division_name: Postal Services Bill
motion: <p>[Relevant documents: The Twelfth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998-99, on the 1999 Post Office White Paper, HC 94, and the Government's response thereto, HC 50 of Session 1999-2000.] 
  <p>Order for Second Reading read. 
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  <p> 
      Mr. Peter Bottomley  (Worthing, West):  
   Resign!
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Postal Services 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."
  <p>The chief executive officer of the Post Office predicts that, if the Postal Services Bill is passed, a further 8,000 post offices will close.--[ Official Report , 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1036.]
  <p>The contractual arrangements between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. are commercially confidential, as are the contractual arrangements between Post Office Counters Ltd. and certain retail banks under which customers of those banks can access their accounts at post offices.--[ Official Report , 26 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 93W.]
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 115, Noes 374.
   