---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

I was brought up, parliamentarily speaking, to believe that when the words "the Secretary of State" appear in legislation, they apply to any political departmental head. This is a very simple probing amendment to discover which Secretary of State it is anticipated will be responsible for the decisions made under this part. I have tabled only one amendment to Clause 16, but intend to speak as well to the various places where the words "the Secretary of State" appear throughout these provisions. This Bill has already been defended and clarified by the Secretary of State and more recently by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Who knows, when we move on to Part 3, we might have a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which after all is the sponsoring department for Ofcom, which is to be the regulator under the new scheme of things, and thus we shall add a third. The question of which department will exercise some of the powers in the Bill is therefore not nearly as clear as normal. Given that, in part, a Minister from the DWP has spoken for the Government on this part of the Bill, it is likely that that department expects to handle the pension provisions, but is that the case? I would be happier if the greater expertise in that department, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, in respect of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, decided what the new pension scheme will look like, how many assets and liabilities will be transferred and how the ongoing RMPP will be handled. I hope the Minister will reassure me that his department will do all these things. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will remember that I have spoken before about the mishmash of responsibilities that the Government have divided between the Treasury and the DWP for what I still regard as social security matters. I cannot believe that the Treasury will be willing to give up all control in the area of the Royal Mail pension plan. Indeed, there are occasions in the Bill where the Secretary of State, whichever Secretary of State it may be, can act only with the consent of the Treasury. The transferred assets under Clause 20 will obviously be very attractive to the Treasury. Can the Minister give some clarity on who will have the final say on what will happen to the money resulting from the eventual sale of those assets? The taxation provisions in Clause 22 will also, presumably, fall under the Treasury rather than the DWP. We would be rather wary about that given the example of a previous time when the Chancellor amended the tax provisions relating to pension pots and executed the £5 billion a year tax raid on occupational pensions. I shall not go into detail, I am sure to the Minister’s relief. I know that it is not customary to specify departments on the face of primary legislation. Governments are generally too fond of reshuffling and rebranding departments of state for any name to survive the length of time we hope the Act will last. Indeed, I remember that under the Thatcher Government various Secretaries of State took bits of their own departments with them because they felt an affinity with those particular pieces of their former departments. I remember that the subject of tourism whistled round Whitehall like a rather weak gale. I hope the Minister will give a little more insight into how the Government intend to handle the tensions between departments that will no doubt arise from these provisions. That is the important point. Forget all the joshing I have just executed.