---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

This amendment would ensure that Part 2 of the Bill—concerning the taking over of the assets and liabilities of the RMPP, to a little of which the Secretary of State has just responded—could not happen without the reorganisation, part-privatisation and establishment of new regulatory reform that Hooper specifically tied together in this review. I think, from discussions earlier today with the Secretary of State, that I have already had that confirmation. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said at Second Reading, we on these Benches accept the Hooper review in principle. Given the appalling size of the RMPP deficit, we agree that, regrettably, it is necessary to take on some of the liabilities. However, we are fully in agreement with Hooper that this rescue is contingent on putting the Royal Mail on a secure footing for the future to prevent the need for any more taxpayer money going to subsidise a company that, to say the least, has failed to keep up with the times. The Government have accepted that recommendation too. Their policy paper laid out clearly that they accept the review "as a package". It went on to say: ""Tackling pensions on their own would not be a panacea for Royal Mail’s difficulties"." Is it not a fact, though, that Royal Mail is now reserving some £283 million a year to fill the hole in its pension deficiencies? That means it will have that amount of money available for investment in its activities. The policy paper goes on to say: ""Indeed, it would be irresponsible for the Government to tackle the pensions alone without the policies in place to ensure that Royal Mail can transform quickly to compete in a fast-changing market"." I could not agree more. The Secretary of State elaborated further on that point at Second Reading. He expressed his view that, ""it is inconceivable that the public will accept such a ‘bail-out’ without the Government taking steps to ensure that the company has a transformed future".—[Official Report, 10/3/09; col. 1067.]" We agree with him, and we certainly agree with Sir Richard, that the Government must do the job properly. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to put that commitment in the Bill. We have already discussed today several areas of the Bill that could be used for very different purposes from those that Ministers on the Benches opposite say that they intend them for. On the whole they have given reasonable explanations for why the words in the Bill are required. I will study carefully the ones that I am initially suspicious of. The Committee has also heard the serious opposition from many of those on the Government’s Back Benches to Part 1 of the Bill, as opposed to the much more friendly reception they have given to the general principle behind Part 2. I do not want to be thought unduly cynical, but some reassurance from the Government that they will not give in over the coming months and drop the more unpopular part while pushing ahead with Part 2 would be very welcome. I am not sure that I have had that assurance in quite so many words; if the Secretary of State would like to give it to me, we can dispose of this matter immediately. I beg to move.