---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

These amendments relate to the provision for orders made under Clauses 16, 17, and 18 to have retrospective effect. The provision for retrospectivity in relation to orders made under those clauses is an important protection for scheme members. It is also necessary to ensure effective co-ordination of the proposals in respect of pensions with the Government’s other proposals in respect of partnership. Perhaps I may deal with the latter point first. The Government have made it clear that their proposals on pensions will be implemented only if a partnership agreement is concluded. It is also the case that a partnership agreement can be concluded only if the historic pension liabilities are addressed through the measures set out in the Bill. Both are further dependent on state aid clearance being obtained from the European Commission, the date of which is uncertain. In practical terms, these dependencies mean that implementation of the measures under the Bill will require a high degree of co-ordination. A change to any one factor could affect the others. The Bill must provide for these dependencies to be managed adequately; otherwise its whole purpose risks being defeated. It is also the case that any prospective partner will require certainty as to the date at which the pensions measures will come into force so that there is no doubt about the level of risk that is being assumed. In addition, members of the RMPP will not welcome uncertainty as to how they will be affected, and the point at which their qualifying accrued rights will formally transfer to the new government-backed scheme. Ensuring the required co-ordination between pensions, partnership and state aid clearance, while also providing certainty for members and any prospective partner, presents a practical challenge because of a number of factors that are outside the Government’s control. In particular, an extended timescale for state aid approval, or additional time required for consultation with the trustees on the detailed regulations, might delay the date at which relevant statutory instruments can be laid. Furthermore, in respect of a number of the proposed measures—including, for example, the establishment of the new scheme—the period required for implementation could potentially be lengthy. For these reasons, it is essential to provide flexibility to allow for orders made under Clauses 16, 17, and 18 to have retrospective effect. I think that we are agreed on that. In the absence of flexibility, there would be an increased risk that factors outside the Government’s control in relation to pensions could leave RMPP members in a position of uncertainty and act as an obstacle to partnership, delaying the vital modernisation of Royal Mail that is urgently required to protect the universal postal service. I turn to the amendments. Limiting in the Bill the date at which provisions can have effect to a date later than 16 December 2008 would have no positive practical effect and, indeed, could adversely affect the position of members of the new government scheme going forward. The Government have made it clear that they propose that 16 December should be the key cut-off point for the qualifying accrued rights that should be transferred from the RMPP to the new government scheme. In accordance with this policy, most of the provisions made under these clauses could not take effect before that date, because the qualifying accrued rights would not have fully accrued at that point. Going forward, however, it is common for pension schemes, including the RMPP, to have a power enabling retrospective amendment of scheme rules. This is required in order to comply with legislation or court rulings that also have retrospective effect. Placing an artificial limit on the scope of retrospective implementation of orders made under Clause 16 could prevent the new public service scheme complying with such changes and thereby adversely affect the position of members. In the light of what I have said in explaining the purpose and importance of the orders under Clauses 16, 17, and 18 being able to have retrospective effect, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will not press his amendment.