Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in page 4, line 38, leave out "350" and insert "150". No. 62, in clause 13, page 9, line 9, at end insert— '(2A) The provisions of a licence to be held by a universal service provider shall—
No. 64, in clause 15, page 10, line 11, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
- (a) require—
- (i) the keeping of separate accounts for each of the postal services which may not be provided unless the licence is held and any other postal services, and
- (ii) the accounts for any other postal services clearly to distinguish between services which are part of a universal postal service and services which are not; and
- (b) prohibit cross-subsidies between the postal services which may not be provided unless the licence is held and any other postal services which are not part of a universal postal service.'.
No. 65, in page 10, line 11, after second "Commission", insert "every three years".
No. 66, in page 10, line 14, leave out—
', which are specified in the reference and'.No. 67, in page 10, line 15, after "of', insert "a universal".No. 68, in page 10, line 15, leave out "services" and insert "service".
No. 69, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—
'except for references under subsection (1) above.'No. 72, in clause 43, page 28, line 13, at end insert—'(1A) In performing its duty under subsection (1)(a) the Commission shall compare annually the efficiency and economy in the provision of postal services by licence holders with the provision (in the United Kingdom and elsewhere) of postal services and other delivery services.'.No. 73, in clause 44, page 29, line 2, at end insert—'( ) a report on the findings which arise from the performance by the Commission of its duties under section 43(1)(a).'
§ Mr. PageSince the publication of the Government's White Paper on the future of the Post Office last summer, on Second Reading and in Committee, Ministers have advanced the argument that the present Administration wish to press ahead with liberalisation. They want to open up the area within which the Post Office's current monopoly operates.1 and my right hon. and hon. Friends share that ambition. Now is the Minister's opportunity to take a step towards opening up the Post Office and liberalising its operation.
Unfortunately, the wish to go down the path of liberalisation is not shared by some of those right hon. and hon. Members who sit behind the Minister or by some of their trade union allies. It took only a suggestion in the 908 White Paper last year that the price of letters falling within the Post Office monopoly might be halved from £1 to 50p to cause those shadowy union figures who exercise so much influence over new Labour, as they did over old Labour, to become alarmed.
When the Government placed an advertisement in The Sunday Times for the post of chairman of the proposed Postal Services Commission in mid-September, they clearly specified the need for greater competition in the postal services market. The first major step towards liberalisation was to be taken with the reduction from £1 to 50p of letters falling within the monopoly on 1 April 2000.
I want to give the Government every credit for their stout defence against the forces that were mobilised against that change. Having laid their statutory instrument before the House to introduce it, Ministers held out for at least two or three weeks before doing a U-turn. Old Labour pulled the strings and the Government did what they almost always do when faced with opposition within their ranks: they rolled over and surrendered.
It is pointless for the Minister to say by way of explanation that the Government were persuaded to back-track because of their plans based on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last September. The entire House has tremendous respect for that Committee. I do not believe that the Government should be involved in consultation on the appointment of members of the Postal Services Commission. It is more than a bit rich for Ministers to regard the Select Committee as an authority whose advice must be followed on the scope of the Post Office monopoly when, in their view, it is not well qualified to take a view on the composition of the members of the commission, which will be responsible for determining the limit once the Bill is enacted.
The Government have already made the case for reducing the limit to 50p, but they have had a temporary moment of weakness. I hope that my amendment will encourage them to return to their previous position. The Government rightly recognised last summer and autumn that the Post Office would inevitably be exposed to greater competition in its current monopoly area. As night follows day, international competition will grow and pressures will build. The Government were conscious that the sooner the process of adjusting to greater competition began, the better the prospects for the Post Office, and I endorse that view.
I invite the Government to have the courage of their own convictions and not to leave the decision to reduce the limit to the Postal Services Commission. Promoting competition must be more than a slogan, a soundbite or mere spin. When the Government say something, they must mean it and stick by it, but we must doubt whether that will be so. They paid lip service to competition for only as long as the occupants of smoke-filled back rooms did not kick up any fuss. They should kick the habit, give up smoking and bring the Post Office into the real world and the clean, fresh air of competition.
§ Mr. BercowDoes my hon. Friend agree that his salutary amendment puts the Minister for Competitiveness under the spotlight and to the test? We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply. The Secretary of State has made consistent pro-competition noises and has made 909 considerable progress in his political career not by submitting to, but by taking on, the trade unions. I fear, however, that the suspicion lurks that the Minister for Competitiveness, whose background is in organised labour, may be a little unsound and may have sought to dissuade the Secretary of State from his previous intention. Must we not be assured that the Minister is on-side?
§ Mr. PageThere is greater joy in heaven over the prodigal that returns than over the person who remained constant all the time. I have always felt it very unfair that the person in the parable who played the game and did all the work got no credit when the rogue and the vagabond who squandered the family inheritance was welcomed back and the fatted calf was killed for him. Nevertheless, I am of a generous nature, as I keep telling the House, although no one believes me. If the Minister were to announce that he had forsaken his old ways and was coming back to the paths of righteousness and competition, I should be the first to pay tribute to his conversion.
Our raft of amendments flows towards the same point—increased competition. Amendment No. 61 would reduce the weight from 350 g to 150 g. The arguments in favour of reducing the weight limit over which the Post Office retains a, monopoly are just as cogent as those for reducing the price at which the monopoly is effective. The Government argued for that only last year, but, as on price, they have retreated in the face of their trade union allies. I have to assume that that explains the unusually coy terms in which the Minister referred to the proposals in the 1999 White Paper and the abortive statutory instrument subsequently laid before a Standing Committee on 9 March.
I realise that that point is embarrassing for Ministers, who are understandably sensitive. I do not want to highlight it too greatly, but, as Oscar Wilde, I think, once said, there is a good deal to be said for blushing if one can do it at the proper time. The Minister should occasionally blush when he thinks over the saga of embarrassment within his Department.
If it was right to argue last year for a reduction in the weight limit, it remains right today. The longer the Post Office is shielded from serious competition within its monopoly area, the greater its difficulties will be when it has to face rival operators in the previously protected areas. That competition cannot be avoided for ever. It will come, no matter what the Government may say or do to try to prevent it.
We have seen what happened as regards job losses and plant closures as a result of the Department of Trade and Industry's failure to anticipate what was happening in areas such as the Rover car company. When the Post Office suddenly starts to shed jobs because it has been exposed to market competition, we shall no doubt hear the Government trying to shield themselves by saying that wicked foreigners are not playing by the rules. They will say that the Postal Services Commission acted on its own precipitately to reduce the price and weight limits. The miracle cure of a task force will be wheeled out yet again to save the day.
910 8.45 pm
All that can be avoided if the Government accept the logic of their own arguments. The arguments that I have made were all previously advanced by the Government and would allow the Post office progressively to be exposed to further competition. It can adjust successfully to meet that competition and the Government would do well to give it that opportunity right now.
Amendment No. 62 is simple; it has one clear purpose—to ensure that the universal service provider keeps separate accounts for the services to be offered in respect of the licence to be held by that person or organisation, and for other postal services that might be supplied in the market. The amendment was tabled simply to prohibit the potential cross-subsidisation by a universal service provider of other postal services that lie outside its universal service.
The Government want a level playing field; they want fair play. What better way to achieve that aim than by accepting our amendment? Our concerns were prompted by the position of Parcelforce in the Post Office's operation. It has made losses over several years—far too many years, some people may say. It has been able to survive because it has been cross-subsidised by other operations in the Post Office monopoly. There is no doubt that its commercial rivals have suffered as a result, because they have not had the advantages of protection to sustain loss-making activities. The phrase "level playing field" is a terrible one, but everyone knows what it means; it is vital that we have one so that that situation does not continue after the Bill is passed.
I do not know how the Minister will react to the amendment, although I can make a strong guess. The Government made their position clear on the other amendments that I tabled—I am now offering them a little backbone, so that they can make progress. I suspect that they might be reluctant to accept the amendment, for fear of offending the Communication Workers Union. They may argue that it is for the Post Office to arrange its commercial affairs in the competitive environment into which it is being thrust.
Why tie the Post Office down with such restrictions? Why does the Minister not go ahead and give the organisation a fair and open trading position so that everyone knows exactly where they stand?
I make no apology for pointing out that amendments Nos. 64 to 69 are among the most important to be tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They constitute a critical test of the Government's commitment to the process of competition. At present, clause 15 permits the Postal Services Commission to request the Competition Commission to investigate practices that may act, or may be expected to act, against the public interest and to report on whether modifications to the licence conditions might produce appropriate remedies. It also offers the Postal Services Commission latitude to vary the terms of reference to the Competition Commission and to advance its own view on the nature of any potentially adverse effects of licence modifications on dealing with such problems.
911 Furthermore, the Secretary of State may step in—as one might expect, because he appears either directly, or as some shadowy figure, behind most of the Bill—to
direct the Competition Commission not to proceedwith any reference to it, nor "to give effect" to any variation of the terms of reference previously made by the Postal Services Commission.The permissive nature of these provisions—the opportunities that the Postal Services Commission will have to decide whether to make a reference to the Competition Commission and to alter the terms of the reference once made, quite apart from the ability of the Secretary of State to cut short any investigation—seems strongly at variance with the Government's declared aims of promoting competition and preventing anti-competitive practices.
My speech may be becoming a little too biblical, but I was going to say that that variance reminds me of the sinner who wanted to be virtuous but preferred not to be just yet—and we all remember the story of the maiden lady saying her prayers. [Interruption.] If the Minister does not know the story, I shall tell him afterwards and let him into the secret. It is not terribly scandalous.
The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the hors de combat Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) have a single purpose: to ensure that the Postal Services Commission is obliged to refer the activities of universal service providers to the Competition Commission every three years for a determination of whether they operate in the public interest. I do not believe that regular examination of the Post Office's activities will do it any harm if it is working in the overall public interest. It would be seen not to have indulged in any anti-competitive practices. Only those who have something to hide will seek to object.
However, I expect that the Minister will tell me that the licence conditions under which the Post Office is expected to operate will ensure that it does not conduct its activities in an anti-competitive way. I have no doubt that we shall be told that the universal service providers, whether one or many, will be subject to competition law. So they will, and so they should be.
The trouble with that view is that it does not take into account the way in which monopolies operate. We need to be sure that the Post Office will be properly controlled and its activities regularly scrutinised. I am worried that the regulator alone cannot do that task.
The relationship between a powerful monopoly and its statutory regulator is complex and full of tensions. I served on the Committee that considered what became the Telecommunications Act 1984, which split telecoms from the Post Office and then privatised them, so I am fully aware of how tensions can move into a relationship between regulator and monopoly. The relationship resembles a marriage. Both partners need each other and cannot live apart, but there is a tendency for them to bicker constantly. That was certainly true of BT and Oftel for the first few years of their dealings with each other.
The one thing that the arrangements for the external scrutiny proposed in clause 15 do not offer is the periodic appearance of a marriage guidance counsellor. Amendments Nos. 64 to 69 address that issue and close 912 that gap. It will help if an independent person studies the relationship periodically to ensure that it is fair and that there is fair play on both sides. I believe that that would ensure that the relationship between the Postal Services Commission and the industry that it regulates does not become too close—that there is no possibility of excessive familiarity between partners in that relationship.
We all know the problems that can exist when hostages are taken, and the relationship between kidnapper and hostage becomes close and ceases to be antagonistic. Sometimes hostages go out of their way to protect the kidnapper. I know that I am now making a slightly broader parallel, but I believe that our suggestions would prevent excessive familiarity between the partners in that relationship. As a result, the Competition Commission could take a dispassionate look at the postal services industry's licence holders regularly but not too frequently.
§ Mr. BercowWould my hon. Friend like to say something about paragraph (b) of amendment No. 62, tabled in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)? That amendment seems eminently reasonable, and I will be genuinely perplexed if Ministers do not support it. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me?
§ Mr. PageI have always had great difficulty in grasping why Ministers do not support my amendments, because I have always thought all those amendments, both here and in Committee, to be eminently reasonable and practicable in helping the Post Office and the whole postal industry to provide a better service in the very competitive world outside.
§ Mr. PageThe hon. Gentleman must hold his horses as I gallop to the end of my sentence.
It amazes me that the Minister has not accepted our amendments. But I am being very kind to him today, because he is obviously under the weather. He is not well, and he is struggling to get through, so I shall not push too many of my amendments to what should be their logical conclusion.
§ Dr. TurnerI should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on at least realising the wisdom of withdrawing the amendment he moved in Committee that would have halved the weight of the parcels participating in the universal service. It seems that he does not, on reflection, think that all the amendments he moved in Committee were sensible, and I congratulate him.
§ Mr. PageI am always open to congratulations. Flattery, rather than kicks, gets people further in the world. But it will come as a huge surprise to the hon. Gentleman that not every amendment that one tables is selected for debate. There were a number of amendments that we would have liked to table, but did not, because we did not believe that they would be selected. I must express appreciation to the powers that be that have allowed these amendments to be given another run around the course. I hope that this time the Minister will stiffen his backbone, take his courage in both hands, act in accordance with all the other metaphors and similes that I can think of, and accept them. 913 I shall say no more about that amendment and draw my remarks to a close by saying a few words about amendment No. 73.
The amendments that we are considering arise from issues that both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton raised in Committee. We argued then, and on my hon. Friend's behalf I argue again now, that it would be appropriate for the regulatory body to collect information about the development of postal services within the rest of Europe and about the performance of the postal service providers there
If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister broadly agreed that that would be sensible. I do not want to say "desirable", but when we discussed the matter he seemed to express some enthusiasm. I am sorry to say that his apparent generosity on that occasion does not appear to have been translated into action.
My hon. Friend indicated that we would raise the matter again on Report if there was no response, or an inadequate response, by the Department. That explains why I am returning to the matter now. I hope that the Minister will think again about the small burst of enthusiasm for this measure that he expressed in Committee and consider whether he feels like accepting it now.
As I said, this clutch of amendments would gear up the Post Office to face a competitive world that will become even more competitive. Fairly soon, there will be pressures from Europe on our postal services and on the Royal Mail. The quicker that we start to adjust to them and to prepare for them, the better.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. CotterAs the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said, Conservative Members attempted in Committee to hit severely at the universal service. They have possibly since taken fright at that, because we are dealing with a serious issue. Communities are at risk and people expect and are entitled to expect a good service. We have had a universal service for many years. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, one form of amendment was tabled in Committee but the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has made another attempt to attack the universal service and that is linked to the reduction in the limit from £1 to 50p.
I do not understand the purpose of the amendment. An attack on the universal service would affect people across the country. Under the Bill, the regulator has an obligation to consider this issue, and I would much prefer his considered view to this amendment.
Serious issues are involved. The £1 limit has been in place for many years, and has effectively reduced in value. Competition from e-mail and other services is another factor, and if the limit were reduced the estimated loss of income to the Post Office would be about £100 million. In addition, people in rural areas would suffer a diminution in their service.
If, in due course, the regulator examines the issues that I have raised and comes to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that the proposal in the amendment is a way forward, it will be a different story. The regulator will have considered the issues properly and taken into account the position as it will be after the Bill has been enacted. That is preferable to accepting the amendment 914 tonight. I look forward to the Minister's response. Instead of taking the precipitate action proposed in the amendment, we should consider carefully any suggestion that might affect the universal service.
§ Mr. Alan JohnsonThe hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned prodigal sons, broken marriages and kidnapping. I thought that he was devising a Jeffrey Archer plot rather than considering the Postal Services Bill.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 contain arguments that are so stale that they are curling at the edges. We debated the matter in the House on 8 December on a revocation order and we debated it again in Committee. I very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), but I remind him that he moved an amendment in Committee to bring down the £1 monopoly limit to 50p. It was forced to a vote and he voted against his own amendment.
§ Mr. CotterAs the Minister knows very well, we were trying to probe a point and he has misrepresented me very badly. On that occasion, he accused me of being mischievous, so I accuse him of being equally mischievous tonight.
§ Mr. JohnsonThe hon. Gentleman may well be right.
Our argument is simple. The Trade and Industry Committee report suggested that instead of taking the drastic step of halving the monopoly at the very time we are setting up the Postal Services Commission, it would make sense, as the hon. Gentleman said, for us to ask the commission to do the necessary work. It should also make the judgment not whether to reduce the monopoly level to 50p but whether to reduce it at all, and if so by how much. That argument is perfectly defensible.
On that basis, the Conservatives have accused us of delay. Their manifesto for the 1992 election, which they won—it will probably be their last election win for many a year—contained a commitment to introduce a regulator and reduce the monopoly limit to a level closer to the price of a first-class stamp. The party that is so keen on competition and regulation did absolutely nothing about those manifesto commitments, which many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have supported. Instead, it went off on a wild adventure of privatisation. If one sprinkled the Conservatives' manifesto with rosewater, held it up to the light and looked at it from every angle, one would find no reference to privatisation.
We are having to wait a few months for the commission to be set up and, perhaps, for the monopoly limit to be reduced. We agreed that the limit should be sufficient only to guarantee universal service at a uniform tariff. That is the principal objective that we have given the commission. As to the wait, I can only say to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that under the previous Government we waited five years and there was no movement at all.
It was timely of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) to point out that Conservative Members, who say that they are defending the universal service obligation, tabled an amendment in Committee which would have allowed parcels to be delivered in remote rural areas outside the terms of the universal service obligation. That would particularly have affected 915 parts of Scotland such as the highlands and islands, where the Conservatives have no parliamentary representation. They have met Disraeli's great objective of being a one nation party: they have no Members in Wales or Scotland; they have Members only in England.
That amendment would have meant that the Post Office would no longer have a commitment to deliver to those areas, and if it did so, it could charge a higher tariff for going to the far north or to remote rural areas. We should remember that proposal the next time the Conservatives start banging on about how devoted they are to the universal service obligation. The Opposition's arguments are stale and we have debated them in the House before. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the sense not to press amendments Nos. 60 and 61 to a vote, but, if he does, I hope that they will be defeated.
I cannot be much kinder about amendment No. 62, which thuds along heavily like a dinosaur through the Bill's lush terrain. We have debated the matter before. It is our intention that the requirements on universal service providers—such as quality of service standards, regulatory accounts, complaints and compensation schemes—will be imposed and enforced through the licensing regime. The outline licence has been distributed and comments are invited until September. All contributions will be gratefully received. Such matters should be dealt with in that manner, not in the Bill. We are setting up a commission, and we ought to allow it to decide how to do its work.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not in his place, but he was seized by new subsection (2A)(b) in the amendment, which refers to cross-subsidies. That matter is decided by the European postal directive, which will bring him no comfort. The directive allows cross-subsidy from the reserved to the non-reserved area, provided that it is necessary to maintain a universal service, so parcels, for example, can be cross-subsidised in certain circumstances. That is why the amendment should not be pressed.
I can be a little kinder about amendments Nos. 64 to 69, which at least show a little originality. However, if I have understood their purpose correctly, it rather stands on its head the amendment that we introduced in Committee to give the Postal Services Commission the ability to refer to the Competition Commission any matters on which it considered that there was a conflict with public interest. Under the Bill as amended, the Postal Services Commission will have that important power to protect the public interest, and we need no further amendments to that effect.
Finally, on amendments Nos. 72 and 73, perhaps I am becoming a little more mellow. The amendments would create a specific duty, requiring the commission to compare annually the efficiency and economy of postal services provided by licence holders to postal services in general, in the UK and elsewhere.
The problem is that that is an unnecessary level of prescription. It specifies exactly how the commission should carry out its duties. We think that that should be left to the commission. It suggests that the commission should carry out benchmarking annually. The commission can decide on the importance of benchmarking and 916 whether it should be done annually, biennially or whenever. It is ridiculous for the Bill to be prescriptive on such issues.
In addition, the amendment specifies that the commission should carry out its work to an arbitrary time scale, which once again is not helpful.
We have said many times that our intention in the Bill is to set up an independent regulator. The Bill sets out the main functions, duties and powers of the commission, but it does not tell the commission how to fulfil those functions. That is for the commission to decide; otherwise it would not be a fully independent body. The amendment goes against the concept of the independent regulator. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire will withdraw it.
§ Mr. PageI thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and I submitted.
I thought that the Minister was remarkably cruel to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). He should remember that the hon. Gentleman represents a party that is the Government's ally in Scotland. I find it slightly hurtful that the Minister should so thoroughly humiliate the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. I suggest that, in future, the Minister should adopt the approach of forgiving the hon. Gentleman because he knoweth not what he does.
We all know that when the Government are in trouble, they start harking back to the past, going back to the previous Government and history, when they should be looking to the future. The plain fact is that a year ago, the Government announced their intention to introduce certain reductions of the limits, and within a week or so, under a little pressure, they collapsed and caved in. Now the Minister is trying to get the commission to do the Government's work for them. I find that unsatisfactory. In his position, I would find it highly embarrassing. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Alan JohnsonI beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 35, leave out from "letters" to end of line 39 and insert—
'of members of a document exchange from a departure facility for that exchange to an arrival facility for another document exchange by persons who are not members of either exchange, and the collection and delivery by such persons for that purpose of letters delivered to the departure facility concerned,'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 33, 19 to 22, 47, 23 to 29 and 53.
§ Mr. JohnsonIn view of the time and my cold, I shall be brief. The amendments are technical and deal with matters such as petitions to the National Assembly for Wales. Hon. Members who served on the Committee may remember that we gave a commitment to introduce relevant amendments on Report.
I shall spend a couple of minutes on certain aspects of amendments Nos. 30 to 33, which deal with document exchange centres. I need to put on record the reasoning behind the amendments.
917 9.15 pm
We have a general policy of replacing the system of class licences with exceptions to clause 6. Document exchange is currently subject to a class licence, and including this exception in the Bill will allow a useful service to continue. Document exchange is a system used by many professionals, such as lawyers and insurers, who are members of a local document exchange to exchange documents with other members of that local document exchange. We have already defined such an exchange in the Bill as a system involving at least three members for each local document exchange, in order to ensure that this does not become an end-to-end service breaching the reserved area without a licence.
Similar institutions exist in Europe, but they are not common. In the United Kingdom, the system has developed almost uniquely to include the conveyance and sorting of letters between document exchanges, with the result that a national network linking document exchanges has evolved.
The amendment makes it clear that the exception allows for the conveyance of letters between document exchanges by a third party. We have now defined that more closely as transport between the departure facility of one document exchange and conveyance to the arrival facility of another document exchange. What the exception is not intended to do is permit end-to-end delivery by a third party. That would allow cream-skimming: it would allow unlicensed operators to jeopardise the universal service at a uniform tariff. To ensure that that does not happen, conveyance can occur only between the arrival and departure facilities of the document exchange, not within the document exchange. The letters being conveyed must be intended for a document exchange other than the one from which they are being sent, and the third party providing the service must not be a member of either of the document exchanges concerned.
The members of any document exchange are responsible for the delivery and collection of their own letters. The amendment that we tabled earlier inadvertently left the slim possibility that a third party could take letters between the members within an exchange. Although the possibility was only slim, we could see that the loophole could have been exploited to create a rival end-to-end delivery system to a licensed universal service provider, but without having to obtain a licence from the commission. The amendment removes that possibility.
As of now, nothing in the amendment would prevent the arrival and departure facilities from being located on the premises of a member of the exchange, as is frequently the case in the United Kingdom—although the requirement for three members means that it would not be possible to establish a sham document exchange in which the only member was the person on whose premises the exchange was located.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made: No.31, in page 6, line 10, at end insert—
' "arrival facility", in relation to a document exchange, means any box, receptacle or other facility associated with that exchange which is provided for the receipt of letters from members of another document exchange
918
which are conveyed to the facility from a departure facility for that other exchange for collection by members of the first exchange,'.
§
No. 32, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—
' "departure facility", in relation to a document exchange, means any box, receptacle or other facility associated with that exchange which is provided for the collection of letters of members of that exchange which are delivered to the facility by those members for conveyance to an arrival facility for another document exchange for collection by members of that other exchange,'.
§ No. 33, in page 7, leave out lines 5 to 7.—[Mr. Betts.]