§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a tag to motion No. 5 which indicates that, when the Order Paper was printed, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not had the opportunity to complete its scrutiny of the regulations. In fact, the Committee met this afternoon and was able to complete its scrutiny.
The Committee found that part of the regulations were defectively drafted. They are now subject to a report, an extract of which is before the House. I understand that the Department of Social Security has admitted the fault in the regulations and has said that it will take the earliest opportunity to correct it.
I make the point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not satisfactory for a Joint Committee to consider regulations at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and then for the House to debate them later that evening, because people have not had the opportunity to study our report.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information that he gave at the beginning of his point of order. Ministers will have heard the complaint with which he concluded it.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald)I beg to move,
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.
§ Mr. HealdThe regulations are an integral part of the package of measures set out in the Pensions Act 1995.
The United Kingdom has nearly £600 billion invested in private pension funds—more than all the other countries of the European Union put together. The Conservatives are determined to build on that. The measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will give people the security that they need to invest with confidence for their retirement.
I intend to deal very briefly with the first three draft regulations. The Pensions Compensation Board comes into being on 1 August this year. It needs a borrowing limit, and the regulations propose a limit of £15 million. The regulations relating to the contracted-out mixed benefit scheme allow a single occupational pension scheme to contract out of the state earnings-related 285 pension scheme on both a salary-related and a money purchase basis. That flexibility has been sought by the industry, and I believe that it will be very welcome. Under the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, trustees must obtain audited accounts within seven months of the scheme year. It will be an offence not to do so, carrying a fine of £5,000.
I have dealt with the first three sets of draft regulations very briefly, but if hon. Members wish to take up any points, I shall be happy to deal with them when I wind up the debate.
I shall now deal with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996. The Pensions Act 1995 gives scheme members the right to appoint at least a third of their scheme's trustees, and the draft regulations set out how that will be achieved. Our guiding principle has been that each scheme should have flexibility to establish arrangements for the appointment of trustees that suit that scheme.
There are 130,000 occupational pension schemes of which 100,000 have fewer than 12 members. They vary from schemes with a large number of active members and very few pensioner members to schemes with more pensioners than active members. Many schemes already have excellent arrangements in place which provide a balanced board of trustees, often involving regional balance as well as a balance of membership categories. Under these proposals, the employer will have an opportunity to propose that a scheme should opt out of the regulations, but he must propose an alternative, which must be agreed by the active members and the pensioners.
At the heart of the regulations and the Government's proposals, however, is the position of trustees. The regulations allow them to put forward the nomination and selection rules that they believe will suit their scheme, given their detailed knowledge of it; but it is the members—active and pensioner members—who will decide whether the proposals should be implemented.
We are confident that, in their proposals, the trustees will try to reflect the wishes of the membership. We want them to consider the interests of all members. If agreement cannot be reached after the extensive consultations for which the regulations provide, with the use of the statutory consultation scheme a default procedure can be implemented speedily and easily. That procedure provides for active members only to select the member-nominated trustees.
This devolved procedure is designed to ensure that the time limits for appointment of member-nominated trustees can be rigidly adhered to. It means that schemes will definitely have member-nominated trustees in place by 6 April 1998, but in most cases by 6 October 1997. We have gone one better than that because go-ahead schemes have asked us if they might be able to introduce member-nominated trustees earlier, starting their procedures in October this year. That is much to be welcomed, and the regulations would provide for it.
During consideration of the Pensions Bill, now the 1995 Act, some people argued for a mandatory pensioner trustee. Some groups who have written to hon. Members now say that pensioners and active members should vote on the prescribed rules, or that there should be a mandatory pensioner trustee under prescribed rules.
286 The pension law review committee, the Goode committee, considered those issues. It concluded that active members only should select member-nominated trustees and that there should be no requirement to appoint a pensioner trustee. The Government considered the issue, however, and have gone far beyond that in involving pensioners at every stage of the statutory consultation procedure. They want pensioner trustees in appropriate schemes.
Some people say that schemes will go straight to the prescribed rules—the default procedure—overlooking the interests of some categories of member, but that overlooks the fact that scheme trustees, whose duty it is to make the proposals, must make the decision and have a fiduciary duty in law to act in good faith to all members. If, in a scheme with a large pensioner group, scheme trustees were to ignore the pensioners and go straight to prescribed rules, that would ground an action in court on the issue of breach of duty, and the matter could be referred to the pension ombudsman, who is jealous of the interests of all members.
§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)In addition to the two courses that my hon. Friend has mentioned, would it not also be fair to say that, where pensioners wish to appoint a trustee, a reference to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority would also have considerable weight?
§ Mr. HealdIt is true that, where the procedures were not followed satisfactorily, OPRA could consider a referral and take the matter forward.
The Government have consistently said that, if it is to be speedy and effective, the default procedure must involve active members only. Fears expressed by groups such as the Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners and the Imperial Tobacco Pensioners Action Call, both of which I have met, are being contradicted in practice. In the past two days, officials from the Department of Social Security have contacted the Post Office scheme, and it is consulting trade unions and the federation on a proposal that 50 per cent. of trustees would be member-nominated, appointed by organisations representing the interests of members, including a designated pensioner trustee.
On the British Telecom pension scheme, the federation has agreed, I understand, with the trade union to nominate half the trustees, including a designated pensioner or a deferred member to be proposed by the federation. The Imperial Tobacco scheme has two pensioner trustees and one active member-nominated trustee already. The scheme intends to keep them and to ensure that any future employer will not be able to change that. In contemplation of the regulations, Guinness, which has not previously had pensioner trustees, has appointed one.
One prominent official of the Association of Pension Lawyers, who has spoken to officials at the Department and who has conducted numerous seminars and conferences on this matter, speaking to hundreds of scheme professionals and member representatives, has confirmed that not one scheme that he has come across intends to use the prescribed rules directly. As someone who also meets numerous groups in this category, that is also my experience.
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)Will the Minister assure the House that the new pensioner trustee representatives, 287 the Pensions Act 1995, and what we are agreeing now will prevent a fraud such as that which took place in the Belling scheme—a large amount of money was misused, and members and trustees were not aware of what a couple of the trustees had done?
§ Mr. HealdThe proposals are part of a package of measures that will make it extremely difficult for anyone to commit fraud of the type committed by Robert Maxwell. I am not able to comment on the Belling case, but the proposals impose tough penalties if audited accounts are not produced on time, and place a duty on the scheme administrators to provide those accounts to members on request. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the disclosure provisions, the occupational pensions regulatory authority and minimum funding provide a powerful package that will go a long way towards obviating future problems.
Opposition Members often say that there is too much regulation, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) may feel that it would be rather odd to propose measures that would be much more prescriptive than those of the Government. It is possible to combine flexibility and security, and the provisions do that. We have said that we will carefully monitor the provisions, which are being presented as regulations. In view of the multiplicity of schemes, the prize of flexibility is valuable, but if it is abused, the Government will certainly take action to correct such abuse as it occurs.
§ Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)My hon. Friend speaks about flexibility, but I am concerned—as are Opposition Members—about the problems of Maxwell and Belling, which should never arise again and perhaps should not have arisen in the first place. At the other end of the scale are people such as my friend and constituent Harry Wright, who, because of a technicality, was given a pension of £14 a month when he could reasonably have expected one of £140 a week. Will the new scheme allow the trustees to look into individual cases more carefully—and flexibly, to use my hon. Friend's term—than under the present arrangements?
§ Mr. HealdThe measures are part of a regulatory package and will enable the trustees to act. The regulations as a whole, of which this is a small part, will allow the disclosure that is necessary for the trustees to do that. That is also provided for scheme members.
§ Mr. BennettIs it appropriate at least to apologise to the House for the mistake in the measure, especially as it was the Minister who signed it?
§ Mr. HealdI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A consequential amendment was not made, and I apologise to the House for that. We should have done better.
§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)I wish to speak on motion No. 5:
That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S. 1., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.288 The order is inadequate and is based on inadequate legislation. The Government should take it away and think again. Before turning to the detail of that order, however, I should like to comment on the other three.The order for a requirement to obtain audited accounts and the one for borrowing authority for the Pensions Compensation Board are unexceptional and useful. The fourth order is for mixed benefit schemes, and we share the concern of the National Association of Pension Funds about the complexity being built into the system by, in effect, the treatment of contracted-out mixed benefit schemes as two separate schemes, thereby requiring the equivalent of a transfer procedure between the two parts. We ask whether that cumbersome procedure is strictly necessary.
We take most severe issue with the procedure for member-nominated trustees. The background to that is, first, the Goode committee and, secondly, the Pensions Act 1995. The aim, which I am sure that we all share, is for a fair balance of control between employers and members, including pensioner members, in the running of company schemes. Hon. Members should always remember what can happen if things go wrong, and Maxwell and Belling provide telling evidence of that.
In the aftermath of Maxwell, the Goode committee recommended, first, that, for final salary schemes, active members should be entitled to a point that is at least one third of that of trustees. Secondly, it recommended that for money purchase schemes, active members should nominate at least two thirds of trustees—a distinction that the Government now seem to have dropped entirely. Thirdly, it recommended that there should be encouragement to take pensioner trustees on board. Fourthly, it recommended that there should be a proactive regulator and a minimum solvency standard. The Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations that we are now debating water down all those Goode proposals.
During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, Labour Members consistently proposed two simple and important provisions. The first was that at least 50 per cent. of scheme trustees should be member-nominated trustees. Secondly, we proposed that at least one of the member-nominated trustees on large schemes should be chosen by the scheme's pensioner members. We still stand firmly by those two objectives.
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Goode report, he mentioned the fact that there was encouragement to take on board pensioner trustees. It seems that my hon. Friends have adopted that encouragement. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that should be mandatory? If so, I have some sympathy with that position. But he used the words "large schemes".
§ Mr. SmithThe hon. Gentleman is right to point to a difference between Goode and ourselves. We want to go further than Goode. We believe that in large schemes—obviously it is not appropriate in very small schemes—there should be a pensioner-nominated trustee. Had that proposal been accepted, we would have had a simple, fair and effective procedure in place. Instead, we do not.
§ Mr. SternMay I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the discussions that we had during the passage of the Pensions Bill? There are large schemes and there are large schemes. 289 Many of the schemes that have been in correspondence with us are readily able to find procedures for nominating a pensioner trustee. But if one considers, for example, a type of scheme that involves members in 50 countries, the fact is that it is physically incapable, however large, of finding procedures quickly to nominate a pensioner trustee. I wonder why the Opposition have not yet taken that point on board.
§ Mr. SmithI am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because the regulations that we are considering today—from a Conservative Government—require that pensioner members should be consulted at many stages of the procedure. If it is possible to consult them at those stages of the procedure, surely it is possible to consult them at the final stage, when members are nominated.
§ Sir Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)On the subject of pensioner trustees, is there any reason why pensioners should not be able to nominate someone who is not a pensioner to act on their behalf?
§ Mr. SmithThat would be a sensible solution, but it would not be possible under the fallback scheme that the Government are proposing in the regulations. That is one of our particular objections to the regulations.
§ Mr. SmithI would have thought that we would be talking about a scheme with, say, 1,000 members, as the Government would conclude if they were capable of taking a sensible approach.
Our first objection to the regulations is the absurd complexity of the provisions. The Department of Social Security letter accompanying the draft regulations for consultation said:
the rules must be quick to implement, easy to operate and avoid unnecessary cost.However, the House must examine what can happen under the regulations. First, the employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. If he decides to put forward alternative arrangements, he must put those proposals out for consultation. The active and the pensioner members then have the right to object to the proposals by a specified procedure, and if either 10 per cent. or 10,000 members—whichever is the lower—object, the employer must go back and think again.If the members do not object, the employer can proceed to implement the new regulations. If, however, they object, the employer can either go to a ballot or withdraw the proposals and come forward with further proposals. If he comes forward with further proposals, the same procedure starts all over again. A tenth or 10,000 of the active and pensioner members can decide to object, and if they are succesful, we go back into the same loop.
Let us suppose that the employer—having tried twice and been rejected twice by more than 10,000 or a tenth of the members—then decides to proceed to a ballot. The active and the pensioner members have the right to participate in that ballot. If a majority of those voting vote against the employer's proposals, the employer can go back and start all over again with a further set of 290 proposals. Or the employer can say, "I have had enough. I am not going to make any alternative proposals. I will put it to the trustees."
The trustees—a majority of whom are, of course, appointed by the employer—can again activate the procedure and can make proposals for alternative arrangements. Again, 10,000 or one tenth of the membership—whichever is the lower—can object. If they do, the procedure has to go back for further decision and proposal by the trustees or to a ballot. If the ballot then rejects the trustees' alternative proposals, they can go back and propose a further scheme. Finally, if all this fails, they go to the fallback scheme that the Government have put in place.
That is not an easy to operate, quick to implement procedure. It could involve no fewer than five ballots without conducting the exercise more than once, and possibly seven or more. It is cumbersome, difficult for members to understand and easy for employers to manipulate.
That brings me to our second objection. It is perfectly possible under the procedures for a scheme to end up with fewer than one third member-nominated trustees. In the case of a determined employer who comes back with scheme after scheme after scheme—requiring on each occasion that a tenth of the members object—it is perfectly possible for a scheme to end up with no member-nominated trustee at all. That is not in the spirit of Goode or even of the Pensions Act.
§ Mr. HealdDoes the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the period during which the employer can propose alternative schemes is only six months at the maximum? There is no question of it being longer.
§ Mr. SmithIt is perfectly possible in that time scale, and within the rules laid down in these procedures, for a determined employer to reduce to a bare minimum or to non-existence the participation of member-nominated trustees. The proposed rules do not guarantee any proportion of trustees as member-nominated. I believe that they should.
The Government should at least consider the compromise proposed by the Trades Union Congress, which has suggested that, where the opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—[Interruption.] I detect some muttering among Conservative Members because we have ventured to suggest that the Trades Union Congress, which represents democratic trade unions, has a valid point. I am astonished that the Government have sunk to such depths that they can deride the participation of trade unions in framing pension regulations and legislation of profound interest to their members and to millions of employees. The Government should be ashamed of their Back Benchers' reaction.
The TUC suggests that, where an opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—which would weaken the intentions of the Goode committee and the Pensions Act, the existing practice of many schemes, and the participation of member-nominated trustees—there should be a low threshold for objection. It has suggested 5 per cent., which is sensible. In such circumstances, members will often want to ensure that they can still have a real say. But it 291 has suggested that, where the opt-out is for more than one third—for example, where the existing provision is 50:50—the proposed 10 per cent. objection threshold should stand. That is a sensible proposal. Even within the constraints of the Pensions Act, that would surely be a better way to proceed.
Our third objection is that the fallback scheme fails to give any role in the final selection of member-nominated trustees to pensioner members. It should and the Government promised that it would. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was then the Minister responsible for pensions. In the light of his rise to greatness, I predict great things for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The right hon. Gentleman said:
both pensioners and active members will be given the opportunity to influence nomination and selection arrangements"—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 238.]The Government have not made provision for that in the selection procedures in the fallback scheme in the regulations.Our concern is echoed in early-day motion 692, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and signed by more than 40 Conservative Members. It states:
this House … believes that pensioner involvement in every stage of the nominating and selection process is essential if occupational pensioners arc to be reassured of the security of their pension schemes".The principle of involvement at every stage is not enshrined in the procedures that have been tabled tonight. It should have been, and Conservative Members who signed the early-day motion should think long and hard before supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.
§ Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main defects of the Act, if there is a defect, is that it places such burdens on employers that they are likely to shrink away from occupational schemes altogether and that that will result in a proliferation of money purchase schemes or personal pensions? That is happening in other parts of the world, including the United States and elsewhere. Does he agree that his proposals would aggravate that procedure? There is always conflict between the employer, the active members and the pensioner members. The regulations seek to resolve that conflict, however inadequately. Does he agree that the one group of people who are inadequately represented are the deferred pensioners?
§ Mr. SmithThe process that the hon. Gentleman fears of employers withdrawing from occupational schemes and diminishing numbers of people taking part in such schemes is already happening here. We have fewer members of occupational schemes now than five years ago. That is a trend which deeply worries me.
The proposals that we have made of a 50:50 split between employers and members and for a guaranteed seat for pensioners within the member-nominated segment of the board would be far simpler and easier for employers to operate than the ones that are specified in the regulations. The National Association of Pension Funds 292 has said that it is perfectly happy to accept that proposal. So I urge Conservative Members to think carefully before endorsing in the Lobby tonight this cumbersome procedure, which does not protect the interests of pensioner members.
§ Mr. ButterfillWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. SmithNo. I am drawing to a close.
I also urge Conservative Members not to be bought off by the suggestion that a reference to OPRA might suffice to protect pensioner interests. Nor can pensioner members be particularly gratified by the Government's suggestion that they could go to court to protect their interests under fiduciary duty rules. How much better it would be to get the legislation right in the first place.
It is surely sensible for larger schemes and those in which at least 40 per cent. of the members are pensioner members to have one place on the board nominated and voted for by pensioner members. There is a legitimate pensioner voice to be heard in the debates of the trustees of the fund. For example, there may be issues relating to the deployment of surplus funds. Pensioners have a voice that ought to be considered.
The Confederation of British Industry has raised a mythical spectre of thousands of pensioner votes swamping the employee votes. That would easily be avoided by adopting the proposal for one member voted on by pensioners, and the others in the member cohort being voted for by the active employee members. The principle of having a pensioner member on the board is widely accepted and already in place in many schemes. Schemes operated by Harland and Wolff, Kimberly-Clark, Thorn EMI and the Commonwealth Development Corporation have all recently brought in pensioner trustees. Imperial Tobacco has recently increased the number of elected pensioner trustees from one to two. Those are wholly positive developments. The statutory framework should not only encourage and enable such provision but should ensure pensioner involvement in trustee boards.
The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the problem of mistrust between pensioners and pension schemes. The Maxwell scandal has reminded us forcefully of the need for proper, open and accountable procedures. The involvement of pensioner members is important and the Government do not guarantee it in the proposals that they make to us tonight. I urge the Government to take these flawed regulations away and come back with something better. A Labour Government will do precisely that.
§ Sir Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, and I greatly appreciate the time and trouble that he has taken to discuss my concerns about this statutory instrument. It is a complicated matter, but if the Government had accepted the amendments—supported by myself and others during the passage of the Pensions Bill in 1995—to require major pension fund trust boards to include a pensioner member, they would not be facing the controversies arising from the statutory instrument.
In Committee on the Pensions Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said: 293
We are putting employees—the active members—on the same basis as the pensioner members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1995; c. 159.]The Under-Secretary of State has produced a briefing paper on the statutory instrument. The paper states:Pensioner members will therefore in the normal course of events have a considerable part to play in the selection and appointment of member-nominated trustees.Pensioner members could and will have a considerable part to play only if the employer so wishes.A letter that I received from the National Association of Pension Funds referred to schedule 1 of the regulations, and stated:
The employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. (He may wish to do so to exclude the participation of member or pensioner representatives on the trustee board or to ensure that such representatives are either persons whom he has selected or persons whom he does not wish to veto.That emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the contents of the statutory instrument.
§ Mr. HealdMany trustee boards include independent members who protect the interests of a wide range of members, including pensioners. Is my hon. Friend saying that, if an employer wants to make such a proposal, there is something wrong in that?
§ Sir Andrew BowdenI did not hear the last part of my hon. Friend's comments.
§ Mr. HealdI am talking about the position of boards that already have independent trustees—where the employer may well suggest to the members that that provides them with adequate security.
§ Sir Andrew BowdenI am not saying that in the majority of cases it will not work very well. But one of the jobs of the House is to try to foresee difficulties and problems that will arise and prevent them from arising. A large number of pensioners do not have confidence that they will be properly represented. It needs only a tiny proportion of employers deliberately to find a way round this to prevent pensioner trustees from being properly represented and from having their views heard. That occurrence will be rare, but why should the House allow any measure to go through that is not as sound and solid as possible in order to prevent it?
In its letter to me, the NAPF said:
NAPF would not, however, oppose the involvement of pensioners in the prescribed rules process, especially"—this is a key point—where the number of pensioners outweighed the number of active members.Neither the House nor the Government can discount the views of the NAPF in the way that they appear to be doing.Instead of making it more difficult for them, we should be encouraging pensioner trustees. I emphasise the point that I made to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith); a pensioner trustee or a trustee representing the pensioners does not have to be a pensioner, but may be a person with special knowledge and experience, who would be able to ensure that the pensioner case was heard.
294 A pensioner trustee elected by pensioners, regardless of whether he or she is pensioner or non-pensioner, provides a reliable safeguard. It is easier for him or her to blow the whistle if he believes that things are going wrong—much easier for such a person than for an active pensioner, who is involved in the company, involved in its operation, who is thinking of his career, his prospects, his promotions, which will not apply to the pensioner individual members.
§ Mr. SternWhat worries me about my hon. Friend's comments is that he appears to assume that the interests of all pensioners are identical. I wonder how he would apply his comments to the circumstances that occurred in the constituencies of myself and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), where there were three different groups of pensioners in the Rolls Royce plc pension scheme, all of which had totally opposed interests.
§ Sir Andrew BowdenWe might need the judgment of Solomon himself to sort that out. I am not sure whether it is possible to find the miracle person who would do that. I am sure that a person of experience and knowledge, be they retired or not retired, would be able to achieve a balance if his main—not exclusive—focus were to protect the interests of pensioners in the scheme.
Active members of boards of trustees are much more likely to go along with employers' proposals. It would be unnatural if they did not do so.
§ Mr. ButterfillI very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). As I said to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), is not the difficulty the conflict between those who represent pensioners, those who represent employers and those who represent the active members? Of course the deferred pensioners are nowhere represented. Would not the 1995 Act be better if we had a much greater proportion of wholly independent trustees, who would consider the matter in the round?
§ Sir Andrew BowdenThat is a splendid suggestion, but unfortunately it is not in the 1995 Act. We cannot discuss or consider it tonight, because it is out of order in relation to this statutory instrument. We must deal with what is before us.
This statutory instrument, as it stands, is not acceptable to Age Concern (England), the Confederation of Occupational Pensioner Associations, the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners and many other pensioner organisations, and it is not acceptable to me. In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister will withdraw it now and reconsider.
§ 11.2 pm
§ Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and we have little time.
I shall speak especially to the regulations concerning pensioner trustees. The Government promised, during the passage of the Pensions Bill, that pensioner members of pension schemes should have the same rights as everyone who was still paying in; yet both the draft regulations and the final regulations exclude pensioner members from nominating or voting for the selection of member-nominated trustees.
295 There is widespread opposition to this set of regulations. As has been said, Age Concern believes that it discriminates against pensioners. The Trades Union Congress and the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners are opposed and there is widespread opposition in the House. Already, we have talked about early-day motion 692, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), a Conservative Member of Parliament, with 170 signatures from all parts of the House. They believe, as I do, that it is grossly unfair.
The Government spelled out what they intended to do in the passing of the Pensions Act 1995. The Official Report contains quote after quote about pensioner trustees. I shall read just one of those tonight, as time is short. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State for Social Security, said:
As the Bill stands, it gives equality of opportunity both to active and pensioner members and it is for scheme members to decide together the best way to nominate trustees, bearing in mind the needs of their particular scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 615.]Throughout the passage of the Bill, pensioners and organisations were led to believe that they would be able to nominate people from their own ranks.
§ Mr. HealdOn 13 February 1995, my right honourable and noble Friend in the other place said quite specifically, in column 478 of Hansard, that the prescribed rules—the default procedure—would be restricted to active members.
§ Ms LynneThe Minister must know that, throughout the Bill's proceedings, numerous quotes support my argument. He uses just one quote; if I had time, I could go through the list of quotes before me. If other hon. Members have time, they might enlighten the Minister, because he cannot simply come to the Dispatch Box and use one quote. He knows that many Ministers said that pensioner trustees would be allowed to nominate. He cannot dispute that fact. No wonder people are upset.
Pensioners have a high level of independent scrutiny in the task of trusteeship. For instance, they cannot be threatened with the sack, nor can they be tempted to exchange their pension benefits for higher wages or an improved redundancy package. Occupational pensioners need to be reassured about the security of their pension schemes, and the Pensions Act was designed to prevent another Maxwell-type fraud. Pensioner organisations are rightly suspicious about the loopholes in these regulations. I hope that all the hon. Members who signed the early-day motion will join us in the Lobby tonight.
§ 11.7 pm
§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. It is a great shame that the debate is taking place at all, because it is a direct repetition of a debate that took place in Committee on the Pensions Bill, when every issue that has been discussed tonight was debated at length and the House eventually accepted that it had to agree to the compromise in the Bill. Many of us would have liked the Government to lean a little further towards pensioner trustees in the Act and its regulations. It is a 296 pity that, in arriving at that compromise, the Government listened too well to the ultimate arm of the corporate state, the National Association of Pension Funds. Nevertheless, the Act was a compromise and, as a result of considerable debate in Committee, the legislation was accepted by the House.
Following the Bill's enactment, a number of pension funds expressed the desire to see to what further extent the movement towards pension fund trustees could take place. With that in mind, and in conjunction with officers of the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, I drafted the early-day motion that stood in my name and those of some 150 colleagues on both sides of the House.
The purpose of the early-day motion was not to overturn the Pensions Act 1995, as Labour Members are claiming tonight—[Interruption.] I was there, and I know what went on—Labour Members were not there, and they do not know what went on. The purpose of the early-day motion was to encourage the Government to move a little further towards pension trustees. As a result of the early-day motion and the discussions that I had with my hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend made statements about the role of the pension regulator and the pensions ombudsman in listening to the desires of individual pensioners in relation to pensioner trustees being appointed where possible.
I approached the Confederation of Occupational Pensioners Associations and suggested that it listen to the views of Ministers in this regard. I drafted a statement of the current state of the debate for the confederation—which is way beyond what Labour Members did. However, the confederation did not bother to put forward that view—that is a shame, but it was its decision.
The debate has moved on since the Committee stage and it is a shame that Labour Members have not noticed that the debate has moved on—it is busy trying to resow infertile ground. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has decided to put forward the regulations tonight.
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)Pensions are important to many of our constituents. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the Philips pension fund for a short time. Four pension schemes in my constituency have got into difficulties and the members of the scheme—some of them pensioners and some of them deferred pensioners—will not get what they expected. I shall refer to Belling in a moment, but the others were not the result of fraud—they were the result of changes in the industry and the finance not being sufficient to meet all the requirements of the pension funds.
Earlier, the Minister could not tell me whether what we are being asked to approve tonight will stop another Maxwell or Belling fiasco from taking place—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) assured me that his answer would be no. To some degree, the Pensions Act 1995 followed the Maxwell incident—although the Belling incident involved a smaller amount of money and fewer people, it was important to them.
I have looked at the pension funds that have got into difficulties in my constituency and found that there is a difference between those who are participating as working members and still contributing to the fund and waiting for 297 a pension, and those who have an actual pension at the present time. If the pension fund goes into liquidation and is wound up, there is a clear clash of interest as moneys are gathered in to meet the requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that we need to ensure that pensioners have representation in addition to the other contributing workers in the fund—especially in the larger schemes that have more than 1,000 members.
We have to ensure that all the trustees know what is going on in the pension fund for which they are responsible. It was clear in the Maxwell and Belling cases that millions of pounds were defrauded from the schemes and few people in those schemes knew what was happening. That is not acceptable and the Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations before us tonight, about the way in which trustees will be appointed, have not solved that problem. They will not ensure that another Maxwell or Belling will happen and so I think that we should vote as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would consider the case of my constituent Ken Hilditch and others like him. Perhaps in my hon. Friend's reply he might address the question whether the regulations before us tonight, which I do not seek to oppose, will help my constituent and others like him.
Ken Hilditch is a Hoverspeed pensioner. Hoverspeed was founded by British Rail, Seaspeed and Brostrums, trading as HoverLloyd, in 1981. In 1982, Hoverspeed set up a pension fund, backdated to 1981, that guaranteed cost-of-living increases to their pensioners. Indeed, the contracts of employment for Hoverspeed included a pension scheme that was inflation-linked, provided, as it said in the small print, that the increases were not excessive. At that time, "not excessive" was construed to mean not more than 10 per cent.
In 1987, the Hoverspeed company was acquired by Sea Containers and in 1989 Sea Containers decided to give itself a two-and-a-half-year contributions holiday from the pension fund, which saved the company some £750,000. In 1991, when the pension contributions should have recommenced, the company decided to give itself a further nine-month holiday, which saved a further £250,000. In other words, the company, at the expense of the pensioners, saved itself £1 million, or enough, I am told, to continue inflation linking. In 1993, the company offered the pensioners no increase whatever, but in 1994, as a result of representations made by myself and others, the pension increase was reinstated and backdated to cover 1993. The £1 million was never repaid.
When Sea Containers took over Hoverspeed, it undertook the transfer of undertakings and took on the assets of the pension fund and, of course, the liabilities of the pension fund. The company has now said that it will not, at any time, implement a cost-of-living increase above 5 per cent. Under this Government, I hope and believe that inflation will never rise above 5 per cent., but were there ever to be a change of Government, inflation would also change and pensioners under the Hoverspeed scheme could find themselves short-changed.
At no time during the proceedings were the trustees of the fund properly consulted. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown 298 (Sir A. Bowden) that those involved in taking the decision to have a contribution holiday clearly had an active vested interest in the company, not least in their own job and promotion prospects, and were not likely to act necessarily in promotion of the best interests of the existing pensioners, of whom Ken Hilditch is only one of many.
Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me an assurance that the regulations will strengthen pensioner representation to the extent that such circumstances will not occur? Pensioners with a clear interest in their pensions' futures should be properly represented.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to support the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on the basis of the contribution by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). When I opened my post to find a letter from the hon. Gentleman asking me to sign his early-day motion—or, rather, a letter in support of the early-day motion—I was foolish enough, like 150 other hon. Members, to sign. I thought that we should sign it because the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West meant business. I now learn that, when push came to shove, the Whip moved up the Gangway quickly and the hon. Gentleman gave in easily.
§ Mr. SternThe hon. Gentleman accuses me of giving in to a Whip. He first suggested, and then withdrew the suggestion, that I had written to him, which I had not, and he then suggested that I put forward an idea for an early-day motion that I never put forward in the first place.
§ Mr. FieldI merely suggested that the hon. Gentleman stood up proudly tonight—giving us a good example of self-hanging—and drew the attention of the House to the fact that he helped to devise the early-day motion. I thought that we were supposed to devise early-day motions to put on the Order Paper, but we learned something different tonight.
People wrote to Members of Parliament asking us to support the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman helped others to compose. Presumably we sign early-day motions because we want to influence policy. It was crunch time tonight: the hon. Member for Kemptown made a clear case for sectional interests to be represented on pension funds. The answer from the Treasury Bench is, "You don't have to worry: people will talk about these things and it will be fine."
Pensioner interests will not be represented effectively on pension funds. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) could not be answered, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) will not receive satisfaction from the Treasury Bench that his constituent's interests will be represented. Those points underscore the claim of the hon. Member for Kemptown.
§ Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)The Minister presented another scenario: pensioners could take pension funds to court because of a lack of fiduciary duty. That is a non-starter.
§ Mr. FieldIt certainly is, given the costs. The case has been made that, according to democratic traditions in this 299 country, interests are represented. Therefore, is it not slightly absurd that pensioner interests are not represented directly on pension funds? That is one view.
We know that all trustees have an overriding commitment to the welfare of a fund and its members. We know also that, although one tries to meet that objective, one's background affects what one says and how one applies one's intellect to a particular decision. As most of the members of many funds are retired, it seems absurd that we are not trying to use our influence to ensure that they are fully represented. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the statutory instruments on which we shall vote later.
I shall offer another reason for rejecting the statutory instruments. At the beginning of the debate, the Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), said that at least one of the instruments was defective. Therefore, tonight we are asked to approve an instrument that is defective and that the Government will have to amend. I confidently expected the Minister to devote a substantial part of his speech to telling us what was defective in which motion; at least then we would know that we were wrong to support it in the Division Lobby. However, we do not know what is wrong, because the Minister did not tell us—although he apologised because it was wrong.
As the instrument does not address the real feelings in the House that pensioners' views should be represented on trusts, and given that we are asked to approve defective regulations that must be changed anyway, would it not be better for the Government not to face defeat but to withdraw the statutory instrument? The Government should listen carefully, if not to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, then at least to the 150 other Members of Parliament who signed the motion standing in his name, because we were serious about the point that we thought he was making. They could then return to the House with new regulations that we could approve with happy hearts.
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for conducting reasonable discussions recently. Questions have been raised about why we sign early-day motions. We do so to apply pressure to Ministers so that discussions may follow and some movement may occur. That happens on occasion. In this instance, I must express some disappointment that we shall not appoint mandatory pensioner trustees to pension funds of a reasonable size. That is regrettable. At the same time, I take reassurance from my hon. Friend saying that he is committed to monitoring and to bringing about change, if that is necessary. I take some comfort from that.
I now turn to the British Telecom pension and the involvement of the Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners. I welcome the fact that, induced by Government legislation and, perhaps, by the regulations, a position that was fought against recently by trade unions and employers alike has been changed. A change has been induced by the suggestion that the regulations will come into force, and I welcome that. I believe that the Government may regret not having taken the opportunity to go further. However, I am reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister.
300 I point to one fund in my constituency. The company has shrunk over a long period and without doubt, there are many more pensioners than active workers in that pension fund. In a company that is constantly under pressure, the work force could be under pressure from management to accept deals that would not always be to the benefit of the pension fund and the pensioners. That gives me some concern. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address that point when he winds up.
§ Sir John Cope (Northavon)I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I am one of those who supported the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is my parliamentary neighbour. I was concerned about a number of pension schemes with very high proportions of pensioner members, of which we have a number of examples in our part of the country—I am sure that that is true of other constituencies. I have had quite a lot of correspondence and a number of discussions with successive Ministers who have been responsible for developing pensions policy, both before the Pensions Bill and in the consultation period on these regulations.
I am concerned about the Opposition's attitude, because they seem to be trying to impose representative capacities on trustees. I do not believe that that is desirable. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that it was part of our democratic tradition for interests to be represented. I believe that it is difficult to reproduce that tradition on boards of trustees of pension funds. I believe that all trustees responsible for pension schemes should have full responsibility for what is done by the trustees and should not see themselves as representatives of the different interests. They should all, in effect, be independent, even though, of course, they will reflect their different backgrounds.
I have another reservation about what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He urged greater simplicity and he made great play of the necessity for simplicity. However, he seemed to wish to impose simplicity by regulation. The Government are offering flexibility in schemes. That is the right thing to do, because every scheme differs in the proportion of active members and pensioner members, and in the circumstances that surround it. That is why it is right to provide flexibility as the regulations do.
I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the fiduciary duty of trustees, to which, as I have explained, I attach importance, and by the possibility of references to the pensions ombudsman, to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and, ultimately if required—this is an important safeguard which we should not dismiss—to the courts. All in all, I support the regulations as a way to ensure that all the interests are properly represented in a flexible way on every pension trustee board.
§ Mr. HealdWe have had an interesting discussion, which has concentrated on member-nominated trustees. We heard distinguished and thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for North Thanet 301 (Mr. Gale)—and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has had courteous discussions with me about the issue.
We understand what has been said about pensioner trustees—pensioners can make a very useful contribution to the running of their schemes—but we have gone far beyond the Goode recommendations, giving pensioners a significant role to play in the selection process. I think it is better for active and pensioner members, working together, to choose the trustees they really want. The Government have been consistent in what they have said about that. They have always made the point that the prescribed rules must be speedy to implement, and must include active members only.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) opened his remarks by talking about contracted-out mixed-benefit schemes, suggesting that it was too onerous to have two separate sides to such schemes. He did not seem to appreciate that that arrangement had been made to ensure that the consent of the member could be obtained before his or her accrued rights were transferred from one side of the scheme to the other. We consider that an important element of security for scheme members. It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to say that the proposals do not involve adequate security for members, and then to suggest a system that would interfere with that very security.
The hon. Gentleman proposed that, for large schemes with more than 1,000 members, there should be a statutory pensioner member. What about the bulk of schemes—the 100,000 with 12 members or fewer? The message would go out to them that they did not have to have a pensioner trustee; that would apply only to large schemes. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's proposals for the vast majority of schemes. Moreover, the fact that a scheme has 1,000 members does not mean that it has a significant number of pensioner members. Many schemes have a tiny number of pensioner members. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman may feel that the flexibility in the Government's proposals is far better.
Then we came to the proposals from the paymaster, the TUC. The hon. Gentleman spoke of opting-out proposals involving under a third of member-nominated trustees, completely ignoring the fact that many employers might favour existing arrangements providing for wholly independent trustees, who are thought by many to provide excellent protection for all members. He went on to propose complicating the scheme even more. The man who has previously spoken up for deregulation suggested that, instead of one threshold, we should have two—possibly more. He then suggested that we should rejig the arrangements in other ways.
The Opposition tabled 740 amendments to the Pensions Bill, many of which added to regulation. Now they turn around and pretend that they are the friend of the deregulator. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government have the balance right.
§ Mr. GallieDid my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggest that the regulations were cumbersome? Does he agree that, had we listened to the hon. Gentleman, they would have been still more cumbersome?
§ Mr. HealdIt is no secret that members of the Labour party are the regulators and the Conservatives are the 302 deregulators. Nowhere is that more true than in pensions, although the Conservative party always stands for security and adequate protection. New Labour, new dangers; further regulation.
§ Mr. Frank FieldWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. HealdNo.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) spoke of breaking commitments. The Government have always made it clear that prescribed rules—
§ Mr. FieldOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are voting on regulations that we are told are defective, will the Minister tell us what is defective about them before he finishes his speech?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)The Minister is responsible for his own speech.
§ Mr. HealdI am grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I have time, I will come to that point.
The hon. Member for Rochdale claimed that commitments had been broken, but the Government have always made it clear that the prescribed rules would exclude pensioner members so that, after the long procedure—which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury so well described, although he made about two mistakes—it is possible to achieve the deadlines and to get the member-nominated trustees in place, which was highlighted as a priority by hon. Members on both sides of the House during consideration of the Pensions Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet raised a particular case. Under the protections in the Pensions Act and under these regulations taken as a whole, trustees run their schemes with the benefit of more knowledge and more help. What is more, they also have the duty, on the transfer of an undertaking, to consider how fund assets may best be protected. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss that with me further on another occasion, I should be happy to do so.
May I cover the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr? He was anxious that pensioners should be properly protected. I have set out the protections in the regulations. They are adequate, but I can give him the commitment that he wanted, which is that the Government will monitor the operation of the regulations and that, if there is abuse, they will be changed in due course. The Government believe, however, that the prize of flexibility is so important in the context of the pensions industry, that it would be right to proceed with the regulations as they stand.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I make the following points. In regulation 13(5)(ii) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations, there are words purporting to be quoted from regulation 13(2)(d) that do not appear there. An amendment is to be made to identify the actual words. It is also necessary to explain the hypothesis in the second limb of paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1. Regulation 13(2)(d) was amended in the final proof of the regulations, but the consequential amendment to regulation 13(5)(ii) was overlooked. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that these are all purely technical matters of no substance and that they will all be dealt with in due course, if the House approves the regulations.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
§ Resolved,
§ That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]
§ Resolved,
§ That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]
§ Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [1 July],
§ That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
§ >The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 271.
306| Division No. 183] | [11.37 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Connarty, Michael |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Cook, Robin (Livingston) |
| Ainger, Nick | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Corston.Jean |
| Allen, Graham | Cousins, Jim |
| Alton, David | Cummings, John |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Ashton, Joe | Cunningham, Roseanna |
| Austin-Walker, John | Dafis, Cynog |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Barron, Kevin | Darling, Alistair |
| Battle, John | Davidson, Ian |
| Bayley, Hugh | Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Beggs, Roy | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bell, Stuart | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Denham, John |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Dewar, Donald |
| Benton, Joe | Dixon, Don |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Dobson, Frank |
| Berry, Roger | Donohoe, Brian H |
| Betts, Clive | Dowd, Jim |
| Blunkett, David | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
| Boateng, Paul | Eagle, Ms Angela |
| Bowden, Sir Andrew | Eastham, Ken |
| Bradley, Keith | Etherington, Bill |
| Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Fatchett, Derek |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Byers, Stephen | Flynn, Paul |
| Callaghan, Jim | Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Foster, Don (Bath) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Foulkes, George |
| Campbell-Savours, D N | Fraser, John |
| Canavan, Dennis | Fyfe, Maria |
| Cann, Jamie | Galbraith, Sam |
| Chidgey, David | Galloway, George |
| Church, Judith | Gapes, Mike |
| Clapham, Michael | Gerrard, Neil |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Godsiff, Roger |
| Clelland, David | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Gordon, Mildred |
| Cohen, Harry | Graham, Thomas |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James |
| Grocott, Bruce | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Gunnell, John | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Hain, Peter | Morley, Elliot |
| Hall, Mike | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Hanson, David | Mudie, George |
| Hardy, Peter | Mullin, Chris |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Murphy, Paul |
| Harvey, Nick | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | O'Hara, Edward |
| Heppell, John | Olner, Bill |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hinchliffe, David | Paisley, The Reverend Ian |
| Hodge, Margaret | Parry, Robert |
| Hoey, Kate | Pearson, Ian |
| Home Robertson, John | Pickthall, Colin |
| Hood, Jimmy | Pike, Peter L |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Pope, Greg |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley North, | Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Hoyle, Doug | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Purchase, Ken |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Hutton, John | Radice, Giles |
| Illsley, Eric | Randall, Stuart |
| Ingram, Adam | Raynsford, Nick |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | Reid, Dr John |
| Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) | Rendel, David |
| Jamieson, David | Robertson, George (Hamilton) |
| Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff) | Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) |
| Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn) | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Rogers, Allan |
| Jowell, Tessa | Rooney, Terry |
| Keen, Alan | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C & S) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Khabra, Piara S | Sheerman, Barry |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Lewis, Terry | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Liddell, Mrs Helen | Short, Clare |
| Litherland, Robert | Simpson, Alan |
| Livingstone, Ken | Skinner, Dennis |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Lynne, Ms Liz | Smyth, The Reverend Martin |
| McAllion, John | Snape, Peter |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Soley, Clive |
| McCartney, Ian | Spearing, Nigel |
| Macdonald, Calum | Spellar, John |
| McFall, John | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| McKelvey, William | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Stevenson, George |
| McLeish, Henry | Stott, Roger |
| Maclennan, Robert | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| McNamara, Kevin | Straw, Jack |
| MacShane, Denis | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| McWilliam, John | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Madden, Max | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Maddock, Diana | Timms, Stephen |
| Mahon, Alice | Tipping, Paddy |
| Mandelson, Peter | Touhig, Don |
| Marek, Dr John | Trickett, Jon |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Turner, Dennis |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) | Tyler, Paul |
| Martin, Michael J (Springbum) | Vaz, Keith |
| Meacher, Michael | Wallace, James |
| Meale, Alan | Walley, Joan |
| Michael, Alun | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) | Watson, Mike |
| Milburn, Alan | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Miller, Andrew | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Williams, Rt Hon Alan (sw'n W) | Wray, Jimmy |
| Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Wilson, Brian | |
| Winnick, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wise, Audrey | Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Eric Martlew. |
| Worthington, Tony |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Alexander, Richard | Dover, Den |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Setby) | Duncan, Alan |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Duncan Smith, Iain |
| Amess, David | Dunn, Bob |
| Arbuthnot, James | Dykes, Hugh |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Eggar, Rt Hon Tim |
| Ashby, David | Elletson, Harold |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Robert | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V) | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Evennett, David |
| Baldry, Tony | Faber, David |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Fabricant, Michael |
| Bates, Michael | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Bellingham, Henry | Forman, Nigel |
| Bendall, Vivian | Forth, Eric |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Booth, Hartley | French, Douglas |
| Boswell, Tim | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Gale, Roger |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Gallie, Phil |
| Bowis, John | Garnier, Edward |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Gill, Christopher |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Brazier, Julian | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Bright Sir Graham | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Gorst, Sir John |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Grant Sir A (SW Cambs) |
| Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Burns, Simon | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Burt, Alistair | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Butcher, John | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald |
| Butler, Peter | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Butterfill, John | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hannam, Sir John |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Carttiss. Michael | Haselhurst, Sir Alan |
| Cash, William | Hawkins, Nick |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hawksley, Warren |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Hayes, Jerry |
| Churchill, Mr | Heald, Oliver |
| Clappison, James | Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hendry, Charles |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif) | Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test) |
| Colvin, Michael | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) |
| Congdon, David | Horam, John |
| Conway, Derek | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Hunt Rt Hon David (Wirral W) |
| Couchman, James | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume) |
| Cran, James | Hunter, Andrew |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | Jack, Michael |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Jessel, Toby |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Day, Stephen | Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr) |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Devlin, Tim | Key, Robert |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Knapman, Roger | Sackville, Tom |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy |
| Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) | Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Knox, Sir David | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lang, Rt Hon Ian | Shersby, Sir Michael |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Sims, Sir Roger |
| Legg, Barry | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Leigh, Edward | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Lidington, David | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Lord, Michael | Spring, Richard |
| Luff, Peter | Sproat, Iain |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| MacKay, Andrew | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Steen, Anthony |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Stephen, Michael |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Stem, Michael |
| Madel, Sir David | Streeter, Gary |
| Maitland, Lady Olga | Sumberg, David |
| Malone, Gerald | Sweeney, Walter |
| Mans, Keith | Sykes, John |
| Marland, Paul | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Marlow, Tony | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Mates, Michael | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian | Thomason, Roy |
| Mellor, Rt Hon David | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Merchant, Piers | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mills, Iain | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Tracey, Richard |
| Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector | Tredinnick, David |
| Needham, Rt Hon Richard | Trend, Michael |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Trotter, Neville |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Viggers, Peter | |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Norris, Steve | Walden, Georqe |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Waller, Gary |
| Page, Richard | |
| Ward, John | |
| Paice, James | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Patnick, Sir Irvine | Waterson, Nigel |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Watts, John |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Wells, Bowen |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Whitney, Ray |
| Pickles, Eric | Whittingdale, John |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Portillo, Rt Hon Michael | Wilkinson, John |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Willetts, David |
| Rathbone, Tim | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Renton, Rt Hon Tim | Wood, Timothy |
| Richards, Rod | Yeo, Tim |
| Riddick, Graham | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Robathan, Andrew | |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Richard Ottaway. |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.