I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House. I know only too well that several right hon. and hon. Members would have been in the Chamber had it not been for Constituency engagements. Many colleagues have apologised to me, and they have wished me well in highlighting the long-running issues surrounding the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and the National Bus pensions fund.

It is important that I move quickly to the matters on which I seek ministerial guidance and support, but it is necessary to outline how I come to be raising the issue today. In 1986, following the privatisation of the National Bus Company, the two employee pension schemes were wound up and the pensions frozen. The Government agreed to meet any liabilities so long as they could receive any surplus. Under management pressure, the trustees amended the BEST winding-up Clause to divert any surplus to the employer—that is the Government—rather than share it among the employees, as had always been the rule.

During 1990, a sum of £168 million was paid to the Department of Transport. At that time, angry pensioners and bus company employees suddenly saw their pension fund being raided. One of them was Mr. Frank Wheeler, who now lives in my constituency. Over time, he decided to take the issue to the pensions ombudsman and eventually, in 1996, the ombudsman determined that there had been a breach of good faith and a fraud on a power and that a surplus of £200 million should be repaid to the pension trust. Most people would have said that that was a job well done and a victory for decency, but it was not on this occasion.

Solicitors were employed to fight the case and, just as Frank Wheeler was determined to battle for what was rightly the property of bus company pensioners, the solicitors were intent on making his life a complete misery. He was threatened with High Court action and thereby heavy legal costs against him if he persisted with the case.

The issue dragged on for a number of years, and I know that Frank Wheeler would wish me to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who were so supportive to him in a trying and lengthy period. It was only natural that, when I was elected, Mr. Wheeler urged me to help him and, to be completely honest, I had to be careful how I handled his case. I knew that there was a great deal of sympathy for it in Government circles and that my right hon. Friend the Deputy prime minister was particularly keen to see the injustice rectified. It became clear to me at an early stage that it was important that the issue did not find its way back into the courts, where it might have been lost for months and might have resulted in the loss of significant sums of money because of legal costs.

To everyone's delight, on 30 September 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said: Look at what happened when the Tories privatised the National Bus Company. They raided the pension funds and refused to recognise the pensioners' claim to millions of pounds of pension surplus.The legal wrangles have gone on for years, while thousands of pensioners have had to wait. Tragically, some have died. I can say today, I have instructed our lawyers to stop the legal fancy dancing. I have told them to open discussions with the pension trustees, to achieve a just out-of-court settlement, as quickly as possible in the coming months, and end this shameful delay. That was more than 16 months ago.

In the middle of June 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister was able to announce that the pension trustees were intending to recommend that the offer of £300 million for the BEST scheme and £55.77 million for the NBPF scheme be accepted. The funds were eventually handed over about six weeks later, at the end of July.

In view of that fair settlement, it was appropriate to press the trustees for payment of Frank Wheeler's out-of-pocket expenses. It has to be borne in mind that Frank is now in his early 70s and has spent 12 or 13 years fighting this injustice. Time that he should have spent enjoying retirement with his wife was spent fighting a battle against bureaucracy and the legal profession. The campaign has taken its toll on Frank's health and he is currently recovering from a stroke that he had towards the end of 1999. I am pleased to be able to say that Frank has, at long last, had his out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed, but that was not without a battle.

There is still, however, the issue of legal costs incurred by Frank Wheeler. Certain costs were recovered, but additional costs arose in the period from mid-August 1998 to early June 1999. The solicitors acting on behalf of the trustees argued that those were unnecessary costs as a result of unnecessary action taken by Frank Wheeler. There is a belief that, without his further action and the pressure that he brought to bear, the settlement may have been only about £200 million, not the £355 million that was eventually agreed.

Some of Frank's time was spent trying to ensure that one legal firm in particular, which had created severe difficulties for him in the past, would not be involved in the latter stages of the settlement.

That preamble brings us to today's position. Almost eight months after the moneys were transferred to the trustees, what have the pensioners received? They have been given two information bulletins, one in July last year and one in December, and no money whatsoever. It is estimated that, as each month passes, the interest accrued on the fund realises just over £1.1 million. The trustees have been working with their legal advisers, Taylor Joynson Garrett, and their administrators, Standard Life Assurance Company, to try to update records. Possible ways of distributing the money have also been under consideration and, as might be expected, there are many different views about what should be done.

Behind all that, however, has been the desire to ensure that pensioners do not find themselves paying large amounts of tax. While the trustees' efforts on taxation have to be applauded, there is a general feeling that they are dragging their heels and that the only people who are getting paid are the solicitors who are providing the legal advice.

The matter of court proceedings continually raises its head, and there is no doubt that the trustees' legal advisers need to ensure that, if those proceedings must be gone through, they do not take up a lot of valuable time. The pensioners now fall into four categories. There are those who were members of the BEST and those who were members of the National Bus pension fund, but each group is split into those who remained in the pension funds—Standard Life pensioners—and those who transferred out. To represent those four groups, four representative beneficiaries have been appointed, and I am delighted that Frank Wheeler, my constituent, is one of them.

There is, however, a serious worry about how this matter is to be dealt with if there are court proceedings. All four representative beneficiaries have been told that one firm of solicitors will represent them all, but there must surely be a conflict of interest. Standard Life pensioners cannot and should not be dealt with in exactly the same way as the transferees. Conflicts of interest have been a problem with this matter from a very early stage. Also at an early stage, there was genuine concern that any possible success with the case would lead to exorbitant costs and that, therefore, it was appropriate to keep costs as low as possible. That is no longer so, and there is every justification now in seeking the services of a second legal firm to deal with the interests of the transferees, thereby eliminating any allegation of a conflict of interest.

I know that many hon. Members have constituents who are affected by this matter, and I am pleased to be able to say that the trustees have agreed to meet me and some of my hon. Friends. However, I must add that this morning I received a letter from the trustees offering several dates on which to meet—some six weeks away. I am sure that, when I relay that information to my hon. Friends, they will be disappointed about that delay.

From his comments in the House earlier this week in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I know that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to meet the chairman of the trustees in the near future. Perhaps it might be a good idea to include my hon. Friends and me in that meeting.

The trustees' legal advisers issued a statement towards the end of last week saying that they intended to make an interim payment to about 8,000 pensioners within the next six or seven weeks and that the remaining Standard Life pensioners would receive an interim payment around July. A court decision on the transferees has still to be made, but I see no reason why proceedings should not run in tandem with all other activities. Regrettably, the statement also mentions a final distribution in spring 2001.

There is a serious question about how pensioners would wish to receive whatever they are entitled to. Although, as I have previously stated, I understand the trustees' endeavours to ensure that as little money as possible is returned to the Treasury in taxation, it is becoming clear that pensioners want a one-off lump-sum settlement and that there is no great support for an increase in the annual pensions payable. The fact that many pensioners have died during this episode and that many more are very elderly leads me to believe that a one-off payment should not be discounted by the trustees with any great haste. As long as recipients are made aware of the fact that taxation may be an issue, trustees can rest easy knowing that they have informed the pensioners.

As I said, I am delighted to have been able to secure this debate. May I quickly re-emphasise the important points for my hon. Friend the Minister? There is a need for Frank Wheeler's additional legal costs to be paid from the fund. After all, his additional effort put an extra £150 million into the trust fund. Another firm of solicitors needs to be appointed to assist representative beneficiaries, thereby eliminating any conflict of interest. Proper support in terms of travel and accommodation costs needs to be given to the representative beneficiaries who come to London for meetings. They are elderly people and cannot be expected to conduct business and travel up and down to the City in the same day. There is also the important need to make all payments to recipients well before spring 2001.

The pensions ombudsman made a determination and it is right that those who were unjustly dealt with should be given what is rightfully theirs. This is an issue not about pensions, trustees or lawyers, but about people—elderly people. In the words of someone from the legal profession, perhaps City-slicker solicitors should hang their heads in shame.