• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

Dr. Lynne Jones: I will be very brief. I should simply like to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State of a meeting that he and I and other Members of Parliament representing Birmingham constituencies attended some years ago with representatives of Lucas pensioners. They left us in no doubt that the pensioner members of the Lucas pension fund had interests very different from those of the other members of the pension funds, and made us aware of the need to ensure that their interests in pensioner funds were represented.

I urge my hon. Friend to listen to the arguments in favour of amendments Nos. 70 and 71, to ensure that funds include pensioner representatives and that they do not take a place that is currently allocated to other members.

Angela Eagle: The amendments cover two related issues--member-nominated trustees and training for pension scheme trustees. On member-nominated trustees, clauses 40 to 43 will ensure that every occupational pension scheme has at least one third member-nominated trustees. The provisions in sections 16 to 21 of the

3 Apr 2000 : Column 770

The Bill legislates for the principle of member-nominated trustees, and puts it into the law for the first time. We want every scheme to have member-nominated trustees, and as a result of the Bill, they will. We believe that they add value, and increase member confidence.

Regular complaints about the current system are that it is too easy to exclude pensioner members from the process, and that the present legislation is too complex and difficult to operate. We have listened and responded to those concerns. Under the new provisions, there will be member-nominated trustees or directors in every scheme. There will be two routes to satisfy the new requirements--we have labelled them the trustee route and the employer route.

Under the trustee route, trustees will implement nomination and selection procedures using a framework set out in regulations. The regulations will provide trustees with flexibility over certain aspects of the nomination and selection procedures. For example, they will be given discretion to divide the membership into constituencies. However, the framework will ensure that all members are treated fairly, so there will be no need for consultation or for member approval. As a result, the process will be simpler and cheaper, which will be widely welcomed.

Under the employer route, employers will have the right to propose bespoke nomination and selection arrangements for their scheme, but the proposal must provide for a minimum of one third member-nominated trustees to be approved by the members. There will be no opportunity to opt out, so every scheme will have member trustees, whichever system is used.

We thought long and hard about whether to provide for a reserved place for a pensioner trustee in large, mature schemes. We decided, on balance, that it would be unwise to do anything to suggest that any trustee has a directly representative role for a particular group of individuals, and that our priority should be to ensure that every scheme has members on the board. That we have done. However, we are aware of concerns that in some schemes pensioner members have been unfairly excluded from participating in the selection of member trustees. That is why we have gone much further to ensure that pensioner members cannot be unfairly treated. The new provisions ensure that pensioner members are included at every stage in the trustee route, and that they will have a say in the approval process under the employer route.

We have worked closely with the pensions industry and other groups, including the TUC, to produce changes that will give members greater participation and confidence in their pension schemes, and at the same time to make arrangements for the nomination and selection of member-nominated trustees easier to operate.

This package of changes represents a real strengthening of the legislative framework for occupational pension schemes, without imposing undue costs or disturbing existing arrangements unnecessarily.

3 Apr 2000 : Column 771

Amendment No. 66 would make it compulsory for all trustees--employer-appointed trustees as well as member- nominated trustees--to attend an approved training course--

Mrs. Lait: We have not spoken to that amendment.

Angela Eagle: In that case, I will just check that I have not missed anyone else's amendment, and sit down. I hope, however, that my explanation has reassured hon. Members about the principles behind the changes that we have put into effect, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Miller: I believe strongly that the Bill is a significant step in the right direction. Some issues that I raised could be dealt with under the regulatory regime referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I understand her point about pensioners being treated as a separate class in terms of the responsibilities of the board of trustees of any scheme. However, that issue requires further exploration. As schemes develop, it may be possible to revisit the issue in future.

I acknowledge the positive changes brought about by the Bill, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

3 Apr 2000 : Column 772

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willetts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

War widows have a long-standing grievance. When they remarry, they lose their armed forces family pension. We propose, as we have before, that approximately 2,500 post-1973 widows of men killed in the line of duty should retain their right to that pension even if they remarry.

This cause was particularly close to the heart of Michael Colvin, the late hon. Member for Romsey. He contributed an enormous amount to this subject, drawing on his own expertise in the armed forces. It has also been pursued vigorously by Baroness Strange in the other place. Indeed, the Minister of State has previously made encouraging sounds about it, and has made it clear that his heart was with us on this reform. In Standing Committee, he may been over-excited when he said:

I may be putting myself in the hot seat by saying this, but if I were a Back Bencher, I would go for it. As a Minister, I shall, of course, explain why we should not proceed down that road.--[Official Report, Standing Committee F, Tuesday 7 March 2000; c. 751.]

Mr. David Heath: This is the third time that we have debated an amendment of this sort during the past six months. As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, there are clear reasons for doing something about the group of war widows involved. It would provide justice for them and their families, enabling them to rebuild their lives and get on with normal life without losing out. The cost to the Exchequer is minimal. Indeed, given the limited number of people involved, the change might even be beneficial because of the effect that it would have on morale in the services. We all know of the current recruitment and retention problems. The attitudes displayed by the current arrangements are frankly out of date in treating widows as chattels of their late husbands. We should not tolerate that any longer.

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright