---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Amendment 51 is a probing amendment about the ongoing state of the RMPP. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who has Amendment 52 in the group, will probably be just as interested in the answer as I will be. Indeed, my amendment raises many of the same questions that his amendment does. As we have already discussed somewhat tangentially, the RMPP covers many different schemes and benefits. There is the ongoing DB scheme, the relatively recent DC scheme, and all the top-ups and AVCs available to both. There is also the senior executive pension plan, a DB scheme which the Government are leaving behind in the RMPP. After the reorganisation, there is a case to be made for expanding the number yet further. Since Post Office Limited will no longer be a subsidiary of the Royal Mail Group, it can become the sponsoring company to its employees, in a separate section to the Royal Mail employees pension scheme. Subsection (1) of Clause 17 certainly seems to prepare the way for something of that sort. I should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on the Government's intentions. As I said on the previous amendment, there are some five totally separate entities within the group, and the Bill allows each to have its own sub-pension scheme. On the first day of Committee my noble friend raised some concerns about the ongoing relationship between Post Office Limited and the Royal Mail and many of these concerns are relevant to their pension arrangements too. Currently, I understand that it is perfectly normal to transfer between the Royal Mail Group and Post Office Limited as an employee—and, indeed, the other companies in the group. If the pensions for all these companies have been held in one pot, this is easy to accommodate, but how will the arrangements work after the re-organisation? If an employee is transferred between companies, will his pension be moved with him or will he be counted as a new employee of his new company and so miss out on the benefits of working there for a long time? That point is particularly relevant if he was employed, of course, before April 2008 and so is currently in the defined benefit scheme that is closed to new members. I beg to move.