure that the people who work in the business, who are part of about six or seven different pension schemes, are assured--[Interruption.] We will see how quickly letters on the Bill arrive. We need to ensure that people are assured to every last dot and comma that their positions are safeguarded. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I hope the House will support.Amendment made: No. 44, in page 64, line 21, after "91" insert--
'(Subsidy for public post offices),'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 111
Amendment made: No. 45, in page 64, line 29, at end insert--
'( ) any expenditure incurred by the Commission in consequence of this Act,'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 113
Amendment made: No. 46, in page 67, line 35, at end insert--
'Public post office Section 41(3)'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 115
Amendment made: No. 47, in page 68, line 10, leave out--
', or in any instrument or other document,'.--[Mr. Betts.]
1. The Post Office company shall, on and after the appointed day, be treated for all purposes of corporation tax as if it were the same person as the Post Office.
2. Any share issued by the Post Office company or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries in pursuance of section 62 shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been issued wholly in consideration of a subscription paid to the company concerned of an amount equal to the nominal value of the share.
3. Any security (other than a share) issued by the Post Office company or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries in pursuance of section 62 or 73 shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been issued wholly in consideration of a loan made to the company concerned of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the security.
4. The existence or exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State under section 61 shall not be regarded as constituting or creating arrangements within the meaning of section 410 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (arrangements for the transfer of a company to another group or consortium).
5. Nothing in this Part and nothing done under it shall be regarded as a scheme or arrangement for the purposes of section 30 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (tax-free benefits).
6. The Act of 1992 shall apply in relation to a disposal by the Post Office company of an asset acquired by the Post Office by virtue of Part III of the Post Office Act 1969 as if the acquisition or provision of the asset by the Crown had been the acquisition or provision of it by the Post Office company.
7. No transfer effected by virtue of section 61 shall give rise to any liability to stamp duty.'.--[Mr. Betts.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
10.26 pm
Mr. Byers: I beg to move That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am sure that all Members of the House would like to thank those Members who served on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill's detail. In particular, we thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) who chaired the Committee's proceedings fairly and efficiently. I add my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness who was responsible for taking the Bill through Committee. It was the first time that he has taken a Bill through Committee, and I have been very pleased at the way that he was able to conduct business and take through Government proposals. I know that all members of the Committee enjoyed the opportunity of engaging in lively and, I hope, constructive debate.
The Bill is part of the Government's programme of modernisation and reform. As hon. Members will know from this evening's debates, it provides opportunities to preserve the national network of sub-post offices and to ensure that there will be a national network that can be supported, if necessary, through the scheme for providing a subsidy to which the House agreed this evening.
We will, through the access criteria, ensure that all people in all parts of the country have access to postal services. We will also be able to ensure that the post office network can plan for a future based on diversity and investment in computerisation and that it can ensure that post offices can meet not just the needs of postal services, but of the communities that they serve.
The Bill guarantees a publicly owned Post Office, but with the commercial freedoms that will be needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It will be able to compete and have the money to invest in the future. By reducing the cut that is taken by the Treasury, we will provide the Post Office, for the first time, with access to the funds that it will need for investment to ensure that it can develop its services.
In the past, under the previous Government, the Treasury, rather than the Post Office, was always treated as a priority. Under this Government, the Treasury is withdrawing from the control that it has over finance, and
resources will be provided to the Post Office for the first time. That ensures that, when we talk about commercial freedoms, it is not just rhetoric; we are also providing resources to make the Post Office's commercial freedom a reality.The Bill will lift the uncertainty under which the Post Office has had to live for far too long. It will provide a firm basis for competition in the postal services market and it will provide a better deal for consumers, including those who are socially disadvantaged. It will ensure a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country. I invite the House to support the Bill on Third Reading.
10.29 pm
Mr. Page: As the House knows, the Opposition moved a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading motion for the Bill because
- it introduces an unsatisfactory structure of ownership which falls short of granting full commercial freedom, introduces uncompetitive borrowing criteria and does not include provision for transparent accounting practices, imposes new burdens of regulation on private companies rather than encouraging competition and fails to introduce clear access criteria to protect the network of sub Post Offices.--[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 815.]
I echo the Secretary of State by congratulating the Minister for Competitiveness on the friendly, open way in which he has conducted affairs. I do not want to damage his career prospects, but I must point out that promotion in the Department of Trade and Industry seems a distinct possibility. I did not find him very accommodating with our amendments, but we cannot have too much at once.
When the Secretary of State told the House on 15 February, on Second Reading, that he knew how many amendments he would table, we little realised that he was not joking. Despite all the spin and gloss that he has just put on the Bill in his speech, saying that it will be marvellous, it is most unsatisfactory that, on Report, we should have been debating important issues that affect people's livelihoods, as we did in our discussion of new clause 1. That was bounced on the House without our having the opportunity to take a long, measured look at what it implies.
A pattern is emerging. We have had the shambles of the Utilities Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage and will be before us tomorrow. We have lost count of the hundreds of amendments that the Government have tabled. That is the hallmark of a Department that is out of control. The fact that new clause 1 was tabled at such a late stage shows that it is a panic measure, introduced simply to try to satisfy last Wednesday's mass lobby.
We have had several debates on the Post Office in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and they concentrated on the sub-post offices. That point was emphasised by two debates last Wednesday. Those debates and today's proceedings highlight the confusion and muddle in the
Government and the apparent lack of leadership by the Secretary of State. I might be doing the right hon. Gentleman a disservice, but despite all his rhetoric, I think that he would have preferred privatisation to the fudged solution provided by the Bill. Perhaps even this new Labour Government, with their vast majority, still have no stomach for that.We can get a little distant from the subject matter in our debates, and it is useful to remind ourselves of the sheer size of the postal services and their importance to our economy. There are four main operating arms: Royal Mail, Parcelforce, Post Office Counters Ltd. and the subscriptions services. The Post Office employs more than 190,000 people and has a turnover in excess of £6.7 billion. However, we have said again and again, including on Report a few moments ago, that there is increasingly serious competition from overseas rivals as well as pressures from fax and electronic mail services. With all that comes the prospect of greater liberalisation in the European Union.
It has been clear for some time that the present situation cannot be maintained indefinitely without the Post Office losing market share, notwithstanding the comments made by the previous Secretary of State in his announcement just before Christmas in 1998. A publicly owned and financed business subject to all the traditional constraints on pay and pricing, on acquisitions and borrowing, and on partnerships and joint ventures has become increasingly anachronistic.
Postal administrations in countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland are already benefiting from the greater commercial freedoms that they have achieved. We would do well to remember what some of them have done. Some years ago, the Dutch postal business KPN bought TNT for 2 billion Australian dollars--a huge sum. The German post office acquired more than 20 per cent. of the shares in DHL.
That is the size of the forces massing against us. In both of those countries and in France, the machinery and the rules of the European Union are being used to strengthen those postal organisations before they are fully or even partially privatised. That gives an idea of the market pressures that will be exerted on our own Post Office.
The Bill takes a faltering step down the path to the reality of the commercial world, but surely the Post Office, and in particular Royal Mail, must be set completely free through privatisation, if it is not to be a bit player on the world stage of postal matters. If, before the next general election, the Government want to take that extra step towards privatisation, they can rest assured that we would be only too willing to assist them in that task.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |