---

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made,

That--

1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and
3. At that meeting--
(a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and
(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).--[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Touhig.]

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Dr. Nick Palmer be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Mark Hendrick be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Touhig.]

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],

That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session--[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:--
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'-- [Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1180

Bus Employee Pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Touhig.]

7.1 pm

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): When I raised the vexed issue of the bus employees superannuation trust in February last year, I really believed that, almost a year on, the entire matter would have been drawing to a close. Regrettably, that is not the case. Looking at the previous debate, I smiled ironically to myself at certain comments that were made on that occasion. For example, I said:

It became clear to me at an early stage that it was important that the issue did not find its way back into the courts, where it might have been lost for months and might have resulted in the loss of significant sums of money because of legal costs.

I also said:

The matter of court proceedings continually raises its head, and there is no doubt that the trustees' legal advisers need to ensure that, if those proceedings must be gone through, they do not take up a lot of valuable time.--[Official Report, 11 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 577-79.]

Here we are, almost at the end of January, and the matter is heading back to the courts, albeit for a reason different from that to which I referred previously. Precious time has been spent and lost, and more than £880,000 has been spent in legal fees.

I know that, when this matter was last debated, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), hoped that any court approval for completion of the distribution of the settlement would be possible by the end of 2000, thereby enabling payments to be made early this year. No doubt, like many right hon. and hon. Members and me, he will be dismayed at the current situation.

Correspondence that I and other Members have received from many of the pensioners who may be entitled to a share of the settlement shows the anger and frustration that they rightly feel about the delay in settling this affair. They are elderly people; many of them are not in the best of health and, as I said in the previous debate, some of them have even passed away, never having received what was rightly theirs. Even the trustees for the two funds in question indicated by way of the information bulletins that are issued from time to time that they hope to complete the process by the early part of this year.

Regrettably, the November-December 2000 bulletin, looking at the question of how long the court proceedings will take, could state only:

We cannot say, at the moment, how long these proceedings will take. However, the issues involved are complex and so the proceedings are likely to take many months.

Those comments are essentially no different from what was said in the early bulletins, except that the time scale is slipping.

During the previous debate, I explained the two different categories of pensioners: those who remained in the pension funds after privatisation, known as Standard Lifers, and those who transferred out--transferees. I felt at that time that the interests of the two groups would not and could not be best served by one firm of solicitors. I believe that a second firm should be appointed in order to avoid any conflict of interest that may arise. I know

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1181

only too well that many people have questioned the sanity of introducing yet another team of solicitors into the equation, on the basis of cost and especially of time, as any court proceedings could be protracted.

I am aware that some interim payments were made to different categories of pensioners during last year, amounting to a total in excess of £35 million. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could give some detail of those payments, perhaps with special reference to taxation, which has been one of the problems.

The other main problem has obviously centred on the legal entitlement of certain groups and, in particular, the status of transferees. Standard Life beneficiary representatives are arguing that the transferees are not eligible to receive any surplus. As one might expect, that view is not taken by the transferees, who were told that all fund surplus would go to the National Bus Company. They maintain that they would not have transferred if they had known that that would not happen.

Although all that I have said so far indicates that the pension trustees are responsible for resolving all those matters, I am pleased that the Government have rightly taken a close interest. This debate offers my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary an opportunity to bring the House up to date on the current state of affairs. I hope also that he will give his perspective on why matters have not yet been resolved.

For the record, I remind the House that it was in September 1998 that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister commented on the raiding of the pension funds. At that time, he instructed lawyers

to stop the legal fancy dancing.

It is more than 18 months since the Government settled the litigation. What is at stake here? At the last count, there were almost 54,000 pensioners, of whom 44,000 are already of pensionable age and on relatively low incomes. The Government, and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, should not be making up for the sins of the previous Administration, who imposed the current problems on all the people involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is disappointed that she cannot be here to participate in the debate. In her absence, I pay tribute to her for her excellent work on this issue and for the support that she has given me. She has passed me a copy of a letter that she received from Jack Gibson, the branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union retired members association in Barnsley. The letter is dated 20 December last. She asked me to refer to two ex-work colleagues that Jack mentions in his letter. He wrote:

I can refer to two out of a large number of my ex-workmates. One was an inspector when I joined Yorkshire Traction in 1950 as a bus driver, he would then have been in the staff pension fund, known as the London Pension Fund. On the formation of National Bus Company, that became the National Bus Pension Fund, into which like others in the Fund, he contributed seven and a half per cent of his salary. He became an Area Superintendent and retired in 1987. He died in June this year, his wife in a nursing home at the time, died in September this year. What did they get out of this money?

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1182

Jack went on:

My colleague Eddie Wignall, we have worked together on this issue since September 1996 following the Ombudsman's decision. Demonstrating at the D.o.T., House of Commons, appearing on BBC 2, Channel 4, speaking on national and local radio and speaking at fringe meetings arranged by the T&G. We were both recommended to become BEST trustees, but were unsuccessful. Now Eddie, who was made redundant in February this year, and was 62 in June has not received any interim payments. Sadly he is being treated for a serious illness. How much and when will he receive any payments from this money?

He continues:

The Trustees and their legal advisers will be getting well paid for their job, it just isn't on, and they are simply not in touch.

Those are only two examples. Some would say that they were not typical. However, I believe that the delay is leading more and more pensioners to fall into that heartbreaking predicament.

The Transport and General Workers Union believes that all former National Bus Company workers who contributed to the two funds should benefit from the distribution of the money that the Government returned. That view is based on the fact that when National Bus Company was privatised and the funds were wound up, there was a considerable delay before the Standard Life buy-out was completed. During that period, the work forces in the separate companies were given differing advice about where to transfer their pensions. That advice was based on the knowledge that there was no surplus in the funds--the Government had taken it--and that a better long-term deal might be obtained elsewhere. That applied to workers who had potentially 20 or more working years ahead. Transfer decisions appeared to be taken en bloc and approximately 30 per cent. took that route.

Pensioners are rightly seeking answers to many different questions. All too often, they are, sadly, met with a wall of silence. There is anxiety about the administration costs of the funds and the exact size of the current balances. I am led to believe that, even after interim payments and all other costs, the totals are about the same as were handed over in July 1999. If the Minister can confirm that, all those pensioners would greatly appreciate it.

Unanswered questions frustrate the pensioners, and the circumstances have led Lord Justice Robert Walker to comment:

Pension Trustees would in my view be well advised in almost all circumstances to adopt a policy of utmost openness. Secrecy breeds suspicion.

Does the fault lie with lawyers dragging their feet? I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has seen a note dated 21 November 2000 and prepared by Ian Croxford QC. It clearly raises the question whether swifter progress could and should have been made.

Does the problem lie with the representative beneficiaries who speak for the Standard Lifers and the transferees? Is it down to their advisers? Is it perhaps due to a simple disagreement about sharing out the settlement? It would be a tragedy if the delay centred around the amount to which the different categories of pensioners were entitled.

I urge the representative beneficiaries, including my constituent, Frank Wheeler, who has done so much excellent work over many years, to reach an agreement soon to ensure swift court approval.

25 Jan 2001 : Column 1183

I hope that the Under-Secretary can give an assurance that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that all involved parties and interests appreciate the urgency of bringing the tangled and sorry tale to a successful conclusion without further delay.

---