---

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Trade unionists who are pension fund trustees are already obliged under the Bill to satisfy provisions duplicated in the amendment. It is not unreasonable to expect trade unionists, members of the public or anyone else who takes responsibility for potentially billions of pounds-worth of assets to be clued up about pensions so that the workers, about whom we are all worried, get their pensions. I accept that they do not have to be lawyers, but the amendment does not specify that they should be.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP) rose—

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer.

Mr. Webb: I had better be careful, then.

If the amendment did make such a requirement, every trustee of every pension scheme would have to be a lawyer, which is clearly not the Government's position.

Kevin Brennan: Is the amendment not otiose, because appointment to the board of the PPF is a public appointment whereas the appointment of trustees of pension schemes is a private appointment?

Mr. Webb: I cannot understand why we would want to allow the public sector to employ someone who did not understand what a pension was, what investment returns were, or how the law worked.

Kevin Brennan: Would appointments not come under the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and would therefore have to meet certain minimum standards in any case?

Mr. Webb: They probably would, but I am not sure whether that is wholly reassuring.

Mr. Weir: The hon. Gentleman and the Members arguing against him are all dancing on the head of a pin.
 
19 May 2004 : Column 1050
 
I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), but as a lawyer I would be horrified to be asked to advise on pensions law. The assumption that all lawyers know a great deal about pensions law is as flawed as the assumption that trade unionists, for example, do not know about it. Individuals who deal with pensions day in, day out, are the proper people to serve on the board. They should have a knowledge of pensions, whether lawyers or otherwise.

Mr. Webb: We are in danger of becoming obsessed with lawyers. The amendment does not refer to lawyers. It merely refers to knowledge of

"the law relating to pensions and trusts".

I cannot remember the number of members of the board of the pension protection fund. I am open to hand signals, as long as it is not two. The serious point is that if we are speaking about a fairly small number of appointments—10, say—it is entirely appropriate to expect just 10 people to have those skills.

We were worried about the requirement as it relates to trustees. I know that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who represents our interests as chairman of the trustees of the parliamentary fund, is worried about such an amendment as it relates to every trustee of every scheme, because that would mean that vast numbers of people had to have the required level of knowledge. Surely if we are talking about only 10 people, it is not unreasonable to suppose that we could find 10 people who knew what they were talking about to run the PPF.

Mr. Pike: I was elected as a director of the Philips pension fund before I became a Member of the House. Immediately after I was elected, I and all the members of the work force who had been elected as worker representatives received the necessary training. If someone from the trade unions or the work force did not meet the criteria, would it not be possible to provide them with training? They do not necessarily need to be fully qualified before they become a member of the board.

Mr. Webb: That is a fair point. The hon. Gentleman had the joy of not being a member of our Committee. The point was raised in Committee on the set of provisions relating to general trustees. As I recall, it was acknowledged that a member of the board would not have to have the required knowledge and understanding on day one, but would be expected to acquire it, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Whereas trustees are generally volunteers and may not be paid, I would guess, in the case of many pension funds—

Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There was legislation to ensure that trustees were representative of employees as well as management in the company. There was also legislation to ensure that people had the opportunity to become trustees and to be trained after they were elected to the board. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking himself into supporting
 
19 May 2004 : Column 1051
 
the amendment. I would be concerned about that because it is so specific, and there is a danger that it would prevent people from being involved.

Mr. Webb: I will not drag the debate out more than an hour and eight minutes. The arguments that we are now hearing would apply far more to what is in the Bill, which hon. Members on the Government Benches have accepted as requirements of every trustee of every pension scheme in the country, whereas the amendment applies only to the 10 professionals, every one of whom will presumably be paid a salary—a good salary. If Labour Members are willing to accept the conditions in relation to vast numbers of volunteers, we should surely accept the same condition in relation to perhaps 10 well-paid professionals who will be in charge of a very large pension fund.

John Robertson: The issue of professionals has re-entered the discussion. We want everyone whose pension might be affected to be included. Trade unions do that for the ordinary worker, as do lay people who are members of the board of pension trustees. If we go down the road of professionals, the lay person would automatically be discounted, unless he happens to be a lawyer.

Mr. Webb: Perhaps I am not making myself fantastically clear. I appreciate that the debate has a slight "after the Lord Mayor's show" feel to it, but I shall try to clarify my argument. The hon. Gentleman must be happy with the provisions in the Bill relating to trustees, because he voted for them or failed to vote against them. They provide the same hurdle for trustees—all trustees—and he is happy with that. Lay people do not necessarily have those skills, but they can acquire them although they are not lawyers. The hon. Gentleman does not regard that point as a particular hurdle, but he thinks that expecting the people who are paid to look after the pension protection fund to know what they are doing is a huge hurdle.

I have clearly dismally failed to make my point, but at least I feel better about it. It is entirely appropriate that the small number of people whom we expect to perform that important job—they will also be paid good money to do it—are as able to understand pensions and investments as the trustees of schemes up and down the land, which is why I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne does not withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Pond: I must begin with a warning to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), which was passed to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is a lawyer. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland asked the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to write him a letter stating what he considers to be the good things about lawyers, but as the hon. Member for Eastbourne is a lawyer himself, my hon. Friend will probably be charged for it.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) will remember that the PPF board must have a minimum of seven members, whom we expect to be people of
 
19 May 2004 : Column 1052
 
standing and understanding. It may well be that some of those people are trade unionists, but we do not expect members of the board to represent particular groups. They are there to represent the interests of pension members across the board and nobody will be ruled out from that process.

This afternoon, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I hardly need to be separated by the red lines on the carpet that are two sword lengths apart. The Opposition originally proposed the measure in Committee, and we entirely agree with the principle. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is probably not in the Chamber this afternoon because he is on the phone sharing his joy with the newspaper in Tatton that the Government agree, in principle at least, with so many of his proposals.

Having said that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the amendment because it is not necessary. The members of the PPF board will be appointed to a number of specific roles, and the appointments must be based purely on the knowledge and experience required to fulfil those roles. The members of the board will have or will be able to acquire the knowledge and understanding to carry out those roles properly. That approach, along with a range of other measures that we have introduced, ensures that board members must not only demonstrate their knowledge in order to be appointed to the board but, as the hon. Member for Northavon says, develop their knowledge and understanding over time. Board members' performance will be reported on regularly, because the Government are keen on performance standards and we want board members' performance standards to improve, just as we want improvement in other areas of public service.

The package of measures achieves the same outcome as the amendment, and I would even argue that it goes further than that.

---