The Transport Act protects the Trust Deed which governs the scheme. It effectively means that nobody can change any of the rules of the scheme without either an Act of Parliament or the agreement of everybody in the scheme.
However the Trust Deed always allowed NATS to decide what is pensionable pay so they can make that proposed change without changing the deed. They also don't need a Yes vote to make that change although obviously to do so against an overwhelming No vote would be a brave choice.
The Trust of Promise protects all those who were in the scheme in July 2001. The proposed changes are not contrary to that agreement because only new starters will be forced into the new scheme.
Prospect has already lost much of this battle in the Electricity industry where defined benefit pensions were closed to new joiners some time ago. There are still a lot of similarities between the two cases as they are both regulated industries. The regulator in both cases is suggesting that automatic pass through of pensions can not be defended and in the electricity case is even suggesting that the protection intended by Parliament should somehow be bought out. As a customer of the electricity industry I have an interest in that argument because I'm not happy to see my electricity bill rise for any reason and don't really care if it is to fund pensions or not. As a customer of NATS that nice gentleman who runs Ryanair probably has a similar view about his charges.
There is a whole heap of legislation and process surrounding the regulation of both industries and the idea that the Government can step in and just tell them to do something is laughable.
Last edited by eglnyt; 25th October 2008 at 11:00.
Reason: spelling