---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

Our amendments in this group seek to ensure something that people from every point on the political spectrum agree is missing from these discussions: a clear idea of what sort of partnership we are dealing with. The Bill does not give any indication at all but merely opens up a number of possibilities. The Government’s policy paper is not much better; indeed, paragraph 4.6 specifically mentions several of the possible sorts of partnership that might be established. It lists swapping equity, merging businesses or taking on direct equity interests all as possible avenues to be kept open. We do not necessarily disagree with there being flexibility at this stage. The Government have taken great pains to reassure stakeholders that there is, as yet, no deal. It is no doubt reassuring that the Government have not yet committed us to a slap-dash deal that does not provide value for the taxpayer or improvement in Royal Mail, but there is no guarantee that this comfortable position will last. Amendment 20 seeks to establish just how the Government are managing the tendering process. The Government have spoken of this summer being the expected date of any deal, so I presume that they have at least got that far with their policy. I cannot imagine that any possible commercial confidentiality would be breached by reporting to Parliament on how far along the negotiations were or whether there had been any significant delay to the timetable. With so much hanging on the establishment of a deal, both Parliament and the public should be given fair warning, not only about when the reorganisation will take place but also when the pension fund liabilities will be taken over and when Ofcom are to get fully involved. Amendment 21 goes a little further. It would ensure independent scrutiny of any deal to ensure value for money as well as effectiveness. The criteria set out in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause are taken from the Government’s policy paper, in which are set out the criteria against which a potential partner’s suitability is expected to be assessed. Those criteria are all very well, but their inclusion in a policy document does not ensure that they will be met. Recent history has not given us great confidence that the Government are always successful at negotiating the best possible deal. I cannot think of anything more damaging to Royal Mail than a botched agreement that fails to achieve the objectives laid out in the amendment. There have always been worrying news stories about the ethics of one company that has been rumoured to be interested in being involved in Royal Mail. The assessment of a deal in these terms will go deep into commercially confidential matters, so the amendment would not require anything to be made public until after the deal was concluded and even then would allow the removal of commercially sensitive information. However, it would ensure independent assessment of the deal and some parliamentary scrutiny after the fact. I hope that the Secretary of State will have no difficulty in accepting the third amendment in the group, Amendment 22. The Government have accepted at paragraph 4.18 of their policy paper parliamentary scrutiny of the amount and distribution of any money received for a minority stake. Despite the promise in that paper, I could find no such requirement anywhere in the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendments. They are the bare minimum that we can expect in terms of the transparency of the deal. I beg to move.