Royal Mail

My Lords, I echo the thanks of other noble Lords for a further opportunity to discuss the Post Office and to contribute on issues regarding Royal Mail and the Post Office. My background is in heavy industry which, like Royal Mail, has experienced many significant changes over many years. In the steel industry we referred to it as survival. As a customer—and that is all I am, a customer—I have nothing but praise for the people who work in both the Royal Mail and the Post Office. I share many of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about village post offices. I live in a village of some 7,000 people and the post office is a vital and important part of the community. It is efficient, the people are helpful and it provides a service that is second to none. I would really despair at the thought of a possible closure of that village post office. We must bear in mind that a debate is going on in the country over an important issue: ordinary people, councillors and planners are extremely concerned about the demise of high street shopping and all the problems that that brings. In our village the postal delivery is first class—brilliant, in fact. Postie Mary is special. She is not the best-paid person but the best you can get. So this is a debate worth having and I very much share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead. What security do the employees have regarding future pension arrangements? Can my noble friend the Minister assure me and, more importantly, the employees that current members of the final salary scheme are and will be safeguarded? We all know that pensions are a difficult issue in the country as a whole—difficult for employees. I do not know whether they are quite as difficult for the chairmen and chief executives of companies which get into difficulties. In many cases of companies faced with difficulties the situation is terrible for the employees. Schemes are being closed down. Pensions are being moved into money purchase schemes, as many noble Lords know well. As I understand the situation, the pension deficit in the Post Office, which has been referred to by noble Lords, is both serious and significant. Perhaps I may pause here, for again I am advised that for some 12 years until 2001 the main pension scheme had a surplus funding level and, in accordance with the rules, the employer took a contribution holiday, as many other companies do, and therefore paid nothing for many years. I say that to seek fairness and justice for the future, because many companies’ employees continued paying their full contributions to their pension scheme. Pensions for me and for many other noble Lords here are regarded as ““deferred pay””. Indeed, what do employers say when they meet for negotiations on annual wage rounds? They reminded me on many occasions, ““Don’t forget your future pensions, dear friend””—well, they did not call me ““dear friend””. They would say, ““It’s not a bad package, you know””. So a current cause of concern, among many others, is that if the funding is to come from revenue, even on a staged basis, then reinvestment may well suffer and, of course, low pay—because it is relatively low—will continue to be the norm for Post Office workers. Again, I must point out that that is not the case for the chairman and those around him. This is a worrying and difficult period for those who are employed by, and manage, the Post Office. I, for one, support the CWU, their union, which has stated:"““We support a publicly-owned, publicly-accountable, fully-integrated, national postal service run in the interests of users and not the private postal operators””." I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Government—my Government—agree with those views.