DWP aims to restore pensions confidence
Employees' confidence in pensions has been so severely damaged by the fall-out of the three-year bear market and the impact of insolvencies on underfunded schemes that the new legislation before parliament needs to succeed in restoring trust. But this will not be an easy task.
|
l The Pensions Bill currently before parliament makes major changes to pension schemes and has now been given a Second Reading in the Commons. l OPRA will be replaced by the Pensions Regulator, which will inherit its predecessor's powers but also be given new powers such as improvement, third-party and freezing orders. l The Pension Protection Fund is being introduced to provide a level of protection for members' pensions if an employer becomes insolvent and the scheme is underfunded. l Compliance with an individually designed statutory funding objective will replace the current minimum funding requirement for defined-benefit schemes. l The government is taking new powers to promote joint private/state combined pension forecasts. l New simplified rules for the appointment of member-nominated trustees are to be brought in and backed by a code of practice issued by the Pensions Regulator. l A new simplified internal dispute resolution procedure is to be introduced. l The Myners "familiarity requirement" to ensure trustees have basic knowledge and understanding of pensions is to be implemented. l Funding and investment provisions are being brought in to comply with the EU IORP Directive. l The right to future work-based pensions will transfer to a new employer under TUPE. l The limited price indexation ceiling is to be reduced from 5% to 2.5% pa for pensionable service after the Bill comes into force. l Other important measures, such as allowing changes to accrued pension rights, mandatory consultation before major scheme alterations, pre-vesting transfer rights and the abolition of the obligation to offer additional voluntary contribution plans, are to be introduced during the passage of the Bill through parliament. l
The terms on which state retirement pension can be deferred are to be
enhanced. |
At the second reading of the Pensions Bill1, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions declared2: "I am clear that a pensions promise made should be a pensions promise honoured." In so doing, he underlined the importance of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) as a confidence-building measure. Yet much debate, both inside and outside parliament, will undoubtedly focus on whether the degree of protection needed to be provided by the PPF to restore members' confidence in defined-benefit schemes can be achieved without setting the levy to fund the PPF so high that it will drive the companies that sponsor defined-benefit schemes to close them.
Among the measures contained in the Bill, the PPF has rightly attracted the lion's share of the media's attention, but there are a number of other significant provisions, most of which were announced in last summer's action plan . Here, we review all the measures in the Bill.
Pensions regulator
Part 1 of the Bill is given over to the establishment of what, in the words of the Secretary of State, will be "a new, proactive pensions regulator". He says "new powers will enable it to step in early where workers face real risks, and it will adopt a lighter-touch approach to well-run schemes that will make it easier for firms to get on and run those schemes."
The new body will be known as "the Pensions Regulator", although it will not have general oversight of personal pension schemes. Unlike its predecessor, the Pensions Regulator will have its objectives laid down in statute. They are:
l to protect the benefits of members of occupational pension schemes;
l to protect the benefits of members of personal pension schemes to which their employer pays contributions directly or where members' contributions are deducted from pay;
l to protect the benefits of all members of stakeholder pension schemes;
l to reduce the risk of situations arising which may lead to compensation being payable from the PPF; and
l to promote, and to improve understanding of, the good administration of work-based pension schemes.
The Pensions Regulator will be given more power to take action than has been awarded to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) due to its ability to issue and enforce "improvement notices", "third-party notices" and "freezing orders".
Improvement notices
If the Pensions Regulator is of the opinion that any person has contravened the pensions legislation, it can issue an "improvement notice" directing any person to remedy or prevent a recurrence of that contravention. The notice must specify the nature of the contravention and the evidence on which the regulator has based its opinion, as well as the time period within which the person must comply.
An improvement notice may refer to a code of practice issued by the regulator and may allow the person a choice of ways to remedy or prevent the recurrence of the contravention. The notice can direct the person to inform the regulator, within the period specified in the notice, of the steps taken. Civil penalties will be applied to a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the notice.
Third-party notices
Similarly, if the regulator is of the opinion that someone has contravened the pensions legislation and that the contravention was either wholly or in part due to a failure of a third party to take action, but where that failure of the third party does not in itself constitute a contravention of the pensions legislation, the regulator may issue a "third-party notice." The notice will direct the third party to take specified measures to remedy, or prevent recurrence of, that failure. The content of a third-party notice will closely mirror that of an improvement notice and the regulator will have the same power to impose penalties.
The explanatory notes to the Bill explain that the fact that improvement and third-party notices have not been available to OPRA "has proved limiting to its ability to avoid or rectify breaches of legislation rather than providing sanctions after the fact."
Freezing orders
The regulator also has the power to issue a "freezing order" in relation to any defined-benefit scheme if it is satisfied that it is necessary to protect the interests of the generality of members of the scheme and there is an immediate risk to the interests of the members or assets of the scheme.
A freezing order will direct that during the period over which it has effect, no further benefits are to accrue and that no winding-up of the scheme may begin other than by an order of the regulator. The order can also contain other directions that have effect during the period of the order - for example that no new members, in general or from a specified class, are to be admitted to the scheme, or that no further contributions in general or in relation to specified members are to be paid into the scheme.
Codes of practice
The Bill specifies broad legislative requirements for which the Pensions Regulator will be required to issue a code of practice, and in addition the Bill gives the regulator a general power to issue such codes to give practical guidance on how compliance with the pensions legislation can be achieved. The regulator must issue consultation drafts of any codes and also subsequently submit them to the Secretary of State for approval. If approval is given, the code will be laid before parliament; if not, the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for withholding approval. Any code laid before parliament will be published and widely distributed.
A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice does not of itself render that person liable to any legal proceedings. But the regulator will have the power to issue an improvement notice directing that person to observe the code. A code of practice will also be admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings and, if any provision of such a code appears to the court or the Pensions Ombudsman to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it must be taken into account in determining that question.
Pension protection fund
The PPF is dealt with in Part 2 in a total of 88 clauses and five Schedules. The measure - which is designed to protect members of defined-benefit and hybrid schemes when their employer becomes insolvent and the scheme has insufficient funds - is intended to increase members' confidence that they will receive the pension they were promised.
The idea of a compensation scheme was mooted in the government's Green Paper and subsequently, became a key part of the government action plan . At this point, it became clear that it was to be largely modelled on the American pension insurance scheme, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
As the US equivalent is currently suffering under a deficit of around $11.5 billion. There has been concern expressed that the PPF could suffer a similar fate, particularly as it is not backed by government funds. Employers have been particularly concerned that the PPF could lead to the situation witnessed in the US where companies in weaker industries divest themselves of liabilities at the expense of those in a stronger financial position. The government has sought to address the latter concern through the inclusion of a risk-based levy and safeguards around eligibility that would deter those who seek to take unfair advantage of the scheme (see later).
PPF board
The PPF will be managed and operated by a board, which will also manage the fraud compensation fund (currently managed by the Pension Compensation Board). The PPF board will be a corporate body and chaired by someone who is not a member of staff and independent - the same person will not be able to chair the new regulator. The board will also have a chief executive and at least five other members, two of whom must be members of staff. The majority of the board must be non-executives.
The board's remit and powers are extensive. It will oversee the collection of the levy from occupational pension schemes, the assessment of a scheme's eligibility to receive compensation from the PPF and the payment of benefits to members. If it invests the funds held by it, at least two fund managers must be appointed and it must have a statement of investment principles. It also has the power to borrow money.
Under the legislation, the board can require individuals involved in a scheme (including trustees, managers, professional advisers, employers and insolvency practitioners) to produce information "relevant to the exercise of its functions." It may also inspect scheme premises and examine documentation. It will be a criminal offence to fail to provide requested information or to knowingly provide false information to the board.
Applying for compensation
A scheme can apply for assistance from the PPF if the sponsoring employer has become insolvent, or if the trustees or the new regulator believe it is unlikely that the sponsoring employer will continue as a going concern. Whether or not the board would take responsibility for the scheme depends on two key points:
l an insolvency practitioner needs to confirm that a "scheme rescue" is not possible (the exact nature of a scheme rescue will become clear when the relevant Regulations are issued); and
l the assets of the scheme must be insufficient to meet the scheme's "protected liabilities" (ie the cost of securing benefits equivalent to PPF compensation). To ascertain this, the board would undertake an actuarial valuation of the scheme as at a date immediately prior to the employer's insolvency.
If a scheme satisfies both these tests, the board will give the trustees a transfer notice. The scheme's assets will be transferred to the board, the trustees discharged from their obligations and the members will start to receive benefits from the PPF.
If a scheme would have been eligible for the PPF but for the fact that it has sufficient assets to meet its protected liabilities - and a scheme rescue is not possible - the trustees must wind up the scheme, or apply to the board for reconsideration. The latter entails producing - within a three-month period - an auditor's valuation and a "protected benefits quotation" from an insurer, showing the funds the insurance company would require to provide benefits for the scheme members at the same level as the PPF compensation. Depending on the quotation, the scheme may then be eligible for compensation.
During the assessment period, severe restrictions are put on the scheme. No new members may be admitted, no further contributions may be paid towards the scheme, no transfer payments can be made, no further benefits accrue, and winding up of the scheme cannot begin. Pensions in payment are restricted to the levels that would be paid if the PPF assumed responsibility. During this time, the board may direct a "relevant person" to oversee the scheme's investment decisions, legal proceedings and any expenditure incurred.
Eligibility
Occupational schemes that are not money-purchase arrangements are eligible to apply for assessment by the PPF board, so long as they are not in wind up when the provision comes into force. Some schemes will be excluded from the coverage by Regulations. These will include those schemes exempt from the minimum funding requirement, such as public sector and unapproved schemes.
Certain rules will apply that will enable the board to exclude from application those that appear to be taking unfair advantage of the PPF. For instance, the board can refuse to take on a scheme that was outside the scope of the PPF during a specified period (to be clarified in Regulations). Likewise, it can refuse responsibility for schemes that were formerly ineligible - and which therefore did not pay the levy - but whose members are subsequently transferred to a different scheme when insolvency seemed likely.
"Compensation" payable
Benefits paid out under the PPF arrangements will be:
l 100% of the entitlement of members at or above normal pension age (NPA) and those already in receipt of an ill-health or a dependant's pension;
l 90% for members who have not yet reached NPA (subject to a cap, initially set at £25,000 per year); and
l dependants' pensions payable on the future death of a member will not exceed 50% of the member's PPF entitlement.
Benefits in payment will be subject to an annual increase of 2.5% or the retail prices index (RPI), whichever is lower, but only in respect of pensionable service after 6 April 1997 (for the period prior to that there will be no annual increases). If the scheme provides for a lump sum, the PPF will pay out funds equal to 25% of the member's PPF entitlement.
Three-pronged levy
The PPF will be funded by a three-pronged levy, covering pensions protection, administration and fraud compensation. In the longer term, the pension protection charge will comprise of two elements - one based on scheme-specific factors, and the other based on risk-related factors.
Controversially, the Bill has allowed for a period of at least a year (possibly up to two years) when an "initial levy" will be collected in relation to the pension protection element, which only takes account of the scheme-specific factors. This has ignited employer concerns - already smouldering - about the unfair burden placed on schemes in a more robust financial position. Concerns have also been expressed in parliament about this initial period because the funds collected are likely to be substantially lower than in future years and may not cover an initial rush of claims.
The scheme-based levy will take into account factors such as the number of scheme members, their pensionable earnings and scheme liabilities. The amount each scheme will pay towards the risk-based element of the levy will depend on the difference between the value of the scheme's assets (excluding those representing money-purchase rights) and the protected liabilities. Other factors that could also be taken into account, if the board deems it appropriate, include the likelihood of insolvency, and the risks associated with the scheme's investments.
Each year, the board will set the levy rates and - after the initial period - it will decide whether to impose one or both of the two elements of the pension protection levy. If both are imposed, at least 50% of the total must be raised by the risk-based element. If the board decides only to impose a scheme-based levy, the total must be less than 10% of the levy ceiling (to be set annually by the Secretary of State).
During the Pension Bill's Second Reading, Malcolm Wicks, the Minister for Pensions, described the initial levy as a "significantly reduced flat-rate fee." After that period, he said, "we shall work closely with businesses, allowing them to switch to the risk-related premium as best fits the normal triennial valuation cycle." He added that schemes that want to "bring that forward" will be able to do so.
Wicks estimates that the cost of the initial levy will be £150 million and would be around £10 per member during the first year. Thereafter, he expects the average cost to be £20 per member per year, assuming a £300 million annual cost.
Reviews, appeals and PPF Ombudsman
Some of the PPF board's decisions will be challengeable and must be reviewed or reconsidered by the board. This may result in the board varying or revoking its decisions. It must also investigate complaints of maladministration in relation to its activities and may pay compensation where appropriate.
There will also be a PPF Ombudsman, who can consider any matter reviewed by the board, including complaints of maladministration. The Ombudsman will be able to decide what action the board should take as a result of investigation.
Scheme funding
Part 3 of the Bill sets out the measures to replace the existing minimum funding requirement (MFR) with a scheme-specific, long-term funding standard known as the statutory funding objective (SFO). Trustees will be required to agree with the sponsoring employer a strategy for funding the pension commitments and for correcting any funding deficits, and to set this out in a statement of funding principles.
It should be pointed out, however, that the measures set out in the Bill simply provide the framework for the operation of the new scheme-specific standard with much detail left to be set out in Regulations and new or revised guidance from the actuarial profession. It should also be noted that the SFO must comply with the prudential requirements set out in last year's EU Directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs) .
More details of the SFO are set out in box 1 .
Financial planning
Part 4 of the Bill deals with financial planning for retirement . In introducing this measure to parliament, the Secretary of State said: "We are determined to put people in control of planning for their retirement, and that is the third key area of the Bill. We want to raise awareness and make sure that people clearly understand the choices that they face." He put great emphasis on giving individuals the opportunity to see information on their state pension and the occupational elements together, so that they can "explore their options in order to get the retirement that they want."
Measures in the Bill provide that trustees of occupational schemes could be compelled by Regulations to provide scheme members with combined state and occupational pension forecasts. The explanatory notes explain that this is to be a reserve power and its use will depend on "the extent to which combined pension forecasts are issued by schemes on a voluntary basis."
Another measure in the Bill allows the Secretary of State to disclose information on an individual's state pension rights to third parties that provide services to trustees. The explanatory notes to the Bill comment that the lack of reference to such third parties in the existing legislation has limited the number of pension schemes able to provide combined pension forecasts.
Simplification changes
Part 5 of the Bill is given over to various changes to the regulatory requirements governing occupational pension schemes. In many cases these changes derive from the move to try and simplify those requirements without undermining the protection for members which they were originally put in place to achieve. One approach to simplification being adopted is to have the Pensions Regulator issue codes of practice that it is felt can be applied more subtly than overly prescriptive Regulations.
Member-nominated trustees
The Pensions Bill will repeal the existing member-nominated trustee (member-nominated directors in the case of a corporate trustee) requirements of the Pensions Act 1995 and scrap the measures contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 without their ever having been brought into force. Instead they implement the "minimal legislation" option (option 1) set out in the Department for Work and Pensions technical paper issued alongside the Green Paper rather than its alternative "fair and open" option (option 2). The main rules being introduced are set out in box 2 .
The biggest issue dogging these requirements remains the ability of employers and employee representatives to exclude pensioners from being member-nominated trustees. In the Second Reading debate, Steve Webb, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on pensions raised this issue3. He said: "The government considered two options for choosing trustees of occupational pension schemes. They rejected the option known as 'fair and open' . . . I meet regularly with retired members of occupational pension schemes. They feel that they are excluded from the running of the occupational pensions on which they depend. One of the things that they value enormously is trustee rights - retired members drawing pensions being entitled to serve as trustees . . . I hope the Secretary of State will review that decision. It is important that workers, deferred members and retired members are properly represented in a fair and open way. I am not convinced that that is the case."
Dispute resolution
The Pensions Bill repeals s.50 of the Pensions Act 1995 and sets out revised requirements relating to the internal dispute resolution procedures for occupational pension schemes. The main changes are that:
l the current two-stage procedure is replaced by a single-stage procedure with the dispute being presented to the trustees;
l the complainant will be able to take the dispute to the Pensions Ombudsman at any point rather than having to wait until the procedure is complete (the procedure will be brought to an end if the complainant does so); and
l each scheme's procedure will be governed by a code of practice covering issues of what is a reasonable time for completing the procedure, and devised by the regulator rather than being prescribed by Regulations.
Contracting-out changes
The main simplifying change regarding contracting out contained in the Pensions Bill, at least as published on 12 February, is that those who hold protected rights in a contracted out money-purchase (COMP) scheme or an appropriate personal pension will in general be permitted to draw those benefits before age 60. Where held in a COMP scheme, however, it will remain a requirement that the member draws them by age 65.
The same clause of the Bill also allows guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) to be taken in lump-sum form rather than as pension in circumstances to be set out in Regulations. Where this happens and the member subsequently dies, a widow or widower of the member will be treated for the purposes of calculating the minimum spouse's pension payable as if the member had not received the lump sum.
One further change, but not necessarily one that simplifies, is that when the transitional period for the equalisation between men and women of state pension age begins in April 2010, the calculation of GMPs will remain unchanged.
What is not contained in the Bill, as first published, is, however, the legislation to allow for the conversion of GMPs into an actuarial equivalent scale benefit provided by the scheme. The intention to include such a clause was announced by the Secretary of State last year (OP, November 2003).
New measures
Other measures in Part 5 of the Bill do not stem from a simplification agenda, but rather implement other policy commitments made by the government to improve the way schemes work, to offer additional protection for members and to cut costs.
Myners familiarity principle
Following the adoption of Paul Myners' report (OP, May 2001) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the government issued a consultation paper (OP, March 2002) that proposed that it become a legislative requirement that trustees should be familiar with the investment issues with which they are concerned. The Pensions Bill 2004 contains measures that will enact this "familiarity requirement" (see box 3 for details).
During the House of Commons debate on the Bill's Second Reading, David Willetts, from the Conservative Opposition's frontbench team, was worried about the effect of the familiarity requirement. He said4: "One of our biggest concerns about the Bill is that the whole trust model on which British pension funds have been based for so long is under threat because of the burdens that will be placed on people who continue to try to run pension funds on a trustee basis." On the other hand, Tony Lloyd, a Labour backbencher countered, saying4: "in fact the trust model is under threat and that is why we have the Bill. It is the failure of the trust model to do anything other than replicate the establishment view of the pensions experts that has led to the crisis in many areas of pension activity."
Statement of investment principles revised
The Bill replaces the current text of s.35 of the Pensions Act 1995, which deals with the requirement for the trustees to prepare a statement of investment principles.
The change, in part, has become necessary to take account of the IORP Directive, and many of the details will be set out in future Regulations. One change on the face of the Bill, however, specifies that the statement must in future be of a "prescribed form" as well as having prescribed content.
TUPE transfers
The Bill contains the measures to implement last summer's action plan proposal concerning those employees who have access to an occupational pension scheme, and whose employer changes as a result of a business transfer subject to the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations (TUPE). These employees will be given the right to continue to accrue future pension rights with the new employer. The provisions are summarised in box 4 .
The provisions in the Bill beg a number of points. For example, if the new employer sponsors a group personal pension and matches employee contributions of up to 6%, this does not appear to satisfy the requirement to provide pension protection.
What is very surprising is that not even the government's explanatory notes to the Bill make any mention of the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Martin v South Bank University (OP, December 2003). Here the ECJ held that, under the EU Acquired Rights Directive, any benefits that were not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" must fully transfer under TUPE - and the ECJ made clear that any enhanced early retirement terms could not be classified as "old-age benefits". Given this ruling, it is difficult to see how the new protections introduced in the Bill meet the requirements of the Directive.
Pension increases
Following the announcement in the action plan last year, the Bill contains legislation to reduce the current ceiling on the limited price indexation (LPI) requirement from 5% to 2.5% for defined-benefit schemes. The change will also apply to all protected rights.
In explaining the measure to parliament, the Secretary of State said5: "At 5%, it is out of line with expectations and has grown disproportionately expensive, which raises the risk that some employers will respond by closing schemes altogether . . . All the inflation protection in the world is useless if there is no pension left to protect."
The Green Paper had stated that the change would not affect pensions already in payment, and some commentators, such as Watson Wyatt, took this to imply that the change would possibly apply to rights accrued since 6 April 1997 but which had not yet come into payment. The Bill makes it clear that the change will only apply to future accruals from the date the relevant measure is brought into force (ie probably 6 April 2005). To do otherwise would reduce rights already accrued. Nevertheless the change does complicate administration and for members in defined-contribution schemes, especially for those also with protected rights, it can mean that the member's capital sum will have to secure up to six separate annuities.
Other changes
Other changes directly affecting work-based pension provision in Part 5 of the Bill include:
l extending the rules governing pension rights for those on paid periods of maternity leave to employees on paid periods of paternity and adoption leave;
l including pensions paid as a result of a mistake among those rights excepted from the inalienability requirements;
l amending ss.49(9) and 88 of the Pensions Act 1995, so that the need to report late payment of contributions is subject to the failure being of "material significance" to the Pensions Regulator;
l amending s.75 of the 1995 Act, so that, where the company is solvent but the scheme is in wind up, the trustees choose the date at which the assets and liabilities are to be valued; and
l enabling schemes to satisfy the statutory requirement to revalue deferred pensions by revaluing the total pension or other benefit fully in line with the RPI.
More to come
The Secretary of State announced6 at the Bill's Second Reading that further key measures, many of which were included in the action plan, would be added to the Bill and apologised to the House for the necessity of doing this. He cited the delay in the publication of the IORP Directive, the need to coordinate some of the provisions with the tax simplification measures to be included in the Finance Bill and "the complexity of the underlying legislation that the Bill replaces or amends".
Those additional measures mentioned by the Secretary of State are:
l giving early leavers with at least three months' but less than two years' service the right to transfer their benefits rather than take a refund of their own contributions;
l abolishing the requirement on trustees to provide an additional voluntary contribution option;
l easing the requirements of s.67 of the 1995 Act (see OP, November 2002 for an examination of the problem) to allow the rationalisation of accrued rights (but this is subject to ongoing work); and
l to require employers to undertake consultation before they make major changes to pension schemes.
State provision
At present, those who have reached state pension age may choose to defer receiving their state retirement pension for a period of up to five years. The individual can cancel the deferment at any time. The decision need not be made at the time of reaching state pension age and so the pension may be claimed initially and later the decision taken to defer it. A decision to defer can only be implemented once. If the deferment option is taken, the amount of the state retirement pension that eventually becomes payable, subject to certain other conditions, will be increased by 1/7th of 1% for each week payment is deferred (7.42% a year) subject to a minimum of seven weeks' deferment. Those increments are then added to the state retirement pension to which the member is entitled at the time the pension is drawn.
Measures included in the Pensions Act 1995 were due to change these rules with effect from 6 April 2010, so that the maximum five-year deferral period would be abolished and the rate of increase would rise from 1/7th to 1/5th of 1% (10.4% a year) subject to a minimum of five weeks' deferral.
Following the announcement made in the action plan, Part 6 of the Pensions Bill contains measures that would bring this change forward to take effect from 6 April 2005 and in addition, give the pensioner the choice of whether to take the increments as extra pension or as a taxable lump sum. The calculation of the lump sum will comprise the pension to which individuals would have been entitled had they not deferred, plus a rate of return that will be applied on a weekly, compound basis. On 24 February, the government announced that this rate of return will be at least 2% above the Bank of England base rate. The Secretary of State gave the example of a man with a state pension of £100 a week who defers for five years and who could thereby build up a lump sum of £30,000.
The Secretary of State also gave the assurance that building up a large lump sum by deferring the state retirement pension need not reduce the claimant's eventual entitlement to the means-tested pension credit (although the pension credit legislation does not allow a claimant to obtain pension credit by not claiming state retirement pension).
|
The feature draws primarily on a reading of the
Pensions Bill as published on 12 February and the accompanying explanatory
notes. We have also drawn extensively on the House of Commons Second
Reading debate on 2 March as reported in Hansard. |
1 Pensions Bill and accompanying explanatory notes are available from The Stationery Office, tel: 0870 600 5522, email: customer.service@tso.co.uk, price £13 and £12 respectively, and from the parliamentary website (at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills.htm ).
2 Hansard (HC), 2.3.04, col. 761.
3 Hansard (HC), 2.3.04, col. 794.
4 Hansard (HC), 2.3.04, col. 781.
5 Hansard (HC), 2.3.04, col. 768.
6 Hansard (HC), 2.3.04, col. 770.
