Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, confirming that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee concluded that no matters needed bringing to the attention of the House.

Lord Shepherd: My Lords, was that in connection with the original Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the correspondence, of which I have a copy, was transacted last week. I should be happy to furnish the noble Lord with a copy should he so wish.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536NC and 536ND:


After Clause 285, insert the following new clause--

ORGANISATION OF PROBATION SERVICE IN GREATER LONDON

(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for combining in one probation area ("the Greater London probation area") all of the petty sessions areas which fall wholly within Greater London.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for the purpose of, or in connection with, organising the probation service for the Greater London probation area.
(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above--
(a) includes provision for the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area to be defrayed by the Secretary of State, and
(b) in consequence of the provision mentioned in paragraph (a) above, includes provision requiring the Receiver for

25 Oct 1999 : Column 34

the Metropolitan Police District to refrain from exercising the functions conferred on him by the Probation Service Act 1993.
(4) In subsection (3) above the reference to the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area shall be construed in accordance with section 17 of the Probation Service Act 1993.
(5) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes provision relating to the appointment of, and allowances payable to, members of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area and any probation liaison committee for any area in the Greater London probation area.
(6) Without prejudice to section 349(1) below, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) or (2) above includes provision amending or repealing provisions of the Probation Service Act 1993.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for including in the Greater London probation area any petty sessions area outside that probation area.
(8) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall give the justices acting for any petty sessions area affected by the order an opportunity of making representations about it, and shall consider any such representations.").
After Clause 285, insert the following new clause--
ABOLITION BY ORDER OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER

(".--(1) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that--
(a) provision has been made such that no statutory functions remain, or are to remain, exercisable by the Receiver (whether as a consequence of provision made by or under this Act, the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed), and
(b) provision has been made for the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of the Receiver (whether under Part XII below or by or under the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed),
the Secretary of State may by order provide for the abolition of the office of the Receiver.
(2) In subsection (1) above references to the Receiver are references to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 22 [Further amendments relating to metropolitan police etc.]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536P:


Page 310, line 2, at end insert--

("The Metropolitan Police Act 1887

. The Metropolitan Police Act 1887 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this large group of amendments makes various consequential amendments to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 to the Bill already makes numerous such changes which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. These amendments simply complete the set. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am entirely "uncontent" to let the noble Lord get away with that. These are complicated amendments making many changes to existing legislation. If they had been connected with other amendments being discussed, they could have been grouped with them, but they have not been. They

25 Oct 1999 : Column 35

are presented in isolation as though they have something in common just because they amend existing Acts.

I should like an explanation from the noble Lord of the principal amendment in the group because from what is in front of me I fail to understand. I shall ask him the same question individually on each amendment in the group until we have reached the point where the House and I understand what is going on.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can rely only on what I am advised. It is that the amendments are consequential. Looking at the schedule, they would appear to be exactly that. I am confident enough to say that they will not necessarily trouble your Lordships; they seem simply to follow on and to tidy up legislation.

I am happy to write to the noble Lord setting out in full what the amendments achieve. I can assure the House that they are all consequential to the establishment of the MPA, which we all agree is a highly desirable policy objective.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, taking the first amendment, how can it be evident to anyone in this House that the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Act 1887 is entirely necessary for the purpose of the Bill? One might suggest it, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what that Act does. If it is obvious that what is proposed is required by the Bill, why was it not in the Bill at an earlier stage?

Nothing has changed. The Metropolitan Police Authority was always going to be created by the Bill. Why has it suddenly occurred to the draftsman that that Act now needs to be removed? That question applies to many similar amendments in the group. It is not sufficient for the Government to seek to move amendments which they do not understand, merely on the assurance of the Box, apparently not questioned by the Minister, that the changes are consequential. If the Minister does not understand amendments, he should not move them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is overegging his argument and his point. It is the case that a number of amendments have to be consequential. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with a more detailed explanation of the cause and effect of all of these amendments in the fullness of time and in due course. I had hoped that he would be satisfied with that.

The legislation is complex. It cannot always be immediately obvious to those drafting it as to which other pieces of legislation need to be amended. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that as a reasonable point.

The amendments repeal the Metropolitan Police Acts 1887 and 1897. They deal only with the sections which relate to the receiver's functions in relation to the police. They will no longer be relevant once the

25 Oct 1999 : Column 36

MPA is in place. The case is that the functions of the receiver will no longer be relevant once the MPA is set up and established. I should have thought that it was glaringly obvious, therefore, that one would seek to amend and negate the other pieces of legislation which no longer have relevance to the way in which the MPA will operate.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536Q and 536R:


Page 310, line 6, leave out paragraph 8 and insert--
("8. The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897 shall cease to have effect.").
Page 311, line 5, leave out paragraph 15 and insert--
("15.--(1) The Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act 1959 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 4(2) (borrowing powers of Receiver), the words ", or of the metropolitan police force," shall cease to have effect.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536RA:


Page 311, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert--
("( ) In subsection (1)(a) (definition of "member of the metropolitan civil staffs")--
(a) before sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted--
"(ia) who is employed by the Metropolitan Police Authority; or"; and.
(b) for that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted--
"(i) who was employed under the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and was not a constable and whose salary was paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund;".
( ) In subsection (2) (power of Secretary of State to grant certain pensions payable by the Receiver out of the Metropolitan Police Fund) for the words from the beginning to "in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted--
"(2) As from the day on which section 269 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 comes into force, the Metropolitan Police Authority shall have power to grant pensions or other benefits to or in respect of persons who on that day are, or thereafter become, members of the metropolitan civil staffs.
(2A) The Metropolitan Police Authority may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, authorise the exercise of the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section by, or by employees of, any person.
(2B) Where a person is authorised under subsection (2A) above to exercise the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
(2C) Subsection (2B) above does not apply for the purposes of--
(a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or
(b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

25 Oct 1999 : Column 37


(2D) Unless the powers conferred by section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972, paragraph 36 of Schedule 14 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 or Part XII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are exercised for the purpose of making provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs, the civil service provisions shall have effect (subject to any regulations for the time being in force under subsection (3) of this section) for the purposes of the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section to or in respect of such a member".
( ) In subsection (3)(b) (power by regulations to adapt civil service provisions) for "(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "(2D)".
( ) In subsection (6) (requirement to consult before making regulations) after "staffs" there shall be inserted "and with the Metropolitan Police Authority".
( ) In subsection (7) (continuation of payment of pre-existing pension entitlements by Receiver), for the words from "continue" to the end there shall be substituted "be paid by the Metropolitan Police Authority".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this small group of amendments is concerned with pensions. As your Lordships know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes we are bringing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. This extends to their pension rights. Amendment No. 536RA makes changes to Section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the pensions of civil staff of the Metropolitan Police. These staff are members of the Metropolitan Police Civil Staff Superannuation Scheme, which is by analogy to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This means that they receive the same benefits as do civil servants.

It may be helpful if I make it clear that pension arrangements for civil staff in the Metropolitan Police are quite separate from those of police officers. Police officers are part of a national pension scheme and their pension rights are not affected by this Bill. Amendment No. 536RA is intended to meet a number of policy objectives. It supersedes the minor amendments to Section 15 which Schedule 22 to the Bill already provides.

First, the amendment makes various changes which simply reflect the fact that the MPA will take on the employer and pension-payer roles currently undertaken by the commissioner and the receiver. Secondly, it is intended to provide that anyone who has any benefits under the MCSSS scheme as at 2nd July 2000 will not be disadvantaged when the MPA is established. At the same time, the intention is that staff who join the MPA after 2nd July 2000 will benefit also from the MCSSS scheme.

Thirdly, the amendment provides for three circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS scheme might move on to another pension scheme. Those are: first, if the MPA were to set up a local government pension scheme, which, in common with other police authorities, it will have power to do by virtue of the 1972 Superannuation Act. If it did that, new employees would be placed on that scheme and existing staff would be offered the option of transferring to it.

The second circumstance will be if an order is made under powers in Part XII of the GLA Bill to transfer MPA staff, as well as pensioners and deferred

25 Oct 1999 : Column 38

pensioners, from the MCSSS scheme to the PCSPS scheme. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 337 already provides that employment with the MPA is to be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act can apply. Finally, powers in the 1999 Access to Justice Act might be used to move justices' clerks in inner London off the MCSSS scheme and on to a scheme operated by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, which is due to take up its full powers on 1st April 2001. Until separate arrangements are made for those staff, their pensions will be handled by the MPA.

The aims of the amendment are entirely proper and, I hope, uncontroversial. Pensions are of course a very important matter. They can also be very complex. The technicalities of this amendment therefore require a bit of unravelling even though the policy intention which I have just described is clear. It is possible that the amendment could be refined to ensure that our policy objectives are fully met. If, on further inspection, we conclude that improvements could be made, I should beg the indulgence of the House by saying that there is a possibility of our seeking to make some refinements at Third Reading.

Amendment No. 566A is more straightforward, so I will be brief. It inserts an extra provision into Clause 354 which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister responsible for the Civil Service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS scheme. As I mentioned, Clause 337 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page