The next petition is PE500. We had expected to have Dennis Canavan here.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 7
- Dennis Canavan Ind 4
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
The record
13 contributionsI am here.
Sorry—Dennis Canavan is present. We have received apologies from Sylvia Jackson and an e-mail from Fergus Ewing, which I will read out later.We have dealt with the issue of the Scottish Transport Group pension funds half a dozen times at various meetings. The committee noted a response from Dennis Canavan, saying that a meeting in October 2002, which involved representatives of HM Treasury, two Westminster MPs and members of the Transport and General Workers Union, did not involve representatives of the Scottish Bus Group pensioners action group. The committee therefore agreed to request again that a meeting be held with a delegation of MSPs, members of the Scottish Bus Group pensioners action group and its financial advisor, Mr Derek Scott, given their real concerns about the handling of the matter. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has now responded, saying that she is not prepared to hold such a meeting. I invite Dennis Canavan to speak before committee members discuss the suggested action.
The response of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Ruth Kelly, is very disappointing. I am not sure whether there is any merit in pursuing the matter with the Treasury now. The Treasury ministers appear to be absolutely intransigent in refusing to meet the pensioners and their representatives. An important point still needs to be clarified. Although Treasury ministers are not accountable to us, Scottish Executive ministers are. It may still be worth pursuing the matter with them, even though we have now reached the 11th hour of the parliamentary session, as it were, with just over a week to go before dissolution. It might be worth asking Lewis Macdonald, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, whether he would agree to meet representatives of the pensioners and any interested members of the Parliament.With your permission, convener, I will distribute the relevant correspondence for members to peruse. I have a copy for each member. You will see that there is a blatant contradiction, whereby the Treasury is apparently saying one thing and the Scottish Executive is saying something completely contrary. The papers that I have just distributed to members include a letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, to Tom Clarke MP. I have highlighted the second last sentence of that letter, which says:"the legal position was that the pension fund surplus should pass to the Scottish Executive in its entirely."The other letter was written to John McAllion, the convener of this committee, by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald. I have highlighted part of the second page, which appears to be a blatant contradiction of Paul Boateng's statement. Lewis Macdonald writes:"The agreement with HM Treasury took account of the fact that the remaining balance, £50 million (net of tax), would be remitted to the UK Exchequer as required under the 1989 Act."As I said, the Treasury is saying one thing, while the Scottish Executive is saying something completely different. The pensioners and I are very grateful to the committee for the time that it has spent on this important issue, but I feel that we should now pursue the matter further by requesting a meeting with Lewis Macdonald.
If members agree, I could write to Lewis Macdonald, asking that he agree to meet representatives of the pensioners and interested MSPs to discuss the correspondence that Dennis Canavan has made available. Is that agreed?
Members
link
Agreed.
We received an e-mail from Fergus Ewing. I will read out the relevant part of it:"When the Minister addressed the Committee on this issue he was asked by myself what would happen in the event that the total amount of the funds earmarked for distribution was not fully subscribed. What would happen to the remainder? He replied that it would be applied for the benefit of the identified applicants who were declared eligible to received the ex gratia payments. Would it be in order for the Committee to invite the Minister to clarify, now that the distribution scheme has been approved and has in part been implemented, that the remainder of the residue will be applied for the benefit of the identified applicants found eligible. Can that money be used in order to ensure that widows and other beneficiaries should receive the full amount of the payment rather than receive only half of the amount as most of them will do?"However, the clerks have pointed out to me that Lewis Macdonald dealt with that issue in his letter to me of November last year, which stated:"In making these payments Scottish Ministers are required to adopt a fair and reasonable approach to their distribution of the available surplus, and that is most readily done by following the rules of the STG pension schemes. Changing the basis for payment would move away from the established principle of utilising the rules of the schemes for payments and would have an effect of decreasing the final expected sums for the vast majority of recipients. Scottish Ministers believe that a departure from the basis of the distribution would increase the potential risk of overpayment and therefore of legal challenge. Scottish Ministers fully evaluated the matter recently when considering the amendment to the distribution criteria in relation to those widowed on or after 18 December 2000. Accordingly Scottish Ministers have decided that there will be no change to the basis for distribution for those widowed before 18 December 2000."As the minister dealt with the point that Fergus Ewing wants us to raise with him, I do not know whether there is any point in us pursuing the issue further, because we will get the same answer.
Perhaps we should send a copy of that letter to Fergus Ewing and point out that the matter has been dealt with.
Yes. Is it agreed to do that and to take up Dennis Canavan's suggestion of writing to Lewis Macdonald to ask for a meeting?Members indicated agreement.
Fergus Ewing raised a further point in the statement that he sent to me. It was a simple request. The first tranche of payments has been made, but a significant amount of money is unpaid, which means that secondary payments will be made to virtually everyone who received a first payment. Obviously, it would be an advantage for some of the pensioners if the second payment were made in the next tax year. Fergus Ewing has written to the Executive about that, although it is fairly obvious that the Executive will comply with the request because there are only two weeks left in this tax year. It would be of benefit to some of the pensioners if we ensured that the Executive postpones the payments until the next tax year.
When we write to the minister asking for a meeting, we will make that point. We will also make it clear that we want the meeting with him to be held before the dissolution of the Parliament.
Yes—I would like it to be held before Parliament is dissolved.
Do members agree to those suggestions?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 18 Mar 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 18 March 2003 (Morning) Petitions · 2
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 39
- New Petitions Petitions · 56
- New Petitions Petitions · 113
- New Petitions Petitions · 69
- New Petitions Petitions · 29
- New Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 2
- Current Petitions Petitions · 13
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 9
- Convener's Report Procedure · 2
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.