Postal Services Bill

I thank the Minister for those comments. There were references in her previous contribution to a uniform tariff, so I was not going to be pedantic. I welcome the further words that she has put on the record. I wanted to respond to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the conspiracy theory. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories as a rule, and I do not in this circumstance. We are perfectly right to express our concerns. That is what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did, so I rest our case on that. It was a perfectly reasonable response and I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, in his—as usual—beautifully argued and rational contribution. I am reassured by the Minister in relation to Amendment 64. Why did we seek to introduce the word ““highly””—a nuanced amendment, if you like? We saw in a fully privatised environment a different environment, and I welcome her comments on that. I also welcome the assurances that she gave in relation to Amendment 66 and will take them into account. I listened carefully to the contribution on Amendment 65 and Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low. The Minister kept us in suspense until the end of her contribution when she gave an assurance about extending the restriction to the end of this Parliament. Who am I to quibble over four years rather than five? I welcome the intent of that and the other words in that assurance. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 64 withdrawn. Clause 33 : Review of minimum requirements Clause 33 : Review of minimum requirements Amendments 65 to 66 not moved. Clause 34 : Designation of universal service providers Amendment 66A Clause 34 : Designation of universal service providers Amendment 66A Moved by