Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I can only repeat our apologies for the late tabling of these amendments. However, I contest the noble Lord's argument that we are significantly amending our own amendments. We are completing the package of amendments rather than further amending them, except in the sense of the level of the fine. It is not a matter of that level being wrong: we simply thought again on the matter and thought better. I do not believe that anyone can complain about that.

1 Nov 1999 : Column 668

I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord on the amendments on unlicensed traders. I agree very much with what he said. If he has any influence with his right honourable friends in another place, Eric Forth and David Maclean, could he discover why it was that the comparable provision in a Private Member's Bill introduced by the right honourable Peter Brooke which would have provided the same powers in the royal parks was blocked by cries of 'Object!' from Opposition Members? Maybe we could get something through next year if there were not the same opposition from the Conservative Party. Having made that totally unjustified jibe, I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]

Clause 379 [Byelaws]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 92:

Page 226, line 28, at end insert--
("(1A) Byelaws under this section may designate specified provisions of the byelaws as trading byelaws.").
Page 226, line 29, leave out ("byelaws") and insert ("byelaw").
Page 226, line 30, after ("conviction") insert--
("(a) if the byelaw is a trading byelaw, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or
(b) in any other case,").
Page 226, line 31, at end insert--
("( ) The provision that may be made in byelaws under this section includes provision for or in connection with--
(a) the licensing of any trading; and
(b) the seizure, retention or disposal of any property in connection with any contravention of or failure to comply with a trading byelaw.").
After Clause 379, insert the following new clause--


(".--(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the Mayor concerning the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section 377(1), 378(3) or (4) or 379(1) above by him or any body or person authorised to exercise the function under section (Delegation of Authority's functions) above.
(2) In deciding whether or how to exercise that function, the Mayor, or body or person, shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 382 [The Superannuation Act 1972]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 93:

Page 228, line 15, at end insert--
("(5) A determination under subsection (4) above shall be without prejudice to--
(a) paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 10 to this Act, in the case of Transport for London;
(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 18 to this Act, in the case of the London Transport Users' Committee; or
(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, in the case of the London Development Agency.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 105 to 113, 167 and 180. This group of amendments deals with the rather complex arrangements for pensions. In particular this group of

1 Nov 1999 : Column 669

amendments fulfils the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to London Transport staff in relation to protecting the pension rights of employees who might transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP or other PFI deals.

More broadly, Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 provide general powers relating to pension transfer arrangements into the GLA. Our general policy on GLA staff pensions remains that existing staff will transfer their current pension arrangements into the GLA and its associated bodies. These amendments and the existing provisions on Clause 402 are designed to allow us to make the necessary arrangements. In the case of the London Regional Passengers' Committee Superannuation Scheme--the LRPCSS--the intention is that the scheme will be closed and its members transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. There are fewer than 20 existing employees within this scheme.

As regards the PPP, last March when the Deputy Prime Minister announced in another place his plans for a Public Private Partnership, he also wrote to every member of staff of London Transport assuring them that they would,

    "have the right to remain in the LRT pension fund, as contributing members".

In response to a request for clarification he subsequently said,

    "I can confirm that the pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff who subsequently transfer to a sub-contractor, provided they remain in Tube work . . . The LRT Pension Fund will be structured to guarantee your rights to remain within the Fund, while retaining a single board of trustees and a common governance."

The new schedule, introduced by Amendments Nos. 111 and 180, sets the framework for that assurance. Staff who transfer to the private sector will have the statutory right to remain as contributing members of their pension fund, the London Regional Transport Pension Fund. This right continues to apply, under paragraph 3(3)(a) of the schedule, even if these staff are subsequently subcontracted, so long as they remain employed in the "London Underground railway industry".

Staff who transfer to the private sector but who then transfer out of Tube work will not be able as of right to remain members of the LRTPF. The structure we propose for the fund will mean that in principle they could remain members of it, but that would be a matter between their employer and the trustees of the fund. However, all employees in this position who remain in continuous employment will have the statutory right to a pension scheme providing benefits which overall are materially at least as good as those which applied at the time they transferred from London Transport. These rights will apply not only to those staff who transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP--that will be about 6000 people--but also to the smaller number, a few hundreds, transferred to the various private finance deals concluded by LT since the Deputy Prime Minister gave his assurances to staff.

The schedule also provides for the Secretary of State to make orders restructuring the LRT Pension Fund, to deliver the protections I have outlined. Your Lordships

1 Nov 1999 : Column 670

will have seen that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the fund's existing trustees--which is only proper. I can assure you that the trustees have been, and will continue to be, kept in close touch with the development of this policy.

I explained the position in relation to the PPP at some length. It is important that your Lordships understand these provisions. However, they are in essence relatively straightforward. I apologise again for the late tabling of the amendments. We had to get them right and that required consultation with the trustees, as I have mentioned. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:

Page 228, line 15, at end insert--
("(6) In consequence of the inclusion, by virtue of subsection (2) above, of an entry relating to the London Development Agency in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the entry in that Schedule relating to a development agency established under section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, there shall be added at the end "(other than the London Development Agency (for which there is a separate entry))".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 384 [The Race Relations Act 1976]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 95:

Leave out Clause 384 and insert the following new Clause--


(" . It shall be the duty of--
(a) the Greater London Authority,
(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority, and
(c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
to exercise their various functions with due regard to the need--
(i) to promote and secure equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or religion;
(ii) to eliminate all forms of unlawful discrimination; and
(iii) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated the amendment earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96:

Before Clause 397, insert the following new clause--


(" .--(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, appoint a commission of independent lawyers of suitable standing to report to him with proposals for amendments required to this Act.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall specify such amendments to this Act in order that the institutions established by this Act shall function as effectively as possible in accordance with the purposes for which they were established.
(3) On receiving such a report, the Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament in order that Parliament shall have an opportunity to consider these amendments.
(4) Any amending Act shall come into force within two years of this Act coming into force.").

1 Nov 1999 : Column 671

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 96. We now come to the very final part of the Bill, Part XII headed Supplementary Provisions.

The Government can hardly be proud of this Bill. Its original 330 clauses have already grown to 413 clauses; five schedules have been added; and today we face approximately another 180 amendments at Third Reading. I have a simple question for the Government: have they withheld any amendments which, in an ideal world, they would have laid for Third Reading? Has any instruction been given to call a halt to the rewriting process? Or are the Government now relying on time being found for a Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill in the new Session? I challenge the Government to state that the GLA legislation is now complete.

Do the Government deny that, even though this Bill will have been amended some 880 times in this House, it will none the less require extensive additions and revisions? I put it to the Government that the Bill will require extensive modifications at an early stage in order for the GLA to function as intended.

The amendment standing in my name would require the Secretary of State to establish a commission for independent review of the operation of the Act within a year of the Act coming into force. The changes it proposed would then be implemented, hopefully, via fast-track.

I am sure that all noble Lords will be interested to learn that there is a precedent for this type of amendment. Section 25 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to investigate the success or otherwise of the fourth-year fee arrangements for students from England and Wales attending Scottish universities. The Government then acknowledged the problems with that particular issue and accepted an amendment that allowed them to monitor and investigate what necessary changes were to be made.

This is the spirit of Amendment No. 96. It lays down the procedure for the Government to put in place: the additional legislation that I and many others believe will be necessary. The Government have legislated--indeed, over-legislated--in haste. They have moved amendments that were not always perhaps understood by the Ministers who moved them, let alone by other noble Lords. The Government must accept that this marathon Bill cannot be the last word on London governance.

We on this side of the House wish to see the GLA and its functional bodies work effectively and efficiently. This common-sense amendment would put in place a mechanism to spot where this sub-standard Bill was letting Londoners down and give the government of the day an easy procedure for putting necessary changes onto the statute book. It must be quite clear to the Minister that the amendment is intended to be helpful to the Government. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page