HM Treasury News Release
160/97                                          11 December 1997
__________________________________________________________________

  HELEN LIDDELL WARNS THAT ALL FIRMS MUST PULL THEIR WEIGHT IN
          THE REVIEW OF PERSONAL PENSIONS MIS-SELLING


All pensions firms, including the thousands of firms that are not
being individually monitored by the Treasury, must get their act
together and speed up their processing of cases, Helen Liddell,
Economic Secretary, said today.

Mrs Liddell spoke after she published the latest monthly progress
statistics in response to a Parliamentary question.  This
revealed the position at the end of November for each of  41
pensions companies which together account for about four out of
every five cases for review.   The figures show continuing
variation in firms' performance, with many firms making headway,
but too many still lagging behind. 

Publishing the figures Mrs Liddell said :

     "There is no cut-off point that makes a firm too small to
be expected to honour  the personal pensions review.  Each and
every firm - from the large household names to the smallest IFA
- must get on with the urgent task of processing cases and
making redress where it is due.  No-one is off the hook.

     "Although much of the focus in the press has been on larger
firms, I have not forgotten about the thousands of smaller
firms, and neither have the regulators."




Commenting on the figures, Mrs Liddell said :

     "Too many people are still facing long delays in getting the
     redress that is due to them.  A few firms are now making
     very promising progress, but there is still  a long way to go for
     most of the firms listed, and sadly some have still not
     progressed beyond the initial stages.

     "Regulatory discipline is fast becoming a real prospect for
     some companies.   It is now up to each firm to make every
     effort to make rapid progress so that the powers I outlined
     in the House of Commons last month do not need to be used."




NOTES TO EDITORS

1.   The Treasury publishes monthly information about how fast
     the top 41 pension companies are dealing with their cases. 
     The figures for the end of November are attached.

2.   On 18 November in a Statement to the House of Commons, Mrs
     Liddell outlined a package of sanctions aimed at
     maintaining the pressure on pension firms to meet their
     targets for resolving mis-selling cases. Following this, on
     1   December, the Personal Investment Authority (PIA)announced 
     that from May 1998, directors and senior managers
     of its larger member firms would be registered
     individually, and thus subject to direct disciplinary
     action. All key individuals will be registered from October
     1998.  

3.   Recent fines include :
     Albany Life                   December 1997   375,000 Pounds
     DBS Financial Management Ltd  September 1997  425,000 Pounds
     Friends Provident             September 1997  450,000 Pounds
     M&E Network                   September 1997  100,000 Pounds

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    			A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 25% of cases resolved	
						
DBS			   598	    19	    68	   59	     9	     6	  1	14
Burns Anderson		   922	    46	   100	   79	    21	    17	  2	15
Gan			10,424	   400	 1,831	  274	 1,557	 1,030	 10	16
Lincoln National	12,938	 1,026	 2,284	  735	 1,549	 1,118	  9	22
Countrywide		 2,692	   455	   214	  208	     6	     8	  0	25

25-50% of cases resolved	
						
Windsor Life		 8,325	 1,508     895	    95	   800	   572	  7	26
Financial Options	   295	    72	    11	     7	     4	     3	  1	28
Canada Life		 5,454	   196	 1,834	   402	 1,432	 1,126	 21	32
Friends Provident	 6,675	   825	 1,927	   325	 1,602	 1,222	 18	36
London and Manchester	 7,935	   662	 2,809	   389	 2,420	 1,907	 24	37
Royal & Sun Alliance	15,342	 1,704	 5,406	   736	 4,670	 3,643	 24	40
Brittanic		18,290	 3,414	 4,522	 1,906	 2,616	 1,960	 11	40
CIS			43,285	 2,724	16,260	11,294	 4,966	 3,392	  8	40
United Assurance	12,326	   742	 4,894	 1,565	 3,329	 2,843	 23	42
Standard Life		 6,672	   449	 2,517	   952	 1,565	 1,405	 21	42
Abbey Life		16,883	 3,836	 3,872	   839	 3,033	 2,436	 14	42
Hill Samuel		 5,931	   743	 2,123	   434	 1,689	 1,345	 23	43
Sun Life of Canada	25,937	 6,374	 6,580   1,188	 5,392	 3,531	 14	43
Colonial		 8,048	 1,879	 2,193	   297	 1,929	 1,385	 17	44
Allied Dunbar		18,186	 2,508	 6,446	 2,475	 3,971	 3,088	 17	44
Godwins			 1,358	    47	   648	   287	   361	   291	 21	46
Albany Life 		 2,844	   503	 1,330	    95	 1,235	   721	 25	46
NatWest			14,069	 3,462	 4,125	   834	 3,291	 2,408	 17	48
Lloyd's TSB		48,200	 8,302	17,190	 5,195	11,995	10,480	 22	50

50-75% of cases resolved	
						
IFA Network		   209	    31	    81	    64	    17	    11	  5	51
Guardian		 8,732	   860	 4,321	   733	 3,588	 2,847	 33	51
Commercial Union	 7,462	 1,012	 3,514	   693	 2,821	 2,276	 31	53
Pearl			42,505	 2,370	26,272	 4,833	21,439	15,799	 37	54
Sedgwick		11,511	 4,253	 2,405	   951	 1,454	 1,059	  9	54
Prudential		71,358	16,559	42,542	 3,294	39,248	19,119	 27	55
Royal London		11,432	   959	 6,684	 1,248	 5,436	 4,120	 36	55
Midland			 4,787	   339	 2,856	   448	 2,408	 1,923	 40	57
Norwich Union		 7,166	 2,061	 2,452	   562	 1,890	 1,589	 22	59
Wesleyan		 4,132	   222	 2,488	   732	 1,756	 1,478	 36	59
Legal & General		35,354	13,504	11,921	 1,367	10,554	 7,803	 22	64
Berkeley Independent	    86	    47	     8	     8	     1	     1	  1	65
Hogg Robinson		 1,922	   734	   730	   248	   482	   329	 17	68
M&E Network		   273	   151	    43	    14	    29	    25	  9	70
Equitable Life		11,100	 5,575	 2,745	 1,242	 1,503	 1,207	 11	72

Over 75% of cases resolved		
					
Barclays		16,821	 5,973	7,735	1,893	5,842	4,785	28	75
AXA Equity and Law	 3,855	   684	2,493	652	1,841	1,576	41	76
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------		
A: cases identified as requiring review
B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment 
   excluded cases from review
C: number of assessments completed
D: cases where the investor has been informed that no
   redress is due.  
E: cases where redress has been offered
F: cases where redress has been accepted. 
G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review
   ((F/A)x100).
H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review
   (((B+D+F)/A)x100).  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------