---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

What makes it even worse is that it would be amended by negative resolution. So I agree with the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. My amendments in this group also deal with the issues of transparency and scrutiny. I have mentioned these issues already today in respect of several specific parts. Amendment 79 is a general catch-all amendment to raise the issue of the complete lack of any parliamentary role in the taking of decisions that affect not only the amount of liability the taxpayer takes on but also the ongoing health of the RMPP. Many of the powers in this part are, as we have heard, intended to be used for adjustments and technical matters. If that is the case, I agree that the negative procedure is correct, although we will continue to try to persuade the Minister that the purposes of each part should be much better clarified. However, many of these powers are enormously influential and their initial use will be critical, especially in view of the extraordinary amount of flexibility that the Government are insisting on in these provisions. It is our view that these crucial powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to give Parliament the chance to assess the effectiveness of the new public scheme and to ensure that the Clause 19 safeguard has been met. Amendment 78 relates to the requirement in Clause 24 that the Secretary of State should consult the trustee of the RMPP before making any order under Clause 16(1) or (2) or under the other clauses in this part. My amendment seeks to ensure that the results of any consultation are made public. It should be made clear if the Secretary of State is knowingly going against the trustees’ recommendation. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, goes a little further than my Amendment 78 by requiring not only consultation with the trustees but their consent. As I have said, it is a serious matter if the Secretary of State disregards the advice of the trustee charged with protecting the interests of the members. However, a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult individual trustees of the various schemes and to get their consent is probably overkill. In what circumstances can the Minister imagine acting without consent? Similarly, we have already discussed the concerns felt among current members because of the Government’s inconsistency about their intentions. We should certainly ensure that members are properly informed about any changes in future. I may have more to say, depending on the Minister’s answer.