Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
I have tabled this amendment to suggest a small aspect of the new public pension scheme and its relationship with the RMPP that would be of benefit to both. It would establish that any trivial liability relating to a member who remained in one scheme, while the huge bulk of their pension liability fell into the other scheme, could be carried across. That may seem to be a small suggestion and, given the quite enormous powers that these clauses give to the Secretary of State, I would be astonished to hear that it was not already possible under current drafting, but I thought I would make the case for this level of portability none the less. The administrative saving could be considerable. As the Minister knows, there are plenty of precedents for the use of both portability powers and the calculation of triviality, both of which we have discussed at various times in recent years. The latter could of course be specified in relation to the triviality limits set out in the Finance Act 2004. A trivial-portability provision would also have the advantage of reducing the number of people receiving their pension benefit from two sources. While we are on this group, will the Government give some indication of whether any thought is being given to how the new public pension scheme will pay out the benefit? Will there be any liaison with the RMPP about the timing of the arrival of the cheques? The ideal situation would be that each pensioner received their benefit from one source. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government intend to make it possible for the company handling the RMPP payments to handle the new pension scheme’s payments as well. While I am on that subject, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, would stop referring to a "privatised company". It is nothing of the sort. It remains a public company. Outside money will be coming into it but very much at its head, under the proposed structure, are Her Majesty’s Government, under whom comes Royal Mail Holdings plc. The only bit of the Post Office network that the Bill covers is Royal Mail Group Ltd, which is letter and parcel post, and Post Office Ltd—that is where the commercial relationship comes into play. There are three other firms within the group, including Royal Mail Estates Ltd, Royal Mail Investments Ltd and, as the noble Lord will know well, the fairly new General Logistics Systems firm. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that under the Bill it is not, and never will be, a privatised company. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c1039-40
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Contracts Industrial relations Finance Liability EU law Insolvency Government assistance Government shareholding Private sector Pensions Partnerships Post offices Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Postal services Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Modernisation Regulation Voting rights Technology Royal Mail TNT
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:43:16 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545051
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545051
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545051