| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.13 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I confess that I am disappointed that, given that this is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate this important matter--[Hon. Members: "It is the second opportunity."] It is the first opportunity, because the Leader of the House withdrew the motion in a fit of pique the other night and would not let the House debate the matter.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this week, we debated the motion and the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that debate. I do not know how he can claim that this is the first opportunity to debate it.
Madam Speaker: Order. The debate was on the second motion.
Mr. Forth: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should have established his facts before getting to his feet.
As I was saying, this is the first occasion that we have had to debate this important matter, which relates directly to the interests of every Member of the House.
I am doubly disappointed because, so far, the Leader of the House has not sought to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to explain to the House why the names that have been suggested for the managing trustees are such as they are. The right hon. Lady might have had a hint from the debate--however truncated it was--on Monday night that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the nature of the names being offered, albeit in connection with a different matter.
Any hon. Members who were then present might recall that I expressed the view that, in these matters perhaps more than any other, it was vital that those to whom we give the trusteeship of our pensions or of the Members' fund should represent the widest possible range of Members of Parliament in terms of background, experience, and so on. I should have thought that that proposition was self-evident, but apparently it is not.
However, even now, the Leader of the House has not done us the courtesy of offering an explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed membership of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. That is not an unreasonable request.
The matter should be uncontroversial. I should have thought that the Leader of the House would come to the House with some confidence and explain briefly the reasoning behind the nature of the appointments. I would hope that we would all then be satisfied and the matter could be dealt with swiftly but properly. None of that has happened. Instead, we had this and the other related matter brought before us late on Monday night, apparently on the assumption that they would slip through quietly on the nod. We did not even have the opportunity to have the full debate allowed on the Order Paper. I am therefore glad to see that now we have up to an hour and a half to debate each of these matters. That reflects the importance that should be attached to them.
In order to establish my point of reference, I obtained from the Vote Office a copy of the "Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Accounts 1995-96". Helpfully, it states in paragraph 11:
The significant point is that the view taken by the then Opposition of the managing trustees was that it was appropriate that there should be a spread of experience, ranging from the hon. Member for Pontypridd to senior Members such as Gordon Oakes and Alfred Morris.
I should mention in passing that the Conservative trustees were none other than Sir Peter Hordern, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), Sir James Spicer and Sir Gerard Vaughan. That gives some idea of the way in which the previous Parliament thought that the
managing trustees should have experience, knowledge and wisdom about matters relating to the House, to Members of Parliament and to their pension fund. That is appropriate and I cannot recall anyone having any difficulty accepting that or any protests--everybody seemed to agree that that was the correct balance for that body of people.
One would have expected that in the present Parliament there would be a similar range of experience among Members to be appointed as managing trustees. You can imagine my shock and my disbelief, Madam Speaker, when I read the list of names that was first suggested to us a couple of nights ago. The Government seemed to have decided that Labour trustees would largely be newly elected Members.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours:
How does the right hon. Gentleman know that a number of these people are not experts on pensions? Has he asked them?
Mr. Forth:
That is a fair question.
Mr. Mike Wood (Batley and Spen):
What is the answer?
Mr. Forth:
The answer is that I do not know any of them because they have not been in this place long enough.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Incredible.
Mr. Forth:
If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of allowing me to develop my argument--these are only my opening remarks--he will learn that I do not rest my case on such a matter as knowledge of pensions, important although it may be.
Mr. Forth:
As the hon. Gentleman invites me to, I shall digress a moment--staying in order, I hope.
I readily accept that it is relevant and important that some of the trustees should be Members who know about pensions. If such Members were also newly elected Members, I believe that that would be entirely appropriate, because I do not dispute the fact that a new Member, or even two of them, should serve as trustees to provide that perspective. My difficulty with the proposal is that there are so many of them, to the exclusion of Members with experience and long service in the House.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) obviously knows all those new Members intimately. I respect his judgment in that matter, and if he tells me that one or more of them are pensions experts, I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the trustees include a Member or Members with pension expertise.
The point at issue, however, is whether the trustees have sufficient understanding of the House, of the membership of the House, of the difficulties that may arise as Members serve in the House and, specifically, of the problems that might arise when Members reach pension age and become eligible for the different pension arrangements.
Mr. Winnick:
On Monday night, I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was simply being obstructive;
As I know many hon. Members from both sides of the House who served during the previous Parliament, I would be the last to question their integrity. Is there not a case, however, for saying that fresh blood entering the House--Members who are unlikely to receive pensions in the near future, and not just one or two of them--should be able to consider the matter?
If the majority of the Members who serve as trustees are likely to draw their pension in the next five or 10 years--I am not suggesting that that is the reason for their appointment--some people outside the House might take the view that they have a vested interest. I do not share that view, but there is an argument, which obviously the right hon. Gentleman does not accept, for having as trustees new Members who are unlikely to benefit from pension arrangements for many years.
Mr. Forth:
That is a reasonable point of view, which I respect. It was not the view that we took in the previous Parliament or, as those with longer memories may agree, in previous Parliaments that I can recall. That view has not been taken until now. If it were suddenly the view of the House, that would be another matter.
I concede, as I did to the hon. Member for Workington, that there should be a balance of experience of trustees, and the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes has some validity. I cannot go as far as he wants me to go and say that there should be a majority. I readily concede the principle that he has enunciated--the need to balance possible self-interest in the approach of pension age with distance from pension age.
I am arguing for some balance and breadth of representation among the trustees. From the beginning, I have believed that the names suggested by the Government go too much in one direction. As I have said, I regret that I do not know those individuals personally--I hope to get to know them well in the coming years if I am spared to survive in this place beyond another election or two. I am sure that some of those hon. Members will make a very valuable contribution--in terms of their expertise in pensions, the fresh views that they may bring to these matters or their distance from their pension entitlements. I readily concede those points.
"The Managing Trustees appointed in accordance with Section 1 of the 1972 Act by Resolution of the House of 22 May 1992 are"
and gives the names of the hon. Members in the previous Parliament who were the managing trustees of that important pension fund. Those members included, from the then Opposition, the right hon. Alfred Morris, who was the chairman, the right hon. Gordon Oakes--a senior and highly respected Member of Parliament--and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but who was at that time a relatively new Member.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |