---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

The short answer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that his characterisation of the Government is not one that I begin to recognise. I do not know where the tensions that he talks of exist or what possible diversion there could be between the views and interests of the head of one department and another, even the Treasury. Having come to the end of those short remarks, let me make a direct response to the questions put to me by the noble Lord. I should start by clarifying the relationship between the powers of the Secretary of State and the role of the Treasury as set out in Part 2. The Government propose that the power to establish a new public service scheme should rest with the Secretary of State. This is consistent with the precedent set by other legislation under which new public service schemes have been established, such as the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, and on which these provisions are modelled. It is also consistent with the position in relation to the other powers provided for in Part 2 where these rest with the Secretary of State. The Government do not see the justification for a different approach in relation to the powers provided in Clause 16(1). I also emphasise that Clause 24 requires the Treasury to consent to the exercise of any powers under this part of the Bill. Indeed, the Treasury must consent to all orders other than information requests. This includes, for example, setting up the new scheme and transferring assets and liabilities. Such decisions have a significant public finance impact so it is appropriate for the Treasury to approve this. However, it is not the intention for the Treasury to be involved in the ongoing management of the pension scheme. This will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and any person nominated by the Secretary of State. As to which Secretary of State of which department will be responsible, it will be implemented and managed by my department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Given this fact, there is nothing to be gained from assigning a power directly to the Treasury. The noble Lord also asked what will happen to the funds from assets sales. The assets transferred to government will be disposed of, over time, as makes most sense for the taxpayer. The proceeds from their disposal will contribute towards meeting the costs of future payments to pensioners. In the light of that information and clarification, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.