---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

As if I would ever ignore the noble Lord’s advice. It has been a good debate. Courtesy dictates that I should thank those people who have contributed to it. My main concern was the powers of the Secretary of State. I say with respect to my noble friend Lord McKenzie that Clause 18(1) grants a pretty sweeping power. It states: ""The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of the RMPP as the Secretary of State considers appropriate"." That is pretty powerful stuff, for somebody to be able to go and do these things unrestrained, but it is late and we have to get on to some very meaty stuff later on. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, because I have drafted a number of questions about consultation between him and the chairman of the Post Office pension fund. I shall return to them, because they need to be answered. A sequence of events surrounding the letter from Miss Jane Newell and her subsequent retraction of some of its implications needs to be aired publicly and responded to. That is for another time, but the Minister might like to tell his colleague that that is coming later. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, as usual put a very important point. If there is a desire to be open and transparent, consultation is vital. I welcome the idea that, if there is consensus, we should put it in the Bill. We do not need Explanatory Notes or someone to give us guidance; we want it in the legislation that consultation on a number of issues that we have dealt with so far is important and essential if we are going to make this thing work. I am not going to go on. So many things have been said. I certainly will not be dividing the Committee tonight, although if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was to tempt me by going through on consultation I probably would, because I abstained last time, which is a bit of a cowardly way of doing things. That may happen, if push comes to shove and the Government cannot see this—especially a Labour Government, based on the traditions of the interchange of ideas and listening to people. We used to say that we were a listening party, like that bank that was always listening to somebody, although the banks have not listened very much recently. I suggest that the Minister goes away and brings back something in the Bill that guarantees consultation on these vital points.