House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Jul 1991

Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The Bill already provides that management and employee buy-outs should be encouraged and that a port authority may bear the costs incurred in mounting such buy-outs. In some cases, however, ports own subsidiary companies which have their own directly employed work

Column 1102

force. These will, after the transfer of the port's undertaking, become wholly owned subsidiaries of the successor company. It seems only right that employees of these wholly owned subsidiaries should be in a position to benefit from the same encouragement that the Bill provides to management and employee buy-outs.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Schedule 2

General Supplementary Provisions with respect to Transfer under section 22

Lords amendment : No. 35, in page 37, line 50, at end insert-- ("Transfer of rights and liabilities relating to employment 9A.--(1) For the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 section 22(8) above shall be regarded as effecting a transfer to which those regulations apply of a part of the Port Authority's undertaking comprising all activities of the Port Authority, which by virtue of the transfer cease to be carried on by the Port Authority, including any such activities which themselves form a part of the Port Authority's undertaking which is not in the nature of a commercial venture. (2) According in those regulations, as they apply in relation to the transfer, references to the part of the undertaking transferred apply to all such activities of the Port Authority (of whatever description).")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Sir Teddy Taylor : Earlier, the Minister was kind enough, to say that I ought to have raised the issue that I raised then on Lords amendment No. 35. He was very helpful in providing information, but I want to ask him whether I was correct in my assessment. He said that police employed by the Port of London authority would have certain safeguards. They are possibly to be transferred to another employer, for whom they will be doing the same job in the same circumstances. There will be no change. The Minister said that the previous assurance that they received--that they would receive Metropolitan police rates of pay--may no longer apply ; instead they will receive Essex rates of pay.

The rent allowance is another fundamental issue. It appears that, instead of receiving London rates, the people concerned will receive Essex rates. The Minister said that it was impossible to say what would happen in five years' time. I have no doubt that a great consolation for those working in the port of Tilbury will be the presence of an energetic, trustworthy and able Member of Parliament to look after their interests. I nevertheless hope that the Minister will consider the implications of the Bill.

The Minister has said, in effect, that people are being transferred to a new employer. They will not enjoy their previous rights, wages and working conditions ; and, as far as I can see, they have been given no guarantee of any kind about their future. I know that the Minister is a kindly person, and that he is concerned not just about cranes but about people. Surely he accepts that the position is unsatisfactory. Can he not give some guarantee to the police who have worked so well for the port of London helping the port to obtain work that it would not otherwise have obtained--that their rights and welfare will be maintained?

Column 1103

As the Minister will know, anyone who moves to a new employer and a different job is entitled to redundancy pay, and is enabled to start over again. Surely a job in which wages, conditions and rent allowance are different is a different job. Although the Minister may not treat Brussels with the care and attention that I consider necessary-- he would be well advised to do so ; I am told that Brussels prisons are very nasty places--I trust that he can at least assure us that he will look into the position.

I know that the Minister wishes to ensure that employees do not lose out too much. He seems to be saying, however, that the Port of London police have no guarantee about their future. That is unsatisfactory. I know that the local Member of Parliament will make a point of investigating the matter, but I hope that all who are involved in police matters will do so as well.

Mr. McLoughlin : I shall certainly give careful consideration to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said.

The amendment is technical. It applies specifically to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 under part II of the Bill, as they already apply to the transfer of port undertakings in part I. The PLA police force is not a commercial undertaking, and is therefore not automatically covered by the regulations. A specific application will be required for it to be transferred to the new Tilbury company.

The regulations will protect employees' rights following the transfer of both the PLA police force and, if necessary, the transfer of any other PLA employee whose work might be considered not to be in the nature of a commercial venture.

My hon. Friend's point is not lost on me. We shall take it seriously when the PLA scheme is presented to us, although, as I said earlier, no guarantee can be given that the same conditions will apply to the PLA police force as apply to the Metropolitan police. Let me add that I hope that the police will be included in the buy-out, and become successful operators at the port.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Column 1104

Criminal Justice Bill

New clause proposed by the Commons in lieu of a Lords amendment to which they have disagreed :

Duty to release discretionary life prisoners

.--(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if--

(a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law ; and

(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

(2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account--

(a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it ; and

(b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

(3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner (

(a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part") ; and

(b) the Board has directed his release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.

(4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless (

(a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board ; and

(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. (5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board at any time--

(a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence ; and (

(b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference ; and

and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.

(6) On determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").

(7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.

(8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment ; but

(a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences ; and

(b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

The Lords do not insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment to the words so restored to a clause proposed by the Commons, to which the Lords desire the agreement of the Commons : In subsection (3), leave out subject to subsection (7) below'.

Lords amendment considered forthwith.--[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Column 1105

7.54 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment is purely consequential, introducing a drafting change that resulted from an amendment to which the House agreed when the Lords amendments were considered on 16 July. The House agreed to the deletion of subsection 7 of a new clause on discretionary life sentence procedures. That subsection gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary power to defer a prisoner's release by up to six months. Following the deletion of subsection 7, the cross-reference in subsection 3 is no longer relevant, and the new amendment removes it.

Question put and agreed to .

Column 1106

Water Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

7.56 pm

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

As five Bills relating to water consolidation are before the House this evening, I shall, with permission, speak to all five together, as they form part of the one consolidation.

The Water Act 1989 substantially restructured the water legislation of England and Wales. Functions previously vested in the water authorities were divided between a new national body known as the National Rivers Authority, and the companies appointed as the new water and sewerage undertakers.

The two main Bills in the consolidation are the Water Industry Bill and the Water Resources Bill. They bring together the principal legislation from the 1989 Act and elsewhere, dealing with the new undertakers and the National Rivers Authority respectively. The third Bill, the Statutory Water Companies Bill, consolidates the provisions in the 1989 Act that deal with the corporate structure and powers of the statutory water companies. The fourth Bill, the Land Drainage Bill, reproduces the functions of the internal drainage boards and local authorities. The fifth Bill, the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill is ancillary to the four main Bills. It covers consequential amendments and repeals relating to the other four.

In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission issued a report in which it made a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to improve the consolidation. All five Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills during their passage in another place. The Joint Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and that the five Bills, taken together, amounted to a single consolidation.

7.58 pm

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : We are always supporting consolidation measures, which make life easier for those who must deal with legislation. As usual, we congratulate those responsible for the consolidation and the drafting, and the Law Commission. I am sorry that there was a slight hiccup last week, when we could not get the Bills through in a reasonably short time.

Opposition Members will always be co-operative on measures of law reform and consolidation, and we praise the Law Commission's work. I understand, however, that there is a considerable backlog of law reform and consolidation Bills, and I only hope that things will move rather more quickly. To ensure that they do, I shall say no more today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.].

Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Column 1107