§ Mr. BoothI beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 42, after "up", insert
pursuant to section 8(1)(b), above".This is an attempt to clarify the precise purpose of the Clause. At a first reading of the Bill it appears that Clause 8 is designed to deal with local Act schemes generally and the winding up of them in particular. But, as the Clause is drafted, it is open to the interpretation that it would enable the Secretary of State to modify regulations made under Clause 7 for the purpose of preserving rights in respect of persons entitled to benefits under any local government superannuation fund which is to be wound up.I suggest that the wording of subsection (1)(c) cannot be devoid of that interpretation. Indeed, the provision is drafted in such a way that it must inevitably mean that modifications can be made to regulations made under Clause 7 by the provisions of Clause 8. I am reinforced in this view by the fact that the provisions of Clause 8 (3) relate to modifications of regulations made under Clause 7.
If it is the Government's intention that when any of the schemes covered by Clause 7 are to be wound up one should revert to the provisions of Clause 8, why is it that the provisions for consultation in Clause 8 are different from those in Clause 7? The logical explanation must be that they deal with a different group of people and a different group of schemes; namely, local government schemes. I put it to the Minister that it is totally illogical to have a difference in representation of this kind for the purpose of winding up a scheme to that which exists for modifying existing schemes covered by Clause 7.
The Amendment would make it clear that Clause 8(1)(c) cannot be read on its own but must be read in conjunction with subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b). I would like to know why the Clause was drafted in this way, in the light of the criticisms I have made. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment or at least in- 988 dicate how Clause 8 is so limited as to prevent it from being used for altering the regulations brought in under Clause 7, with the effect of allowing these schemes to be wound up on a narrower basis of consultation than that which the Bill provides for the modifying or creating of schemes.
§ Mr. David HowellI am grateful to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for explaining the thinking behind the Amendment.
I spent some time in Committee dealing with the provisions relating to registration officers and medical officers and gave a number of examples, including that of the Museum of London Act, 1965. I said it was essential that such provisions should continue to apply to the local Act schemes. I said that Clause 8(2) empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations reproducing the effect of any such provisions, while Clause 8(3) enables the Secretary of State to extend to the local Act schemes any provisions to be made under Clause 7.
The hon. Gentleman expressed worries about the way this has been drafted and offers the Amendment. I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary in order to relate the circumstances of winding up which are referred to in subparagraph (c) to the winding up provided for in subparagraph (b). The context of a single subsection embracing both provisions secures that that is so. That is the legal underpinning, if I may put it that way, of what appears in this part of the Bill.
If the concern is the same as that expressed in Committee by the hon. Member, that the Secretary of State may make regulations under Clause 8(1) without providing—I think this is his worry—for the preservation of existing benefits under Clause 8(1)(c), I will try to meet his worry by giving him four assurances.
First, if any regulations were made under Clause 8(1), it is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend that they should provide for the protection of superannuation rights, as envisaged in subsection (1)(c). Second, I am in any event advised that the Clause is so drafted—and this, I think, meets the hon. Gentleman's specific question—that the Secretary of State could not make regulations 989 without taking account of Clause 8(1)(c). Third, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) remarked in Committee quite rightly, there is always the comfort of compulsory consultation in Clause 8(4). Fourth, and once again, if staff interests were not properly looked after in this respect I certainly would not expect the House to be silent when the regulations were laid as per Clause 12(6).
I hope that, with those four assurances, the hon. Member will feel that his worries are now laid to rest, and that he will withdraw the Amendment. I am sorry if I sound in a negative mood tonight. But I would ask that the right hon. Gentleman should not give up hope before the night is out.
§ Mr. BoothWith your leave. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, may I reply? I am not in a mood to he particularly assured by the provisions of Clause 12(6) because they relate to the negative Statutory Instruments procedure and in another capacity in the House I have had more than one worry arising from the difficulty of effecting any control over legislation by the negative Statutory Instruments procedure.
The Minister's explanation is truly amazing. If I understand it correctly, it is that the Clause is intended and so drafted as to make provision only for the winding up of Local Act Schemes, and, although it does this by reference to Clause 7 Orders, that does not enable the Secretary of State, by the provisions of Clause 8, to modify the wider rights of the schemes affecting the greater number of people generally covered by Clause 7.
I can only say that I am prepared to hope that the Minister's legal advice comes closer to the interpretation we subsequently put upon the Act than my understanding of the English in the Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.