---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

Is the Minister really agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that one of the things wrong with the amendment is that it is far too modest? It is aimed at a particular point in time: before an order is made. As I understand him, the Minister is saying that there should be a continuing duty to ensure that members and former members are kept informed—not just as a one-off, as the amendment says—and that that obligation should be performed under the scheme that he has in mind for exactly the reasons in the paper that I have also received from Unite: a lot of people out there are not currently aware of their rights. A continuing policy of information would be first-class. If the Government undertake to do that, I can see no reason why the amendment would be necessary at all.