INNER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS (STAFF PENSIONS) (Hansard, 16 March 1965)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon)
I beg to move, That the Superannuation (Inner London Magistrates' Courts) Regulations, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved. These Regulations are necessary because of the integration of the two systems of magistrates' courts in the County of London, the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates' courts and the petty sessional courts of lay justices. This is the result of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, and the relevant part of the Act comes into operation on 1st April, 1965.
This change will naturally affect the staff of the two sets of courts, who are to be transferred to the employment of the Committee of Magistrates for the inner London area. This Committee has been set up under Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, to administer the integrated courts, which will be known as the Inner London Magistrates' Courts.
The Committee of Magistrates has been negotiating with representatives of the staff concerned about their future conditions of service. All concerned have agreed that the superannuation scheme which should apply in future is the noncontributory scheme at present enjoyed by the staff of the metropolitan magistrates' courts, provided that the existing staff of the petty sessional courts should continue to enjoy their present scheme of local government contributory pensions if they so wish. Regulations 1 and 2 provide for this.
Regulation 1 therefore extends to the justices' clerks for the inner London area, and other officers employed by the Committee of Magistrates for the inner London area, the non-contributory scheme of superannuation under the Metropolitan Police Staff (Superannuation) Acts, 1875 to 1931. On the other hand, Regulation 2 anti the Schedule allow the existing staff of the County of London petty sessional courts the option of keeping their existing rights under the local government contributory pension scheme.
1222 However, as that scheme is operated by the London County Council which will cease to exist on 1st April, it is necessary to make special provision in the Regulations to allow the scheme to be carried on. We do this by making use of the Greater London Council superannuation fund and requiring the Committee of Magistrates, as employer, to take certain discretionary decisions which previously were taken by the County of London magistrates' courts committee.
These Regulations have been drafted after consultation with the G.L.C. and the associations representing the staff concerned.
Except for two points raised by the London Justices' Clerks Society, which represents the clerks of the lay justices as distinct from the metropolitan courts, the Regulations are an agreed Measure. I will elaborate on those points, which are rather technical, if the House wishes, but it may be sufficient for me to say that in neither case does our refusal of the proposal imply a worsening position of the persons concerned in relation to their former position. On the contrary, the Regulations are specially designed to ensure that the position of all the staff concerned is not less favourable with regard to superannuation after transfer than it was before. I can give an assurance that that has been achieved.

§ Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)
It is not necessary to detain the House for long in discussing these Regulations, which, as the hon. Lady says, have been agreed between the Committee of Magistrates and the staff side. There is only one question that I want to ask. I notice that a member of the staff has the option of deciding whether to remain under the existing scheme or to transfer to the new scheme and that, according to Regulation No. 2(2), he may give notice before 1st July, 1965, or at any time with the consent of the Secretary of State … I shall be grateful if the hon. Lady will explain why that date has been included, and under what conditions the Secretary of State would give his consent. Would his consent be automatic at any time after the Regulations come into force?
If that is the case, what is the purpose of putting in the date, 1st July, 1965? Or 1223 is the Secretary of State going to withhold his consent after 1st July, 1965, unless adequate reasons are given? The House would be grateful for an explanation of that point.
Apart from that, I have no criticism of the Regulations themselves, being, as the hon. Lady says, agreed Regulations between the two sides. I hope that she will be able to answer the point that I have raised. These are complicated Regulations and there is a great deal of reference back in them. I hope that at some stage the Regulations will be consolidated so that they can be put into an intelligible form.

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I have one question on the Regulations. I understand that they are made under Section 24 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964. Under that Section the Secretary of State can provide for one or other of two codes to apply to the superannuation of justices' clerks in future. It has been decided to apply a code the fund for which was previously under the control of the London County Council. That fund will be under the control of the Greater London Council after 1st April, 1965. I want to know if the report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th February, 1965, is correct in saying that it is believed that there is a very heavy deficit in the L.C.C. superannuation fund, which is going to be—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)
Order. This is a very interesting point, but it does not arise on these Regulations, which merely amend the pensions already in existence.

§ Mr. Page
With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I point out that in paragraph 2 of the Schedule it is provided that The appropriate superannuation fund for the purposes of the Act of 1937 shall be the fund maintained by the Greater London Council …

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Which is the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

§ Mr. Page
It is paragraph 2 of the Schedule to these Regulations, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which refers specifically to the fund maintained by the Greater London Council. The point I make is 1224 that the Secretary of State, under the Section which empowers him to make these Regulations, has a choice between two different codes, and he has chosen a code which puts justices' clerks' superannuation under the Greater London Council scheme, and I was questioning whether that scheme will be solvent or not when it comes into operation.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I hesitate to interrupt a very old and learned friend, but is he sure that he is taking the Regulations which we are discussing? We are debating the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations.

§ Mr. Sharples
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With respect, we are debating the Superannuation (Inner London Magistrates' Courts) Regulations.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The fault is mine. I am very sorry.

§ Mr. Page
I think that I am in order in this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was questioning whether the fund which is to be provided in this case for justices' clerks' superannuation will be solvent, having regard to a report which has been published in the newspapers. It was said in the Daily Telegraph of 10th February this year that The superannuation fund deficit"— that is, the London County Council superannuation fund— incurred between 1956 and 1961, but only just disclosed, will saddle the Greater London Council with an annual repayment of £600,000 over ten years in addition to the £800,000 a year already committed for the fund's pre-1956 deficits, and its substantial post-1961 deficit whose disclosure can be expected in due course". If we transfer the justices' clerks' superannuation to a fund which has already been, if I may so put it, pilfered by the present London County Council to the extent of some £600,000, are we doing the right thing for the justices' clerks and for any other employees of the courts who also are transferred for superannuation purposes to the same fund?
This is a serious point. If the existing London County Council has borrowed the superannuation funds and has not allowed them to take advantage of inflation by proper investments, the Greater London Council will be in great 1225 difficulty in providing superannuation payments. Are we taking a wise step in allowing this precedent? We are here dealing only with justices' clerks and a few other employees of the Inner London magistrates' courts, but these Regulations may well be a precedent for others, and we want to know now whether the Socialist London County Council has so depleted the superannuation funds for its employees that it is leaving the Greater London Council in serious financial difficulties in this respect.

§ Miss Bacon
I have not read the report in the Daily Telegraph to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) refers, but I am informed that the question of the fund's solvency which he has raised is one for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
What is the answer?

§ Miss Bacon
The answer is that, so far as I am aware, it is a solvent fund. Obviously, we should not have laid these Regulations if the fund were not solvent.
The three-month period to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) referred is the period within which the staff can opt to go over. We believe that three months is reasonable notice, and the Secretary of State's consent is intended to be on promotion. We believe that the three months is a reasonable period in which the staff can make up their minds.

§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)
I do not think that the reply given by the hon. Lady to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is adequate. Is there or is there not a deficiency on the superannuation fund?
It is not good enough for the hon. Lady to say that she is informed that there is a balance. We are being asked to pass a Statutory Instrument which will become the law of the land, and in it we transfer from the L.C.C. to the Greater London Council liabilities which run into £800,000 or thereabouts. But the 'hon. Lady merely says to my hon. Friend, "I do not think that the hon. Member is right. I am informed that 1226 he is not. I do not think that his figures are accurate". She does not state this categorically, and she has not been able to tell the House positively that his figures are inaccurate. Once we have passed this Statutory Instrument we shall lose control of it.
This is another example of the Government's attitude in thinking that they can bring forward Instruments, Regulations or Bills in a half-baked manner without having gone into the questions arising. My hon. Friend is entitled to a far more coherent answer. I am not trying to get the hon. Lady into a difficulty, and I am prepared to go on speaking while her Parliamentary Private Secretary goes to the Box and gets the right answer, because I am sure that there is a coherent answer. If she wants me to do so, I can go on for a little longer while she gets the answer. It is no good her shaking her head. When she replied to my hon. Friend she said, "I am informed", and she was very uncertain about her information. I am asking that before we pass the Statutory Instrument we should have a much more categorical declaration of the situation than we have had so far.
I have gone on speaking long enough so that, despite her protestations that she did not want the information from the Box, she has now got it. No doubt she will remove the doubts of my hon. Friend and myself by categorically stating the situation which is involved in this transfer of functions. Having given her the opportunity to get the information, I will close my remarks. I hope that she will be able to give a satisfactory explanation in reply to my hon. Friend's very cogent argument.

§ Miss Bacon
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that he had got his information from a newspaper. To that extent he had "been informed". It is a newspaper report which I have not seen, although no doubt he will lay it before the House. I emphasise that the Greater London Council fund is the successor fund to the L.C.C. fund, and these Regulations have been agreed and drafted after consultation with the Greater London Council and the associations representing the staff concerned. This is, therefore, a matter between the G.L.C. and the 1227 L.C.C., because the G.L.C. has agreed to these Regulations being laid.
It is the staff with whom we are concerned tonight, and they are already in the L.C.C. fund. I cannot state categorically one way or the other whether or not what the hon. Gentleman read in a newspaper is right, but I am saying that the staff are already in the L.C.C. fund, whether or not there is a deficit in that fund. Therefore, the position of the staff is not changed by these Regulations, since the G.L.C. fund is the successor fund to the L.C.C. fund. With that explanation, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite are satisfied, because we are concerned here with the superannuation rights of the staff. This is not in any way affected by the matter which has been raised, and, as I said, the G.L.C. has agreed to these Regulations and to taking over this fund.

§ Sir D. Glover
Had the hon. Lady said that first of all I would not have made a speech.