| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): In Committee there was a useful exchange on the subject of pensions. At column 646 of the Hansard report of 11 June, the Minister agreed that accrued benefits should
not be the sole criterion and that accrued surpluses are important. He said that he would consider the points that were raised and see whether they could be embodied in legislation at Report stage. I am disappointed with Government amendment No. 10 because it fails to do that. That is regrettable, as there was constructive debate about pensions in Committee.
There is no doubt that people face great difficulties when their pension arrangements are affected by changes of ownership. Many examples of that kind have been raised in the Chamber. It seems quite extraordinary that, when we have the opportunity to protect those people's interests, the House does not use its full powers so to do. That is why I think that hon. Members should consider carefully new clause 17 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
Several factors must be taken into account when considering a change of ownership such as this. If it were an ordinary private sector transaction, there would be commercial considerations on both sides which I suspect that the Minister would argue would put it outside the scope of the House. No doubt he would argue that matters of commercial consideration were involved. In this case, the matters are not just of commercial consideration but are of relevance to viewers and listeners, to the employees and to the House. New clause 17 would enable the Minister to exercise common sense and control over the debate in the interests of all those parties. At the top of the list for consideration should be those people who have paid into the scheme--as we would expect if our pension fund were being discussed. The clause, as drafted at the moment, fails to take into account the interests of the employees and I urge the Minister to think carefully about the alternative in new clause 17.
In many other cases, the Government have exercised control in a variety of ways over the disposal of pension funds that have come under their control. One approach was adopted for the sale of Amersham International and, in subsequent privatisations, a different style was adopted. I am not arguing for one version or another: I am simply saying that the adoption of new clause 17 would give the Secretary of State the power to consider all the issues from the point of view of the fund members and to exercise that control in their interests, especially in relation to any surpluses. We had this exchange in Committee, and it is not unreasonable to argue that surpluses should be divided in the interests of those people who have contributed to the fund. The Minister accepted that point in Committee, but the Bill as drafted would not give him the appropriate power. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that point. He may be able to convince the House that the Bill will provide that power, but I believe that it will not.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
I endorse many of the points that have been made by Opposition Members, but I wish to speak specifically about amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which are similar in content and intent to those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
I wish to mention especially the Glenlivet and Marypark areas of my constituency. People may know those names through the wonderful product that comes from Glenlivet and it is my pleasure to represent such a wonderful area. I have tabled amendments Nos. 254 and 255 so that I can remind the Government that the 200
people who live in that community are denied equality of access to television. Most houses in the area--this fact may surprise many people--get only fuzzy reception of BBC1 and Grampian, and Channel 4 and BBC2 are blacked out. I accept that communications in that area are difficult, but it seems ludicrous that more consideration and encouragement has not been given over the years to ensure that our people--in an area that provides so much money for the Treasury--have equal access to television channels.
The lack of reception affects everyone in the community. It affects the elderly population, some of whom are housebound, and it affects the young. Indeed, the local head teacher at Inveravon primary school has to ensure that educational tapes are made elsewhere for him to show to the young children in his care. This is a strong moral argument and I wish to hear what the Minister has to say on it. I have raised the problem with the Department of National Heritage and others over several years. The community council has been in touch with the Department and was appalled by the response that the people should resolve their problems by plugging into cable, which would entail running 80 miles of wire up to the nearest outlet in Aberdeen. The people regard that as ludicrous.
The Department's response to me of 21 March said:
The only positive response that I received was from the Independent Television Commission. Mr. Brian Marjoribanks, the officer for Scotland, said in his letter of 7 March:
Mr. Sproat:
In tabling the new clause, hon. Members have highlighted concerns about the pension rights of the BBC transmission staff following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission services. Similar amendments were tabled on Third Reading in another place and in Committee. My noble Friend Lord Inglewood agreed to consider the matter further. I, in turn, undertook to introduce an amendment on Report to make it clear that the transfer scheme for which the Bill provides could include pensions arrangements. I have done so.
Let me explain briefly why the amendment is inappropriate. It seeks to apply to the sale of the BBC transmission assets provisions drawn from the 1990 Act in relation to the sale of the IBA transmission assets.
When the IBA's transmission network was sold, the whole of the IBA's business was divided up and the transmission network was sold by the Government.
The BBC's position is different. The BBC itself is handling the sale and the bulk of its business will continue. The BBC pension fund will remain in existence to meet its continuing liability to some 44,000 beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. The two situations are therefore not analogous.
None the less, we recognise that pensions are of critical concern to the staff of BBC Transmission, which is why we have introduced the amendment to which I referred earlier. The precise arrangements will depend on the identity of the purchaser, but the BBC has agreed with the trustees of the BBC pension fund that, should employees wish to transfer their accrued benefits to an appropriate scheme operated by the purchaser of Transmission, the transferred value will be a full and fair valuation of their pension rights. The BBC has stated that it will use its best endeavours to have a buyer who operates a final salary scheme, as the BBC's is. It is right that the BBC should negotiate the arrangements with staff and their representatives, as it has with other such transfers of work. The BBC will offer independent financial advice to all those affected.
Mr. Miller:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat:
I am about to discuss accrued surpluses. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask about something else?
Mr. Miller:
Will the Minister confirm that he said that the transfer will include employees' pension rights? In that context, does he mean the benefits that they have accrued under the rules thus far, or their share of the pension fund?
Mr. Sproat:
It means the former. We are talking about accrued benefits. If the scheme is a final salary scheme, the employees will get what they would have got if they had retired at the age at which they are moving to the new transmitter service.
"I was sorry to hear about the reception problems that some of your constituents have been having."
That was hardly a positive response. It went on to say that, because of the 200 people involved and the nature of the landscape,
"it . . . appears unlikely that a further transmitter will be built."
It then sent advice in the context of self-help television. Our people should not be asked to deal with the problem. They have a national right to have their television reception dealt with.
"should the Government announce an extension to the relay building programme beyond 1996, we will undertake to commission National Transcommunications Limited to conduct a new survey in the Glenlivet area in the hope that a solution may be found."
Will the Government extend that relay building programme or can the people of Glenlivet, Marypark and Inveravon expect to be in the same position many years hence?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |