Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
My Lords, I start by expressing some difficulty: I thought that we were going to have a revised grouping. However, I will attempt to respond. I think that we are dealing with Amendments 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48. As we have just discussed, Clause 17 has two main functions. One is to allow the Secretary of State, by order, to sectionalise the RMPP so that it has different sections for Royal Mail Group and Post Office employees. This would ensure that pension assets and liabilities relating to Post Office Ltd are completely separate from those relating to Royal Mail Group. The second function of Clause 17 is to provide for the possibility of a government-sponsored section containing qualifying accrued rights. This, as I have mentioned, is purely a contingency measure should it not be possible to set up and transfer qualifying accrued rights into a new public service scheme. The amendments that the Government tabled earlier on Clause 17 aim to clarify that we have no intention of playing an ongoing role in the RMPP, except in respect of the fall-back case of a government-sponsored section containing qualifying accrued rights. Future matters relating purely to Royal Mail Group and Post Office Ltd sections are a matter solely for the trustees and the company. Amendment 43 would remove Clause 17. If this is in response to concerns that the intended use of powers in Clause 17 was unclear, I hope that my noble friend has found the earlier government amendments helpful in clarifying our intentions. If Clause 17 were removed altogether, the Government would have no power to sponsor a section containing qualifying accrued rights. They would not be able to make payments to the trustees to pay benefits as they fall due. Nor could they make payments to cover any discretionary payments. Although the option of a government-sponsored section containing qualifying accrued rights is only a contingency measure, it is a necessary precaution should it not be possible to transfer qualifying accrued rights into a new public service scheme. Thus we are unable to accept Amendment 43—or Amendment 48, which appears to be consequential. The removal of Clause 17 does not necessarily exclude the possibility of sectionalising the RMPP into different Royal Mail Group and Post Office Ltd sections. This might still be achieved through the power to make amendments to the RMPP under Clause 18; but crucially, Amendment 44 would require the agreement of the trustees. Amendment 44 goes wider than just requiring the trustees’ formal agreement to sectionalisation. It would require trustee agreement to any amendments to the RMPP in connection with Clauses 16 or 17. This is not necessary for two reasons. First, scheme members are already protected by the protections set out in Clause 19. These protections are an integral part of the Government’s proposals, and there is no possibility of an order being made under Clause 18 that would have a material adverse effect on relevant pensions provisions contained in the RMPP. Secondly, Clause 24 already requires the Government to consult the trustees; the Government are working closely with them to ensure that the pension changes are effected as smoothly as possible. It is therefore unclear what extra protection Amendment 44 would provide. Nor do the Government think it appropriate to place a responsibility on the trustees of the RMPP to make a decision in relation to an order proposed by the Secretary of State. As I set out in Committee, we consider that the ultimate decision on the detail of an order laid by the Government must rest with the appropriate Secretary of State. Finally, Amendments 45 and 46 would broaden the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to amend the RMPP, which currently can be exercised only in connection with an order made under Clauses 16 or 17. We do not think that this is necessary or desirable. The Bill has strong protections for members, and requirements to consult the trustees. Given the issues that I have mentioned, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c874-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Companies Directors Annual reports Finance Government shareholding Protection Pensions Post offices Prices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Regulation Taxation Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation Shared ownership schemes TNT Employee ownership
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:31:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555502
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555502
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555502