---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

This may take longer. Amendment 61 is necessary because under Clause 18 the Secretary of State is given the power to amend the RMPP without constraints. The apparent purpose is to permit him to amend the scheme so that service before and after transfer is treated as one. The amendment would give the trustee a veto power. If the amendment is in the best interests of the scheme or the scheme members, the trustee’s consent will be forthcoming. I am sure that we are all reasonable people. It would impose an obligation to consult, which is no more than the statutory obligation that already exists if an amendment affecting benefits were to be made by the trustee rather than the Secretary of State. The source of this obligation is the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006. I said that this amendment may take some time. That is because last Tuesday we had some exchanges on consultation. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that "while the sentiment" behind the amendment on consultation, ""is worthy, we think that it is unnecessary and burdensome"." At the time we were talking about TUPE, but what concerned me then, and what concerns me now, was when he said: ""This consultation is carried out by the relevant employer. This is the correct level for such consultation. To require the Secretary of State to consult the company and its employees over and above this would only cause unnecessary delay and uncertainty for those affected".—[Official Report, 24/3/09; col. 646.]" We heard quite a lot earlier about the need to keep people informed. We should do anything we can to assist in consultation and understanding. In that debate, I said: ""It is paradoxical for a member of the Labour Party like myself, with a long history of being a member of a trade union, to find that the Government resist Amendment … which simply calls for consultation".—[Official Report, 24/3/09; col. 648.]" It is simple: you talk to people, you work out the differences and you come to conclusions. Consultation is often misguided. In a number of places, it is dictation. The guise of consultation is used, but people ultimately take it or leave it. I believe that consultation in the proper sense is necessary. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that the Bill should address consultation and the vital need for the exchange of information and for understanding. I said it then and I repeat it now. At col. 648 I declared that if he walks through the Lobby in pursuit of consultation, I will join him "shoulder to shoulder", because it is that important. Later on, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, moved his amendment to Clause 8 on consultation. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe tried to be helpful to the noble Lord by saying: ""I am not giving a general statement on the extent to which there will be wider consultations with employees when the restructuring takes place. That is obviously something that we will consider in the light of this debate and in the light of how the project develops. I hope that that allows the noble Lord to delay seeking to test the opinion of the Committee".—[Official Report, 24/3/09; col. 649.]" It did not persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at the time and it certainly would not have persuaded me. A Division was called, and lo and behold, with the Government pushing this privatisation Bill—I expect that my saying that will upset the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—they managed to get a majority of five votes. At least five of my colleagues, including myself, abstained. If it comes to it, I will be there pursuing the principle of consultation. It is a vital part of any industrial relations activity and important to most of society when contracts are being worked out. There is nothing wrong with consultation; it is not something that is naughty, indeed it is essential. I beg to move.