---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, although I was invited to do so. However, unlike others who do not accept a challenge, I do. The question was asked about why the taxpayer should pick up the tab for the deficit. It is a legitimate question. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Haskel said: ""If the Government are going to fund the pension scheme deficit, they should do so because it is morally right because of responsibility and because of undertakings given in the past".—[Official Report, 10/3/09; col. 1084.]" That was well said. Reference has been made in this short exchange to the pensions holiday. I have referred to this on a number of occasions and it bears repeating. There is much talk about the poor old taxpayer. I sympathise with anybody who pays tax, especially in these times of credit crunch. However, the responsibility lies clearly with both the former Tory Government and the Labour Government for allowing the pensions holiday to go on. It was said as an aside that we learnt too late. However, within one year of that holiday, I was on my feet with the Royal Mail and the pension fund, saying, "This is wrong. You should be putting away that money for a rainy day". My general secretary pulled me up on one occasion for being—unusually for me—quite direct to the employer. I said clearly, "This cannot go on. Our members are paying 6 per cent of their wages every week. You are giving nothing. If you are making this money, put it in a pot so that when there is a rainy day, we will be able to use it"—as the trust deed stipulated. For 13 years, post office workers paid. They also contributed large amounts of money through the external finance limit. In my time as an officer of the union, it was £2 billion. If you consider that alongside the pensions holiday, and the political pressures on tariffs, and the pressures on managers, you do not ask, "Why should the taxpayer pay?", but say, "Thank goodness that somebody had the sense to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, what is morally right". The Secretary of State replied to my noble friend Lord Haskel. His answer was not so clear-cut, but he started by agreeing that: ""My noble friend Lord Haskel rightly suggested that as a Government we are morally obliged to fund this pensions deficit".—[Official Report, 10/3/09; col. 1132.]" There is no dispute. The Government have a moral obligation, yet this clarity is immediately muddled. Noble Lords in the Chamber have listened to talk about taxpayers, with whom I sympathise—especially because, at this period of our economic history, there is not much money about. However, one has to balance this with the sacrifices made over those years, and the absolute stupidity of management and both Governments who did not see that they were frittering away money that would have been very useful when the rain started to pour.