Lords Sitting of 29 October 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Reigate—Took the Oath.

Kipper Project: Funding
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of the Environment is still funding the so called Kipper project, which advertised in The Voice of 14th July for a black, lesbian manager, claiming that this post was funded by the department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Department of the Environment's grant offer to the Kipper project to fund a rehousing and resettlement manager post was suspended on 16th July and remains so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that good news is rather seldom announced these days? It is very welcome. However, will he confirm that this rather offensive advertisement, which is probably highly illegal, is not to be subsidised henceforward by taxpayers? Will he make his wise judgment known to other government departments so that they are not led astray down the same path?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's congratulations and certainly accede to his request to pass on the information to other government departments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend let us into the secret and tell us what the so-called Kipper project was? Was the black lesbian manager to be smoke cured or was she chemically dyed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Kipper project is a housing project in the East End of London which specialises in finding permanent accommodation for young homeless people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, am I alone in finding this tone of questioning rather nauseating? Will the Minister accept that the Kipper project has been going since 1974 without complaint and that it provides a valuable service, financed by the Tower Hamlets Council (which, incidentally, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats)? Will he also confirm that it is continuing its work and that the word to use is not "was" but "is"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what the Government found offensive is not what the Kipper project does, which is entirely commendable and which, as the noble Lord said, has been continuing since 1974. What
1204
we found objectionable was that the project felt that only a black lesbian could do a job which the Government believe could be done by anybody.

Organ Donation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to improve the organ donor scheme by making it possible to use the organs of those who have died unless they have specifically opted out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords. At this time the Government believe that organ donation should be based on a positive choice made by individuals or their surviving relatives rather than on a presumed right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the organ donor scheme, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Joseph over 20 years ago, still entails fewer than 14 per cent. of people carrying cards? Is she further aware that, notwithstanding that, surveys over a number of years have shown that more than three-quarters of the population would be prepared to donate their organs after death to allow someone else to live? Does she feel that it is now time to begin to look at rather more adventurous ways of trying to increase the supply of donated organs so that more people can be treated more quickly and not have to wait—as some have to do for months—until a suitable organ becomes available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the only problem is with kidney donors. At the moment there are 4,000 people waiting for kidney transplants but no one waiting for heart or liver transplants. The organ donor scheme has been very successful. There were twice as many kidney transplants in 1990 as there were in 1980. But the Government have an open mind in as much as if we were convinced that an opt-out policy would increase the number of organs available, and if we had the majority of the public and the medical profession behind us, we would certainly then consider a change.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government have an open mind on this matter. I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in putting forward this proposal. With regard to kidney transplants, does the Minister agree that there are many hundreds of people waiting who cannot have an operation because an organ donor is not available at the right time? Secondly, does she recognise that recent surveys have shown that there is increasingly a movement toward public acceptance of the idea that if people have not opted out, it should be assumed that they agree? Does she agree that would avoid some very embarrassing and difficult presentations by the medical profession to patients or patients' families at a very difficult time for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, one of the reasons why we are not able to meet all the demands for spare organs is because of the very successful impact that recent legislation has had on reducing accidents, including the seat belt, crash helmet and drink-driving laws. Were the general public to feel very strongly that they would rather have an opt-out scheme and if the medical profession supported that, then the Government would reconsider the matter. That is not the position at the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Northern Ireland a donor consent form is an integral part of the driving licence? Does she feel that it is time that such a system were introduced on this side of the water?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. In fact we are discussing with the DVLC the possibility of including the donor card in the driving licence.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better for there to be a greater campaign to encourage people to agree to donate organs? She said that the Government have an open mind. Is she considering taking organs, whether or not the family agree?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical profession is implacably opposed to that. It is felt that would jeopardise the trust which the public place in the profession. Even where people at present carry the donor card, the medical profession still consults with the family to check that the family is willing.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some people involved in the transplant field believe that a system of presumed consent would result in a reduction in the supply of organs because more people would take the positive step of carrying a refusal card? I am sure that the Minister has heard that view expressed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that there is a great deal of support for that view.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in her last answer but one, my noble friend indicated that in the case of someone who already carries a donor card the medical profession asks permission of the families of accident victims, let us say, before removing donor organs. Is she aware that that often makes for great difficulties and that in many cases the medical staff are not prepared to make that request in those difficult circumstances? Will she not agree that against that background even encouraging more people to carry donor cards is unlikely greatly to increase the supply of organs, and that we ought to consider the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkin?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical profession is in a very difficult position on this issue. We are anxious to help the profession as much as possible. Indeed, we have increased publicity. We are improving education and procedures for hospital staff; we are currently funding a survey into the reasons why so many relatives refuse permission to use
1206
organs; and we are introducing a computerised register of organ donors. I hope that that will go some way towards meeting the need.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her last two answers give me serious cause for concern? Does it not mean that if a person who has been in an accident or who dies suddenly has not opted out, his body could be cannibalised even before his relatives were aware that he was dead?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot believe that members of the medical profession, who are so compassionate and sensitive, would allow that to happen.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is there a central register of those who have signed donor cards or in other ways expressed their willingness to donate their organs? If not, would that not be a solution to some of the problems that have been raised?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We are introducing a computerised register of organ donors.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that every year there are probably only 250 potential donors whose relatives refuse donation? As transplantation surgeons will continue sensitively always to consult relatives and are never likely to ignore their wishes, does she agree that there will not be an increase in donors if such legislation were introduced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. When we looked at the position in other countries—principally Austria and France—where such legislation has been introduced, we found that although initially it proved to be successful, there was a considerable backlash later.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would not presumed consent present enormous difficulties for the medical profession?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. I agree with my noble friend.

NHS Management: Expenditure
3.13 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the growth of expenditure on management personnel in relation to NHS provision over the last five years.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a better managed NHS is leading to better patient care and more of it. In the past five years, overall resources for the NHS have risen by over two thirds. Within that total, expenditure on management personnel in England has risen from £ 25.7 million in 1987 to £ 251.5 million in 1991.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she share my concern that, while

1207
management is necessary, the growth in expenditure on management is crowding out growth in expenditure on personnel concerned with health care? Does she also agree that the number of managers has grown fast while the number of nurses has declined slightly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, for every £ 1 spent on senior managers another £ 43 is spent on NHS professionals such as doctors and nurses—a ratio which compares well with any other organisation. In 1984 the Government were concerned about the strength of NHS management and introduced an inquiry, which was chaired by Sir Roy Griffiths. He said that the management was poor and:
"In short, if Florence Nightingale were carrying her lamp through the corridors of the NHS today she would almost certainly be searching for the people in charge".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in her original Answer my noble friend showed that management costs over the past five years have increased by some nine times, I presume in real terms. Can she correlate that figure by saying how much the number of in-patient treatments has risen over the same period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords,7 per cent. more patients were treated during last year. We now have virtually no one waiting over two years for treatment and the number waiting over a year has halved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the total number of direct patient care staff has been virtually static over the past five years while the numbers of administrative and clerical staff have increased by 21 per cent. in the same period? Do the Government think that that is the best way to improve patient care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I have proved very convincingly that the NHS has become more efficient. It is treating more people, both as in-patients, out-patients, and day patients. Much of the credit for that must go to better management.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does it not make sense that administrative tasks should not be performed by people who have had an expensive clinical training? Is not part of the explanation for the figures which have been quoted from both sides of the House that increasingly, on the wards and elsewhere, administrative tasks are performed by administrators and managers leaving the clinically trained staff actually to look after patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has summed up very accurately the Government's policy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the belief that the NHS has improved recently is not widely shared?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, without a doubt the NHS has improved beyond all bounds.
Lord Carter: My Lords, further to her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is the noble Baroness aware that the number of ancillary staff, who are the people
1208
who would be performing the tasks which the noble Lord described, has decreased by 40,00 in the past five years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, ancillary staff also covers catering, portering and general maintenance staff. As we know, many of those staff are no longer employed by the NHS but by private companies. Again, the quality of the work being done has improved beyond all doubt.

Income Support Benefits
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the National Children's Home report Deep in Debt, they are satisfied that the levels of income support paid to families arc adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, yes. Most claimants are managing and, moreover, have gained from an uprating last April that was nearly 3 per cent. above RPI.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the National Children's Home survey shows that families on benefit spent their incomes sensibly. Yet half had to borrow to buy food, and two-thirds, with their children, missed meals because their money had run out. How can the Minister state that income support is adequate when children go hungry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that people cannot manage on the current levels of income support. We have always recognised that some people may find it difficult, but not impossible, to manage on the current levels. However, merely to suggest increased levels is simplistic and irresponsible. We already have probably the most comprehensive safety net social security system in the whole of Europe, the total cost of which is some £ 70 billion. That averages out at £ 10 per working day for every taxpayer and National Insurance contributor. To suggest that that should be raised still further, increasing the burdens on the economy, is irresponsible.
Lord Ennals: My Lord, will the Minister give an assurance that the rumours that have appeared in the press that the Government intend to cut invalidity benefit are untrue? Will he give that assurance bearing in mind that 16 per cent. of all those on invalidity benefit suffer from mental health problems and that it would be very damaging to the welfare of those people if that threat were to be carried out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not comment on press leaks. Nor do we comment on the level of next year's benefit. The Question relates to income support; the noble Lord asked about invalidity benefit. The noble Lord will have to wait for the up-rating statement to discover what our plans are for next year.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is done to help people and advise them about how to live on such small amounts when many find it extremely difficult—even if it is possible—to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that it can be difficult to survive on income support but we do not believe that it is impossible. I have the greatest respect for the work performed by bodies such as the National Children's Home, which offer a great deal of help and advice to families who have problems in this area. We hope that those bodies will continue to offer such help and advice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will my noble kinsman study the report at greater leisure before he is quite so certain of its contents? Will he also take note that the sample families in the survey were going deeper into debt at the rate of £ 8.50 per week and that the average amount spent on food was £ 9.10 per head and on clothing £ 0.62 per head? Does he regard those levels as adequate and will he share that information with his colleagues in the Treasury?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the National Children's Home and its work. However, the report covered only 347 families who had gone to the organisation for help and advice. Obviously, there was a considerable degree of self selection regarding participation in the survey, particularly as it was confined not merely to people who had gone to the organisation but to those who had bothered to respond to the NCH questionnaire.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that even allowing for a reasonable margin of error the fact that four out of five parents who were studied—that is,82 per cent.—said that out of their benefit they could not afford to buy the clothes and shoes that their children needed and that they had been forced into debt, some to the extent of £ 1,000, in order to buy those items? Does that not suggest to the Minister that the figures and the situation badly need to be examined?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. The people who went to the NCH already had problems with debt. The noble Lord will accept that at all levels of income people can get into debt. Simply to suggest that we can resolve such problems by raising the basic level of income support is irresponsible and simplistic.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise—his answers do not appear to indicate that he does—that however careful families may be, financial and debt problems are common among those who are in receipt of benefit and that debt-related inquiries to advice centres have more than doubled in the past decade? Has the Money Advice Trust, which was set up by the Government in 1991 and which was designed to raise £ 9 million over three years from consumer credit institutions, raised more than the £ 362,000 which was raised in the first year? Has more been collected since then? Is it not time for a statutory levy on the credit industry in order to resource the necessary money advice work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an interesting point. I prefer to write to her about the Money Advice Trust. I must repeat that people at all levels of income can get into debt. We greatly welcome the work carried out by the National Children's Home and the advice which is given to some people. However, simply to raise levels of income support would not resolve the problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Ennals the Minister said that we must await the up-rating statement. Some of us are worried that it will be a down-rating statement. Can the Minister assure the House that it will indeed be an up-rating statement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the rules: he will simply have to wait.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the results of the NCH survey are false? If so, do the Government intend to present their own results which will cure the problem of self selection and show something better? Does the Minister agree that even if there are some errors the figures are so ghastly that there should exist a primary duty to correct such abysmal levels of poverty in a rich society such as ours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at no point did I say that the findings in the NCH report were false. I said that they had to be taken with a degree of circumspection bearing in mind that only 347 families were examined. Only 11 families were examined in detail and by definition all were self-selected because they already had problems with debt and had gone to see the NCH about that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the National Children's Home works with approximately 16,000 children per year and it was also drawing on that information. DSS research shows that since 1979 the income of the average family with three children has risen in real terms after housing costs by £ 80 per week, or some 30 per cent. However, such a family in receipt of benefit has had its income fall in real terms since 1979 by £ 7 per week, or 6 per cent. Is it not the case that not only have the poorest had no trickle down of wealth but that they are absolutely worse off in real terms than they were in 1979? In the light of today's leaks in the press will the Minister undertake to protect such families in the forthcoming review of public expenditure, which he has so far refused? For once can any cuts in public expenditure be borne by those who are able to pay rather than by those who cannot afford them? For just once?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has grossly misinterpreted the results of the household below average income survey. If she looks at the expenditure rather than the income of those in the lowest deciles she will find some surprising features. For example, she will find that the expenditure of those in the lowest deciles is often higher than those in the deciles above. That is because those in the lowest deciles include many self-employed people starting in

1211
business. There is not a true reflection of declines or increases in income. On average the incomes of most families have increased during the past 10 years.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is not my noble kinsman a little unwise to use expenditure as a measure when the survey indicates that expenditure normally exceeds income?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. Again my noble kinsman has misunderstood the composition of those in the lowest decile or, for that matter, in any decile. They are in a fluid and not a static group. People are temporarily in the lowest decile when starting a business or whatever but soon they will be in a higher decile. Their expenditure will not necessarily vary a great deal as they move between one group and another.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does not the Minister understand that we are not talking about people who can get out of the decile—whatever that is—but about people who are permanently in the decile, are permanently racked by poverty and whom the Government appear to have set their face against helping?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that some people have problems. Throughout the exchanges I have been trying to say that the view that one can increase income support, increase expenditure and increase the burden on the economy thereby taking a large number of people out of that group is simplistic and irresponsible.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event the Third Reading of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill will be taken during the break.

Hereditary Peerages Bill [H.L.]
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law in relation to hereditary peerages. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Diamond.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a
1212
Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Gisborough, L.

Hanworth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Meston, L.

Lowry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Underhill, L.

Wigoder, L.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Boundary Commissions Bill
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved the amendment:
After Clause 3, to insert:
Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act
(".—In Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act, paragraph 4(1)(b) shall be amended to read as follows
"(b) in Scotland, consideration shall be given to the boundaries of local authority areas, having regard to paragraph 5 below".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this subject which was well ventilated in Committee. I have no intention of rehearsing the argument because those of your Lordships who were present when we discussed this matter—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and, indeed, the Minister—all agreed that we expected the boundary commission in Scotland to be flexible when looking at how to draw parliamentary constituencies. In addition to the important aspect of balancing the electorate reasonably evenly between constituencies, we expected it to take into account local ties, community ties and also local government boundaries. I believe we all agreed that that should be done flexibly.
I might have been content to leave it there, as I was asked to do by my noble friend, but, as I mentioned in Committee, the last boundary commission in Scotland did not take a flexible view of this matter. Quite the contrary: it took a wholly inflexible view and decided that nowhere on the mainland of Scotland would local authority boundaries be crossed, regardless of the impact of that decision on the electoral numbers in adjacent constituencies crossing on each side of those local authority boundaries.
Since our debates in Committee I have thought about the reply that I received from my noble friend and I come back to my problem; namely, regardless of what we say in this House or, indeed, in the other place, and regardless of what Ministers say from the Dispatch Box, what matters is what is written into the statute. My worry is that as the last boundary commission interpreted the rules extremely rigidly and decided that regional authority boundaries had priority over getting constituencies reasonably near the electoral quota, I am left with a certain feeling that the boundary commission this time could take exactly the same inflexible view. This amendment attempts to put in the words of the statute a clear signal to the boundary commission that it must be flexible and must not take the inflexible attitude which was taken last time.
In reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee, I should say that I have weakened the words "have regard to" to "give consideration to". I have added to the end of the sentence that in doing that the boundary commission should have regard to the electoral quota and the balance between constituencies when that electoral quota is looked at.
I am quite confident that the words which I suggest should be put into the rules would signal as clearly as we possibly can to the boundary commission in Scotland that it should not treat local authority boundaries as absolutely impenetrable barriers.
The additional problem this time is that, as local government is under review, no one is entirely sure what will be the local authority boundaries. That seems to me to add to the argument that we should signal clearly to the boundary commission in the words of the statute that it should not treat those boundaries as impenetrable. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord has made quite a forceful case for his amendment. However, I still hold the view that I held in Committee. There is flexibility, as the noble Lord rightly says, available to the commission. He is nodding his head and denying what he has stated; namely, that other noble Lords and I agreed that there was flexibility.
All the boundary commissions have the opportunity to take a number of factors into consideration, one of those being the point the noble Lord made in regard to Rule 5 dealing with the disparities in the electorate. The commission may also take into consideration geographical implications. The other important provision is that the commissions may take into consideration any effect on local ties and community interests. I believe that that flexibility is extremely important. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made that same point in Committee.
Another important point is that I do not believe that an amendment to the rules is the way to deal with this matter. The way that the commissions interpret the rules is another matter altogether. If we are to change the rules, there should be consensus and consultation with the various bodies concerned, particularly the political parties. I hope this
1214
amendment will not be pressed. I believe that there is flexibility. If the commissions are failing to take into full consideration all the points which they are free to take into consideration, then perhaps thought should be given as to how they are doing their work.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the clear good intent of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is obvious to the whole House. I do not believe that anyone would wish to suggest that the matter is altogether satisfactory. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I am not sure that I would use the word "flexibility". There is a hierarchy. The more I read the rules, the more I see that there is a hierarchy in the criteria to be taken into consideration.
Reference has been made to the reorganisation of the local authority boundaries of local government in Scotland. It may well be that if the regions are abolished or reduced in size, the scale of the problem will be reduced consequent upon that geographical reduction.
Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the subject is so involved, has so many consequences and is one which should involve the people who are directly concerned on the ground that it would be wrong to endeavour to amend the rules through primary legislation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I support my noble friend in raising this matter again. I shall not repeat the arguments which I made in Committee. I just remind noble Lords who were not there then that the main point is that, as a result of the present arrangements, huge rural and highland areas in Scotland have enormous constituency numbers which was not what was expected. The example which I give—and there are several—is that one in northern Scotland contains 80,000 electors; and it is a huge area including the foothills of the Cairngorms. There are constituencies in Glasgow in the 40,000s and, indeed, one has only 36,000; they are small compact areas.
It seems clear that the boundary commission has taken the consideration of local government boundaries in northern Scotland, not in Glasgow, as a dominating factor. When I was a Secretary of State about 20 years ago, I had to look at all this and at the wording—I take the blame if the wording is not clear. We wanted to give the boundary commissions great flexibility. We wanted them to consider the criteria which are written in but to leave them with the flexibility to decide. However, had I known that they would make local government boundaries the dominating criterion, I should have tried to change the wording in those days. Whether or not anything can be done in this Bill, I point out that extraordinary anomaly, considering that the main object of the boundary commissions is to try so far as possible to equalise the numbers in the electorates.
Had it been the other way around, with a Glasgow constituency of 80,000 and the huge constituency in northern Scotland with only 36,000, one could perhaps see reasons for that. However, it has worked the other way round.
Since our debate in Committee several noble Lords have come to me and said, "What an extraordinary

1215
situation. Why has nobody raised this matter before?" I would say to them that such opportunities only arise now and then. This is an opportunity and I hope that our arguments will be listened to.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mackay. I cannot understand why this was not dealt with many years ago. My noble friend Lord Campbell said that he might have done that—undoubtedly he might—but it has now reached the stage where we can take a decision on the matter. The numbers from Scotland are extremely important. The constituencies make up only a comparatively small percentage of the House of Commons. Therefore the arrangement should be accurate numerically as well as in relation to the size of land. The words in the provision are inadequate. One could, of course, put down a cardboard map to piece the whole thing together, but that would be superfluous. The amendment adequately meets the requirement we have in mind.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Secretary of State issued a document in regard to the proposed changes in local government in Scotland. In that document there are four options which can be considered and in three of those the regions are either abolished or substantially changed. I suggest therefore that should one or other of those come into operation, and whether the boundary commissions like it or not, flexibility will be forced upon them. They will have lost most of the regions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he found himself in the same position as he was at Committee stage. I believe that goes for most of us. My noble friend Lord Mackay finds himself in the same position in that he wants the amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is also in the same position except that she denied herself the opportunity of referring to PR, for which I am grateful.
I find myself in the same position in that I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend's amendment, as I explained at Committee stage. It is similar to that tabled previously. For various reasons I did not believe that it would be suitable to accept it at that time. I believe that the same situation applies now.
My learned friend's amendment, well intentioned though it is, raises some awkward issues. At Committee stage I referred to the practical effect of changing the rules under which the Scottish commission works when the review has already been started. My noble friend's amendment would not be worded sufficiently accurately for those who take a peculiar and prurient interest in such matters as to be acceptable as part of the Bill.
Should my noble friend feel disposed to withdraw the amendment I shall, together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,
1216
look at the points made to see whether or not it is possible to do anything by the next stage of the Bill, and if so, what.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, in the event of him deciding to move on those lines, will the political parties be taken into consideration? Their views on the matter are extremely important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is aware, time is fairly short. The main purpose of the Bill is to reduce the time between Royal Commission reports. My noble friend is attempting to clear up an anomaly. I shall certainly take the point of the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, into account. However, it may be unreasonable to suggest that within the timescale there is a great deal of opportunity for too much conversation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I may have nudged him an inch—or perhaps in these European days I should say one centimetre—more in my direction than at Committee stage. I listened again with care to what he said and appreciate that he understands and takes on board the point I am trying to make.
My problem with the argument of the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, is that the fact that the last boundary commission was totally inflexible appears to have escaped him when he rests on the need for flexibility. I would happily rest there with him as well had it not been for that precedent. However, in the light of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No.69, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Benson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord formally moves the amendment, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will allow me to raise a point which is not controversial. It affects not only Amendment No.69, but also the amendments we are to consider this afternoon and those agreed on Tuesday.
Our difficulty with the Bill, which is in any case complicated, is that we passed an amendment on Tuesday and there are amendments yet to come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, so we do not know what form the Bill will take. Therefore, I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be willing to publish a table of what will be received by the recipients under each of

1217
the terms of the Bill. That will enable us to see the Bill's effects. In other words, we want to know what is the pension and the lump sums which the judges, judges' spouses and their children will receive under the terms of the Bill with the proposed amendments.
We need a figure, for illustrative purposes, based on current practices and assumed appointments, death and retirement and so forth, which is realistic. It would be helpful for a table to be provided which will also show the position under the 1981 Act. I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be willing to publish such a statement to enable us to see the effect when the amendments are tabled for Third Reading.
There is nothing peculiar or unusual in doing that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appoints the judges and when they are offered the appointments those are the questions that they will want answered so that they know what the Bill allows them to receive. If we could see those figures before we vote for the amendments we will know what we are voting for and it will greatly help us all.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. What he is suggesting would be most useful, but only to enable one to see the magnanimity or otherwise of what the amendments produce. Perhaps the statement could also include what the figures would be had the amendments not been agreed and the Bill was as originally drafted, together with the figures produced by the amendments.
Lord Benson: My Lords, the table can take any form the House desires. I have prepared a table of what I believe would provide the most help. I shall be glad to provide it to the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor immediately after the debate. I have not shown it to the Lord Chief Justice or discussed the point with him. I believe that he should see it because as the next head of the judiciary under the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor he has to cope with all the judges. He will want to know the figures to enable him to explain the meaning behind the Bill. Anything which the House wants can be provided.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have called the amendment. It is Amendment No.69 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I may be able to respond, in order, to some of the points made after the noble and learned Lord moves the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if it is more convenient to the House I am happy for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to deal with the inquiry at this stage. I intend to speak of widows and widowers, which does not seem to have much connection to the point raised. It may even come as a slight anti-climax after hearing the answer to my noble friend Lord Benson. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will wish to take advantage of the pause, but I shall do whatever the House desires.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, surely the situation is this. When the continuance of the Report stage was moved it would have been perfectly proper for the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to make his comment before the amendment was called. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his discretion, could then regard it as being a remark made on his moving that the Bill be further considered on Report. It would then be in order for him to make a statement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I, above all, should follow the proper rules of procedure in this House. I moved that the Bill be further considered on Report. I put the Question and that has been responded to. I then called, according to the ordinary procedure, for my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to move Amendment No.69. It is in accordance with the proper rules of procedure that the amendment should be moved. I may be able, still within the proper rules of procedure, to provide some answer to what was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in the course of my reply. Then I would hope to deal with the matter in order whereas if I try to do so now that would be impossible.
Clause 5 [Surviving spouse's pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.69:
Page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, just before the House adjourned last Tuesday we were about to embark on Clause 5 of the Bill which concerns widows. I suggested—and the House was most compassionate—that as it was nearly ten o'clock we might defer that emotional, and perhaps one might almost say romantic, subject until today. I am grateful to your Lordships for having done that. Perhaps I may make one point clear from the outset. Although I refer to widows the Bill naturally refers to spouses. It therefore includes widowers. In fact, some say that in the not far distant future the male judge will be an endangered species; so it is right that I emphasise that straightaway. I still bear, internally at least, the bruises resulting from an encounter at a judicial seminar in Cambridge when the one and only lady member of the Supreme Court of the United States and the senior lady member of the Supreme Court of Canada rounded on me because there are no Baronesses of Appeal in Ordinary in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may share with your Lordships some historical knowledge which I have recently acquired. In 1799 the first pension Act was passed. It contained nothing about widows. A pension was earned by a judge if he completed an entirety of 15 years' service—a hallowed piece of mathematics which has been recently despatched. The Act also provided that if the judge retired through disability, he would achieve that pension straightaway. There was nothing as regards widows. No doubt in those years taxation made it possible to make sufficient provision without resorting to pensions.
In 1950—some 150 years later—the content of pension provision moved on, generally speaking, and the Act of that year made provision for a pension for a judge's widow. It also made provision for a lump sum, generally considered a great advantage on

1219
retirement in order to deal with accumulated expenses. The judge's pension was reduced from two-thirds to one-half in order to achieve the lump sum so that he was paying for his lump sum. The widow's pension was one-third of the judge's pension, the judge's pension being one-half of his salary. That, too, had to be paid for by the judge out of the lump sum. The one-third did not provide a great deal. It provided about £ 800 or £ 900 in those years; so it was later increased to one-half. Again, the judges were required to pay for that addition.
In all cases the pension ceased on remarriage. It was not obtainable if there was a widow who had become a widow following a post-retirement marriage. That situation is about 20 years out of date. Nowadays, pension provision, certainly in the private sector, provides for the widow not to lose her pension on remarriage and for the widow of a post-retirement marriage to obtain a pension. The sole question is whether she is the widow—in fact in some pensions I believe it is expressed more liberally as the partner—of the deceased judge. I am not in any way seeking to achieve that.
This situation was recognised in a somewhat odd way by legislation quite recently. It was an unsatisfactory provision. In Section 80 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, widows were divided—not surgically, but draftsmanlike—into two different categories. There was the post-retirement widow and the surviving widow of a marriage which occurred during service. Section 80 provides:
"19.—(1) No widow's or widower's pension may be granted if the marriage with the deceased took place after he or she retired from relevant service.
(2) A widow's or widower's pension shall come to an end on the death of the widow or widower.
(3) Where a widow's or widower's pension is payable the Treasury may, on or at any time after the re-marriage of the widow or widower, direct that it shall cease to be payable.
(3) Where such a direction has been given the Treasury may at any time direct that payment of the pension is to be resumed".
That is really the oddest of provisions. It is a kind of compromise and certainly not a halfway house; it is about a one-eighth house if one can give it any fraction at all. It makes it perfectly clear that the post-retirement widow gets nothing, but the surviving widow is in the position of really not knowing what is going to happen to her pension. It is to continue as long as someone in the Treasury decides that it may do so. Then, according to some guidelines unpublished and some factors undisclosed, an unknown member of the Treasury can say,"Stop! That is the end of your pension". At a later stage, again based on some unknown criteria, the pension can be suddenly started up again.
Is that position to continue? That is what Clause 5 of the present Bill does, and that is the clause which I am asking your Lordships to consider. The widow of a judge goes cap in hand—I suppose that is the wrong expression—hut bonnet in hand, to someone in the Treasury and says, "I am contemplating remarriage. Can you tell me whether you in your discretion are going to allow my pension to continue? If you are kind
1220
enough to say that it is, can you tell me in what circumstances I am going to have it taken away from me?"
That is not the way to treat this situation seriously. It is placing the widow in a most undignified and undesirable position. The recognition that this type of provision is grossly out of date I illustrated in an anecdote, the truth of which has been vouched for, some four months ago when this matter was last before the House. I shall briefly mention it again. An uncle of a friend of mine aged about 90, decided to offer his hand in marriage to a sweet young thing of 84. She, with remarkable perspicacity, asked, "What about my pension?" Her pension had started about 60 years ago and it was of as much interest to pension archaeologists as the provision in this Bill. He said, "Let us write to the company". They wrote to the company saying, "What will happen if we remarry because Clause X says that the pension ceases?" The reply came back: "We appreciate that the pension ceases, but we do not operate that clause any more. The pension certainly will not cease in your case. If you let us know the date when this happy event occurs we shall send you a handsome present into the bargain." I have no confidence that the unknown Treasury official enshrined in Section 80 of the 1990 Act and reborn in Clause 5 of this Bill will react in that way. It is for that reason that I suggest to your Lordships that the modern practice should be followed.
I told the House on Tuesday that we had taken advantage—as we had forecast that we would—of the long gap between the Committee and Report stages to obtain on behalf of the judges a report from a consultant actuary on these various aspects. Let me make it perfectly clear that we obtained this report at the end of July and that within three days my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice had sent it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. This is what the consultant actuary writes in paragraph 4.12:
"Over 85 per cent. of private sector pension schemes … will pay the spouse's pension for life. No more than 7 per cent. actually discontinue the pension on remarriage".
He went on to deal with the position of the Treasury official, stating:
"It is very important that judges should know what criteria will be used by the Treasury when deciding to discontinue a spouse's pension. Only in that knowledge could a single or widowed judge plan to provide for his potential 'post-retirement spouse'. It is simply not good enough for such an important benefit as the continued payment of a spouse's pension to be left to the undefined criteria of the Civil Service. Private sector employees would not allow such discretion to lie in the hands of their employer: they would insist on seeing their rights and those of their dependants clearly set out in writing. Judges' dependants deserve the same consideration".
Perhaps I may anticipate a point that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may make. He may say, "Ah, but you have referred only to the private sector situation. In the public sector this does not occur". However, we are dealing with primary legislation which is designed to crystallise the position for years to come. If the public sector system is grossly out of date, that is no justification for re-enacting it in new legislation.
But perhaps a more important point is this: judges are entitled to be treated on the same basis as senior—as very senior—executives in the private sector. Judges are recruited from the private sector after having worked successfully in it for more than half the usual working life. If they had remained in the private sector, that is the sort of treatment that they could have expected with any pension that they took out relative to their position. In those circumstances, I invite your Lordships to say that that should equally operate here. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I greatly admire the Treasury and I profoundly value its place in the machinery of government. I always object when the Treasury is picked out as if it were a rude word—a word of objurgation. The Treasury plays an essential part in ensuring that we live nationally within our means, but the function that this clause, following a recent Act, lays upon the Treasury is one that it is quite unfitted to perform. The Treasury has no expertise in marriage guidance. Apart from that, to give this sort of discretion to the Treasury seems to me to be constitutionally objectionable. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as far as Amendment No.71 is concerned, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will at least take this opportunity to provide some degree of certainty, as is called for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicate how it is envisaged that the discretion that would be given by Clause 5(2), if it is allowed to remain in the Bill, would be exercised? Is there to be a presumption that remarriage will curtail a pension or is the presumption to be the other way round? Obviously, there could be the curious result that a widow who remarries a pauper could find herself worse off than a widow who chooses not to remarry but who cohabits permanently with a millionaire.
That begs the question: how is the discretion to be exercised in practice? Is there to be some sort of means testing of the second spouse? What is the significance of the words,
"on or at any time after the re-marriage"?
Does that suggest that there is to be some sort of periodic review which will check from time to time to make sure that the second spouse has not won the football pools? It is very unfortunate that people in this situation should find themselves living in uncertainty. I hope that some certainty can be instilled during this debate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, referring to the amendment that we are discussing, Amendment No.69, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies, will he make quite clear whether what is proposed in the Bill is the same as the situation in the rest of the public service? In other words, where someone who has retired from the public service and is on a pension remarries, does that marriage give rise
1222
to the payment of a pension after that person's death? Is what is proposed in the amendment to treat the judiciary in a different way from the rest of the public service?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what has been said already and I certainly support the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about how the discretion is to be exercised and about the means test that may be applied.
My only contribution is, as a practising solicitor, to tell your Lordships what you may already know about the change in the way in which husbands these days dictate their wills. When I was a young lawyer I used, with some pain, to have to put into a draft will the desire of the client, the husband, that however generous he might have been to his widow in his will, he would like it to be perfectly understood that, should she remarry, much of the benefit that he might have given her over the course of the years, or, indeed, for the rest of her life, would cease. Custom has moved on, and husbands these days are much more solicitous of the spouses they are going to leave behind them and of their happiness and companionship. In my experience, it is very rare that a practising solicitor now faces anything other than a husband who says, "We had a wonderful time together. I hope that she will find some companionship after I die. Indeed, far from penalising that, I should like to encourage it".
Lord Benson: My Lords, Amendments Nos.69 and 71 are being taken together but I should like to deal with them separately and in succession.
Amendment No.69 proposes the removal of a paragraph which denies a spouse a pension if the marriage took place after retirement. That is a most astonishing provision, whatever may have been provided in years past in some Act or pension scheme, on the plain basis of common sense. If a man marries a woman on Tuesday she will get a pension. If he marries her on Wednesday she will not. That is an intolerable situation because it is not a question of retirement; it is a question of the widow who has to be supported. Why should the widow who marries on Tuesday be kept in such comfort as the pension will allow while the one who marries on Wednesday lives in penury? This is a totally incomprehensible proposal.
There is also something rather offensive about the clause. It implies that immediately after a man has retired he will plan a marriage and arrange his death accordingly so that some improper benefits will be diddled out of the Treasury by these manoeuvres. I cannot believe that the judiciary of this country behaves in that way. It is quite unnecessary to produce a clause in a Bill which assumes that it does. Members of the judiciary marry in the ordinary course of events and their spouses should be looked after.
Amendment No.71 covers a different point. If a marriage subsists during service and the judge dies and then the spouse remarries, the spouse's pension can be cut back at the instance of the Treasury. This has already been referred to by many noble Lords, but the point I make is that there is nothing in the Bill to say how it will be cut back or what criteria will be

1223
examined. There are none of those vital procedures for people who are asked to accept this pension scheme when they are appointed to office. It is undesirable in any case because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, it will encourage people to live in sin. That surely cannot be one of the objects of a Bill of this kind when dealing with the judiciary of this country.
The administrative arrangements whereby the Treasury will have to make these inquiries will be extremely cumbersome. If the Bill is not to be a farce—in other words, if the Treasury is to abide by the Bill and do this properly—it will have to call for statements of income from the two partners so it can examine what those incomes were year by year, because they change year by year. You may be sure that the Treasury's judgments are bound to differ between different people. It will result in a degrading examination of people's incomes and lifestyles. The Treasury officer carrying out the examination may arrive at one conclusion for one partner and a different conclusion for the other. The result will be quite inconsistent and quite unfair.
Both subsections seem to carry meanness and penny-pinching to a totally unreasonable degree. I cannot help feeling that the judiciary is offended by provisions of this character.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I wish to add only a few brief words which are mainly directed to Amendment No.71. It was on my suggestion some 20 years or so ago that the surviving spouse's pension was increased from one-third to a half. I put up the argument that to keep it at one-third was completely out of date—everyone else had a half of the deceased's pension—and that it was time that spouses of deceased judges should be brought into line.
I was then a young, junior Member of the House. I expected resistance to come against me with the full weight of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack backed by the Treasury. There was no resistance at all. The noble and learned Lord then occupying the Woolsack—Lord Gardiner—said,"No problem. If you want to have it as a half you can have it as a half. You have to pay for it. If that is what the judges want, raise it from one-third to a half". So raised it was from one-third to a half. It was a perfectly straightforward bargain as between the judges and the financial authorities. That is how it should remain without the absurdly artificial complication now introduced by the Bill. I therefore support my noble and learned friend, particularly on Amendment No.71.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wish to make one comment on Amendment No.71. I hope it is not entirely irrelevant to observe that the spouse of a serving judge, particularly of a High Court judge on circuit, plays a very substantial part in assisting the judge in his activities. It seems extraordinarily mean that in those circumstances subsection (2) should be in the form in which it is.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has indicated that in this area changes that go to increase benefit will be reflected in the size of the contribution. Of course, people can get the benefits that they wish if they are prepared as a whole to pay for them. This aspect, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner explained, is dependent on the contributions. When the widow's pension was introduced it was at the expense of the lump sum which judges had received in lieu of one-sixth of their pension when it changed from two-thirds to a half.
I think it would be right for me first of all to make it clear that we are concerned here with widows in two different situations. We are not here concerned with children's pensions. I have already indicated to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and to others that I propose to introduce an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that children's pensions continue notwithstanding remarriage of the surviving parent.
I should perhaps start with Amendment No.69 which concerns post-retirement marriages. So far as I understand the position we are reproducing here what is in the previous arrangement. It is the current position that post-retirement marriages are catered for in the majority of public sector schemes. These are under the ordinary scheme rules but limited to that period of service beyond 1978 (for men) or 1988 (for women). A change was made in those respects at these dates.
Before 1978 pensions for spouses were restricted to those who married before retirement. The Members of Parliament scheme has allowed for post-retirement marriages since 1965 but includes a discretion for the trustees not to pay a pension in the event of "deathbed" marriages. There are no provisions in the other schemes to prevent "deathbed" marriages or spouses significantly younger than the member benefiting from the pension to the full extent. That aspect is an important factor in considering the cost of a proposal such as is contained in the amendment.
The cost of a pension to the post-retirement widow can very much vary according to her age. If I understood the anecdote of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, the lady in question had a pension for some 60 years or so, in which event if it was in the private sector I suppose it would have been small. If it was in the public sector it would have benefited from the protection of RPI increases.
The reason why a pension for post-retirement spouses has not been provided for the judiciary has been the much higher earning levels that apply compared to those of typical public servants and a much shorter accrual period for spouses' pensions. Post-retirement marriage cover would therefore be relatively more expensive and build up more quickly than would be the case for more typical public servants. As your Lordships know, the principal Civil Service scheme has a 40-year accrual span and the Members' of Parliament scheme a 331/3 accrual span with a pension fraction of one fiftieth.

1225
The cost of providing post-retirement cover for the judiciary would certainly not be very small; it would certainly be at least 0.5 per cent. of pensionable pay and if that was reflected in the contributions they would be quite considerable. Of course, the generality of the scheme provides that everyone who is eligible pays the same contribution. Therefore, that would be quite a costly benefit to provide in relative terms. The position is that if the judges want the provision it would need to be paid for, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce suggested. Given the fact that judges normally retire at ages between 65 and 70, if any provision for post-retirement marriages was to be introduced it would obviously be prudent to consider under precisely what circumstances that should be allowed. In particular, some increment might be required in relation to a substantial age disparity in order to be fair, or relatively fair, to those who were not involved in such a transaction.
I should also mention that the Top Salaries Review Body, when commenting on the pension proposals that I put forward, made no comment in its response to the pension consultation paper suggesting that it disapproved of a lack of provision for post-retirement marriages. I should add that the absence of specific provision for post-retirement marriages in the new judiciary scheme does not mean that such spouses are totally without benefit. One of the conditions of contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme is that the judicial scheme would have to provide the guaranteed minimum benefit under the national insurance arrangement, SERPS. That means that in the case of post-retirement marriages, we would have to introduce a judicial pensions requisite benefits order providing for one-half of the guaranteed accrued minimum pension in respect of service from 6th April 1978 for male members of the scheme, or since 6th April 1980 for female members of the scheme. A corresponding order was made in 1988 under the powers of the Social Security Act 1973, to which I referred previously. The only other comment I have to make on post-retirement marriages is that we are reflecting the conditions of the present scheme in this respect.
I turn now to the question of cessation of pensions on remarriage. That provision does no more than reflect the common practice of other public sector pension schemes, such as the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The scheme for Members of Parliament contains a requirement that a surviving spouse's pension terminates on remarriage but allows for that pension to be reactivated at the discretion of the trustees. However, the provision in the Bill represents an improvement on what was, until 1st January this year, the position in regard to the 1981 scheme. Before 1st January 1992 there was a total prohibition on pension payments to spouses who remarried. So the pension stopped on remarriage under the 1981 scheme until Section 80 of the Courts and Legal Services Act came along. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that Act with all its beneficial provisions. The latter was one of them. It modified the provisions of the earlier scheme to allow the Treasury
1226
to exercise a discretion as to whether the surviving spouse's pension should cease on remarriage and, should it cease payment of such payment, to reactivate it at any time. There have been no cases where the Treasury has been called upon to exercise that discretion since it was empowered to do so under the Act. Of course, it is open to consider what the conditions might be. I think that it is fairly obvious that the primary responsibility of the Treasury would be to have regard to the financial circumstances of the person in question.
As I said, the provision is the general one that we have in public sector pension schemes. In my submission, it is a very considerable improvement recently introduced on the former scheme and—this is quite important—without any additional charge to the judges. Therefore, the possibility of continuation was provided for in that way. I accept the point that the wife of a High Court judge, and indeed any judge's wife, has an important part to play in sustaining him in the difficulties of his office. That also applies the other way round: the husband, the spouse of a lady judge, has similar responsibilities. Perhaps I should also reassure my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner in that respect. He felt that the male judge was rather an endangered species. However, judging from the information that I have about the pool of those available for appointment, that danger is not a particularly imminent one.
The situation so far as concerns the amendment is that, on the present basis, I must tell your Lordships that it would not be proper to amend the scheme to include post-retirement marriages. If we wanted to do so, the consequence would be a resulting contribution increase. As regards the question of continuing pensions, I have explained that this is the general rule in the public service. It is a recent improvement in respect of the judges' scheme. Therefore, I invite your Lordships not to pass the amendment.
Lord Benson: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down can he perhaps help us on the point about the table?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, my Lords; I shall be happy to do what I can to provide a table. If the noble Lord, Lord Benson, cares to let me see the kind of table that he has drawn up, that would at least give me an indication of the heads that he wishes to cover. I have already provided some illustrations on the basis of the amendments about which I have been writing to a number of my noble and learned friends. If the House feels that it would be helpful—I think that perhaps it would—I shall do what I can to provide a table indicating the effect of the various provisions so far as they are capable of being reflected in ordinary figures.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated that if the amendments were passed it could only be on the basis that the judges would have to pay more because of the cost involved. With deep respect, that was an

1227
astonishing answer in the context of this Bill. Perhaps I may remind the House of what the Treasury are saving as a result of the main provisions of the Bill. The accrual period to earn the pension is increased from 15 to 20 years. In the Hansard report of last Tuesday's debate, it will be seen that I drew attention to table 7 in the last report of the Top Salaries Review Body which said that the pensions for judges and circuit judges represented 30 per cent. of what had to be paid to the judges. I drew attention to the fact that, as the accrual rate was increasing by 25 per cent., that meant that the Government were saving, potentially per judge,7.5 per cent. I was relieved to find—and this is also recorded in Hansard—that your Lordships commended me on my arithmetic. The saving of 7.5 per cent. is my starting point.
Let us take into account the other factors. The guarantee of one-quarter of the pension on becoming a High Court judge, and a little less for a circuit judge, has been removed. That is a great saving to the Treasury. The lump sum is to be capped. Anything over £ 75,000 will be subject to tax and probably almost always 40 per cent. tax. Another great saving, despite the fact that it has been in legislation for nearly 200 years, is that the pension will be based, not upon the salary being received at the moment of retirement—in other words, if one retired shortly after an increase in salary (those heady old days, no doubt) one's pension was based upon the new salary figure—but will now be averaged over one year.
We asked our consultant actuary whether he could assess the total savings to the Treasury with the Bill in its present form. He said it would be between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. without taking into account the last matter that I have mentioned; namely, the different basis for computing the pensionable pay. That is an important factor.
I believe that my noble friend referred to the tiny fraction which would be needed to fund what I suggested should occur. I believe that it was 0.5 per cent. Having arrived at 15 per cent. savings to the Treasury, one would have thought that there would have been no difficulty in bringing up this pension provision to something which is modern, but the sad position, which the House must bear very much in mind, is that the judges are being required—not that they resist—to retire five years earlier. That is an expensive process, as anyone involved in pension finances knows. One reduces significantly the pension age, and up go the costs. The judges are being obliged by the Government, no doubt urged on by public feeling, to bring down the age from 75 to 70. But, says the Treasury, you who are to suffer this disadvantage—it is a disadvantage not to be able to go on earning—and you must pay for it. Hence the round figure of 15 per cent. which I have mentioned.
This is a grossly inequitable system. The Government are in a position to afford to bring into primary legislation an up-to-date scheme. The name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is down to support the amendment. He authorises me to say that he much regrets that he cannot be here, but he fully supports the amendment. We have thus recorded that, so far as the judiciary is concerned, the
1228
age of chivalry is not dead. I hope that the same applies to the House. I do not withdraw my amendment.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,62; Not-Contents,106.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Benson, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brightman, L.

Lucas, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Norrie, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Geraint, L.

Renton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grantchester, L.

Russell, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alport, L.

Foley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Astor, V.

Gainford, L.

Barber, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Goold, L.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V.

Birdwood, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hothfield, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Joseph, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Knollys, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Leathers, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cox, B.

Long, V.

Cranborne, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Downshire, M.

Margadale, L.

Elibank, L.

Marlesford, L.

1229

Merrivale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Milverton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Terrington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wakeham, L.

Porritt, L.

Westbury, L.

Prentice, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Quinton, L.

Wise, L.

Renwick, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.70:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) A pension under this section shall be payable at such intervals, not exceeding three months, as the Treasury may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No.41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.6
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.71:
Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken on this matter but I believe that I did not inflict my remarks on one or two noble Lords who are now present. Before I ask for the view of the House on this matter I shall condense my remarks into one paragraph. If this amendment is not permitted the sound advice to every expiring judge must be, "Do not forget to tell your widow shortly to be, on no account to remarry because all you have spent on a pension for your widow will go down the drain." The expiring judge should say to his shortly-to-be widow, "Do not forget, darling, to live in sin." If he is one of the with-it judges, he should tell his wife not to forget to "shack up." I do not intend to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, needless to say I do not accept that description of the situation. I should point out that hitherto, until Section 80 came into force recently, a judge had to inform his shortly-to-be widow that there was no possibility of her receiving a pension if she remarried. Now the shortly-to-be widow will receive a pension unless the Treasury decides there is a good reason why it should not be paid.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm my understanding of what he said in his earlier speech? I thought he said that in other cases where the rule of
1230
discretionary withdrawal applied the Treasury had not exercised that power of withdrawal at all. Was I wrong in thinking that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that since this provision became part of the judicial pension scheme the Treasury had not been invited to exercise that discretion because no such case had arisen. No such case has arisen under this provision since it became part of the judicial pension scheme.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope I may comment on that reply. I wrote to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to ask him specifically in how many cases the Treasury had withdrawn its consent, and if so on what grounds. The answer to that question was as my noble and learned friend has just indicated. However, I asked what would be the grounds upon which the Treasury would exercise its discretion. That matter still remains a mystery. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,61; Not-Contents,95.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Benson, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brightman, L.

Margadale, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Meston, L.

Carnock, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Morris, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Colville of Culross, V.

Renton, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Barber, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bauer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cox, B.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

1231

Craigmyle, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Elibank, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Foley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Prentice, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harrowby, E.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hothfleld, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stewartby, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Liverpool, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
[Amendment No.72 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.73:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert ("and the pension equivalent of the lump sum referred to in section 4(1)).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, last Tuesday I involved myself in explaining to the House my new-found phrase in this field—"dynamisation." Dynamisation is a permitted means whereby the Inland Revenue allows you, if you do not use your last year's salary, to go back and choose any other period within the last 10 years and bring into play inflation. I put before your Lordships the desirability of that principle equally being applied to judges since it is applied elsewhere.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to say that he would consider that matter and it was not pressed. I overlooked the fact, and I apologise to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that with the dynamisation amendments which were to be found in Amendment No.49 went the consequential amendments which would take account of that particular situation.
The amendments here are not connected with dynamisation as I thought at one stage they were. They are concerned quite simply with the increase in the widow's pension in this manner. In the public sector the husband gets a pension based upon two-thirds of his final salary. That certainly applies to senior executives, who are properly comparable with judges. The widow gets two-thirds of the husband's pension. His pension (two-thirds) in the majority of
1232
cases is commuted so that he takes one half and a lump sum equal to three times his annual pension or one and a half times his final salary. Her pension of two-thirds is thus based upon his pension of two-thirds. Within those two-thirds is the option to commute.
The judicial pension is structured differently. That pension is one half of final salary and there is a statutory obligation for the rest to be made up by the lump sum. There is no option at all. The pension itself must be viewed not in isolation as merely half the annual salary but as half the annual salary plus the lump sum, which in the private field is roughly the equivalent of two-thirds of the final salary.
The widow's pension should follow what happens in the private sector. It is based upon a proportion of what the husband would have got. What I invite your Lordships to do is to say that the widow's pension should not be restricted to one half of the judge's pension because that overlooks the factor of the lump sum in the judge's pension. The widow's pension should be one half of the judge's annual pension together with the pension equivalent of the lump sum. The widow is thereby properly given one half of the husband's entitlement in the same way as in the private sector the widow gets two-thirds of the husband's entitlement; that is, two-thirds of two-thirds.
I apologise again to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor if I mixed this up when dealing with the consequential amendments on dynamisation. These are amendments that seek to increase the widow's pension by adding to her one half of the husband's annual pension the pension equivalent of the lump sum. In my respectful submission that is wholly equitable since it is designed to give the widow one half of the pension rights enjoyed by her husband. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understood that this was not connected with dynamisation so my noble and learned friend has no need to apologise in that regard.
This scheme provides the highest fraction of final pensionable pay for each year of service for spouses' pensions that can be found in the public sector. Pension is accrued at the rate of one-eightieth of the scheme member's salary for each year of his or her service. I have undertaken to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment to provide that in the event of death in service the calculation of pension will be enhanced by half the member's service potential to the age of 65. The accrual rate of one-eightieth is the same as for Members of Parliament and higher than that for any other group in the public service. As far as the private sector is concerned, I am informed that the accrual rate here is higher than that of more than 86 per cent. of members of private sector pension schemes. In most private sector pension schemes there is no question of index linking as in the public sector. That is a very important matter in relation to the widow's pension particularly if there is an interval between retirement and the death of the judge.
I believe that the scheme we have proposed offers a very good package for spouses, and rightly so, and it

1233
would not be proper to give effect to this amendment which, as I have suggested to your Lordships, is available only in relation to certain types of private sector schemes where generally speaking—perhaps not in all cases—there is no question of index linking. What I say is that what has been provided for judges' widows in this scheme is a very reasonable provision. I hope that your Lordships will not pass the amendment and that in the light of my explanation my noble and learned friend will feel he does not wish to press it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I much regret that I have omitted to bring with me the last report of the Top Salaries Review Body. I distinctly recall that it said that public service pensions had fallen behind pensions in the private field. It referred specifically to indexing and said in terms that in the majority of cases indexing was in practice carried out. It gave certain percentage figures, explained how it was operated and suggested that the indexing factor had lost a great deal of its attractiveness. I hope to bring that to the attention of my noble and learned friend either by correspondence or on Third Reading. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.76:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from ("pension") to end of line 39 and insert ("had he remained in that office until the age of 65 or until he had completed 15 years in his qualifying judicial office, whichever is the earlier.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not move Amendment No.76 because it has already been debated. It comes under the heading of the sickness provisions. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, I do not move it because he is bringing forward amendments on this subject at Third Reading. He gave us an assurance that they would come within the week before Third Reading.
[Amendment No.76 not moved.]
[Amendment No.77 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Grant and payment of a children's pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.78:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("during his service in such office").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the situation of orphans. At Committee stage I pointed out the harshness of the provisions and said I hoped it would give my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor food for thought. It apparently has done so because we have been informed that my noble and learned friend is to bring forward extensive amendments on the subject-matter of orphans at Third Reading. I respectfully ask that we may be given the same assurance that we shall get those amendments not later than a week before Third Reading, which I understand will occur a fortnight today. In those circumstances it may be more convenient for my noble
1234
and learned friend to address the House at this stage in order to ensure that I have correctly understood the position. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has said, I expressed some sympathy with these amendments when they were moved at Committee stage. I have considered the position carefully. I am pleased to be able to say that I undertake to amend the definition of "eligible children" contained in the Bill. In some respects I am prepared to go further than this amendment. I should like to see children's pensions payable to all children who are legitimate, adopted, or illegitimate children of the deceased, or his or her stepchildren at the time of death, provided that they were dependent and would have been so at the time pensionable service ended. A dependent child would include a child who was conceived before death but born afterwards. Children's pensions would be awarded to the child although payable to the widow, widower or guardian and would remain in force under the usual conditions whether or not the parents remarried.
That amply fulfils what the amendment seeks to do and confirms what my noble and learned friend said. I hope that I shall be in a position to put these amendments forward in good time, as I have said already, for the Third Reading.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I read in Hansard that the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to give an assurance in regard to some of these amendments that we would get them a week before the Third Reading. With humility, I think I am entitled to be somewhat insistent. There has been a period of four months between the Committee stage and Report. We have to consider to what extent we wish to amend—if we do amend—following what the noble and learned Lord puts forward. That takes time. We are entitled to have the amendments not later than one week before the Third Reading takes place. I hope that my noble and learned friend can give us that assurance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to ensure it. I cannot absolutely guarantee it but I certainly hope that it will be so. I undertook that in respect of an amendment mentioned last time. The position is that I may well be able to give more detail even earlier. Certainly I think that I shall be able to conform with what my noble and learned friend has said in so far as concerns this particular amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord finally sits down, I am sure that every part of the House is very grateful to him for the way in which he has considered this matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on that basis I shall not pursue the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.79 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.80 and 81:
Page 7, line 23, after ("pension") insert ("(a)").
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and

1235
(b) shall be payable at such intervals, not exceeding three months, as the Treasury may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No.41. With the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos.80 and 81 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.82 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Children's pension: meaning of "period of childhood and full-time education"]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.83:
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("rounding any resulting fraction of El up to the next whole £ 1").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is self-evident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rate of children's pension]:
[Amendment No.84 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Contribution towards cost of surviving spouse's and children's pension]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.85:
Page 9, line 39, at end insert ("and regulations may prescribe the minimum contributions which may be made by classes of persons holding qualifying judicial offices or other judicial appointments").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have not intervened earlier at Report stage since many points have been better covered by other noble Lords than I could have done. I do not have to declare an interest as I believe it unlikely that I shall come within the ambit of the Bill. Therefore I have no need to worry about that aspect.
I have spoken on some of these issues with a number of circuit judges. They have raised points with me which did not appear to be covered by any of the other amendments. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others have proposed to leave out Clause 9. I have a different point from those that the noble and learned Lord perhaps wishes to raise; namely, the amount that can be paid by a judge towards his relict (I suppose that is the right term) or spouse on his or her demise and to his children under Clauses 5 to 8.
The regulations will determine the contributions to he made. I seek from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor an explanation of how flexible the arrangements will be. It should not cost the Treasury anything because the contributions will be made from the judge's own salary. There should therefore not be any burden on the Treasury. I suggest that within reason it ought to be a matter for the judge himself or herself to decide how much is to be set aside, in addition to the automatic deductions, for the benefit of wife or husband and children.
The difficulty about regulations under this Bill, as your Lordships will see at the top of page 10 of the Bill, is that they do not come back at all to Parliament. Therefore if we do not discover what is in the Government's mind at this stage, we shall have no device whatever subsequently to debate the matter. I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend, whether or not I have given him the clue in the
1236
amendment, will be able to respond to what I have said and say how it is anticipated that the regulations will enable judges to look after their families by way of deductions from what they will anyway be paid. This is perhaps a different point from the noble and learned Lord's point. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is an amendment which I would certainly wish to incorporate in the Bill but for the fact that Clause 29(6) of the Bill already allows the regulations in Clause 9 to do what my noble friend wants. It is true that an amendment has been proposed to delete Clause 29(6). Should, by any chance, that proposed amendment be passed, I shall undertake at Third Reading to bring back an amendment on the lines that this amendment follows.
So far as concerns contributions, we intend to specify, on the basis of the consultation and the benefits provided under the scheme as amended by me at the moment, that the contribution should be 3 per cent. That is what we have in mind. There are powers in the Bill for members of the scheme to make additional voluntary contributions. I have undertaken to propose amendments to make that arrangement more flexible, to try to provide another route for those who may wish to add to their statutory pension provided under this Bill on a basis that allows tax deduction of the contributions. We propose 3 per cent. for the judicial contribution in respect of the benefits as specified by me with the amendments that I have undertaken to make.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that I am to understand that the regulations will simply specify 3 per cent. and nothing else? Do I understand that there will be no alternative option and we need to look to Clause 10 for any flexibility? If that is the correct understanding, I am content for the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judicial scheme provides a specific set of benefits. It is in respect of those benefits that the contributions are fixed. The Clause 10 provision will allow additional contributions in some situations. It is designed particularly to deal with the situation referred to by my noble and learned friend whereby people may go on the Bench not having, for one reason or another, made arrangements under the self-employed schemes, so that they will have little or no retained benefits. This is an option that I seek to provide for them under that clause.
I shall propose amendments to make that provision more flexible so that the Revenue may be able to allow us to use that provision more than might have been possible without the amendments.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, in that event, so far as concerns this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it. I do not know what other points may be raised on Clause 9 but I shall listen with interest to the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.86:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is my respectful submission that where the Government resort to primary legislation there is a heavy onus upon them to justify any provision which is clearly out of date. The obligation to make contributions in relation to widows and orphans is in that category.
My noble and learned friend has recently referred to the comments of the Top Salaries Review Body, which commented on my noble and learned friend's consultative scheme. Its views upon the obligation of judges to contribute towards the widows' and widowers' pensions is expressed in this form:
"Under the proposed scheme members will be required to contribute 3 per cent. of salary"—
I am not sure where that figure comes from—
"towards a widows' or widowers' pension. The Review Body considers this high for what it regards as the rather unimpressive benefit of ½ x the member's annual pension. Under modern private sector schemes, widowers' and widows' benefits are non-contributory. The Review Body believes that they should also be non-contributory under the proposed new judicial pension scheme; coincidentally this would avoid the need for contributions to be refunded to members who retire and have been single throughout their service, and the need for such members to refund those contributions if they marry during retirement".
My noble and learned friend brought in an independent consultant actuary to advise the Government, probably as a result of the suggestion made by the Top Salaries Review Body. The consultant was Mr. Alexander of Watson & Sons. This is what was said in paragraph 314 of his report on the subject:
"The requirement to pay contributions purely for spouse's pensions is very rare in the private sector, where it is seen as outdated and potentially inequitable between male and female scheme members and at odds with the trend towards widening the class of beneficiaries to include financial dependants. It is however not uncommon in the public sector".
We have heard the familiar refrain—"Ah, but the judges have the great concession of retained benefits". That was well known to both the TSRB and to Mr. Alexander of Watson's. In making their critical comments it would be inconceivable that they did not have regard to the value, if any, of that concession.
I now refer to the views of our own independent consultant, Mr. Wynne-Griffith, the senior partner of Barnett Waddingham. Again we have provided my noble and learned friend with a copy of the report and he has had it for some two months or more. Explaining the observation about the obligation being potentially inequitable between male and female scheme members, Mr. Wynne-Griffith says:
"I agree with the comments of the Independent Actuary that advised the Lord Chancellor's Department: there is serious inequality as between men and women. By way of example, the total cost of a widow's pension will be typically of the order of 2% of salary whereas the total cost of a widower's pension is much less, at only ½ % of salary—that is, the widow's pension costs 4 times as much as the widower's. (The reason for this is that women live longer than men and marry husbands older than themselves…) If the contribution is specifically for the spouse and children's pension then there is a serious risk of sex discrimination if a different rate is used for each sex".
In my respectful submission, that indicates, first, that there is to be put into primary legislation an
1238
outdated practice, which is clearly wrong; and, secondly, that it is a practice which involves inequality. If one applies different rates for the male judge as against the female judge there will be a sex discrimination offence. On the other hand, if one makes it the same it is inequitable because one requires the lady judge to subsidise the male judge, for the reasons Mr. Wynne-Griffith has given.
Again it may be said that that is what generally happens in the public sector. My answer to that is that if the public sector situation is out of date it should not be perpetuated. My second answer, in anticipation of your Lordships' comment that that means that the cost will fall on the Government, is that the percentages which have been provided by Mr. Wynne-Griffith show that that cost is well capable of being absorbed by the Government—2 per cent. or thereabouts—bearing in mind the approximate 15 per cent. saving which the Government will achieve through the downgrading of the judicial pension scheme in the manner which I have already indicated in my earlier submissions to your Lordships today. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I have no professional experience of this particular field. I am therefore governed by the advice given by the people who are experienced in the field, who know what they are talking about and know what happens in practice. We have that evidence in front of us. It has been given clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We know what the TSRB's views are. We know that the practice is very rare in the private sector. We know that in some public sector schemes no contribution is made. We have the advice of the independent actuary who advised the judges.
What I find so astonishing about this Bill—because this is not the first time it has happened—is that on so many occasions when experienced and independent advice has been given it has been ignored. I cannot understand that. There must be something wrong somewhere. This is another example. It seems to me to be another case of meanness, which appears to run as a theme through the whole of the Bill. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said earlier, Clause 9 of the Bill gives power to the appropriate Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to make regulations for the payment of contributions by judicial officers towards the cost of providing the surviving spouses' and children's pensions. The deletion of Clause 9 would remove from the Bill any means of requiring such contributions to be made.
I take the position that it is important to compare these arrangements with those of other public servants. I believe that in respect of contributions for spouses' and children's pensions, as in almost all other respects, the arrangements I propose for the judges are among the best which the taxpayer provides for public servants. Contributions for spouses and children are a common factor of nearly every public sector scheme. The rates at which they are levied, however, vary. Members of Parliament are charged 6 per cent., as are teachers, local government workers and employees of

1239
the National Health Service. The police and fire services are charged 11 per cent. The principal Civil Service scheme levies 1½ per cent. but over 40 years, which equates to the 3 per cent. which I propose at the moment to levy on members of this scheme. I believe, therefore, that the provisions of this scheme will be at the forefront of public sector schemes in this respect.
As regards the point made by my noble and learned friend about distinctions between men and women, I do not see that it would be a breach of any provision to make different arrangements for men and women provided that those differences can be justified. We have said that the arrangement that we are proposing is 3 per cent. but we shall look carefully to see whether in the ultimate regulations it may be possible to take some account of that. However, overall the provisions are intended not to be related particularly to specific cases, as I said earlier. Different people are in different circumstances but, generally speaking, it is wise to provide a single rate of contribution.
I could not advise your Lordships to accept this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for not using retained benefits as an argument to sustain the incorporation of this out-of-date provision in primary legislation. Therefore, I have only one point to answer; it is the insistence on saying that the proper comparison is with the private sector. That argument totally overlooks what was accepted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at an early stage in the debate on Tuesday; that the judges are sui generis. They spend most of their life in the private sector and are taken out of it at considerable financial sacrifice. Therefore, if there is to be a comparison they are entitled to be compared with what they would have achieved in the private sector if they had remained there and not to be treated as some would wish to treat them, I am ready to concede, as civil servants who had started their careers in their early twenties. The situation is wholly unsatisfactory and accordingly I maintain my request for this amendment.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,29; Not-Contents,93.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Benson, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Brightman, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Kissin, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cross, V.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Richard, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Templeman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

1240

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Lytton, E.

Barber, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bauer, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moyne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Nelson, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denman, L.

Prentice, L.

Downshire, M.

Prior, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Harrowby, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Howe, E.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 10 [Additional benefits from voluntary contributions]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No.87:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The first regulations under this section shall be made within three months of the date when this section comes into force.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, earlier this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and said that it contained beneficial provisions. One of the provisions which it contained—and it may or may not be beneficial—is the insertion into the old judicial pension scheme of a new arrangement which is more or less in exactly the same terms as those contained in Clause 10 of this Bill. That subsection stated:
"Regulations shall make provision entitling any member of a judicial pension scheme … to make voluntary contributions".

1241
Therefore, I am talking about voluntary contributions from a salary, or in addition to a salary, which will put a larger amount into the total pension fund available for the wife and children upon retirement or death.
The way that I have phrased this amendment requires regulations to be made. There is one difference between the 1990 Act and what is now in the Bill. In the Bill there is only a provision for regulations to be made on an optional basis. The Bill says "may" and in 1990 we said "shall".
The fact is that, as far as I am aware, despite the word "shall" being used no regulations have ever been made. Therefore, at the moment under the existing scheme it is not possible to make additional voluntary contributions at all; or that is the situation as I understand it. Not surprisingly, there is anxiety among some of the judiciary that the same thing will happen under this Bill; that although the Bill will say that regulations may be made, they will not be made.
I understand from what was said a little while ago by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he proposes to improve the terms which will be available to the judiciary under Clause 10. The problem with which I am confronted is that the channels of communication have not included myself; and if they have not included myself they have not included most of the circuit judges because they have been corresponding with me. The material of which they have sent me copies contains letters from my noble and learned friend's department which were immensely depressing as regards hope of any increase in flexibility under Clause 10.
If proposals are to be put forward on Third Reading, I shall welcome them, or I believe I should welcome them if I only knew what they were. If this Bill is to be properly considered in this House and, indeed, in another place, it is quite important that the members of the judiciary, who in due course will have the opportunity to elect to go into the scheme, know what it is that they have elected to go into. They cannot help Members of this House or another place if they are not told what is in store.
I believe that I am pushing at an open door with my noble and learned friend and that he will be prepared to tell us, at least in outline, what he has in mind by way of improvements in Clause 10, whether by regulation or as part of the drafting of the primary legislation, so that that can be looked at by the people concerned. The channels of communication will in any event have to move extremely quickly if we are to come to Third Reading in a fortnight's time. However, they can read what has been said in the Official Report and tomorrow will be able to apply their minds to it immediately on receipt of that document. We shall then be able to get a reaction from them. So far, I do not believe that they know what is in the mind of my noble and learned friend; and neither do I. As part of the operation of this House I ask my noble and learned friend to explain, and I ask him to explain also whether he will make regulations. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for enabling me to state the position. In the course of the proceedings I have indicated what I have in mind to do and I have not gone further than that because it is a rather technical situation. It is not enough to have provisions of this kind in primary legislation. In order to get the tax advantages which flow from this, one must be sure that the provisions are adapted sufficiently to enable the Inland Revenue to give the tax deductions in question when such contributions are made.
I believe that the depressing correspondence to which my noble friend referred dealt with the position of additional voluntary contributions under the 1981 Act. As part of the consideration I have given to this Bill I have felt it necessary that that facility should be available. We have heard a good deal about tax positions and I do not wish to go into that again in detail. However, it was pointed out to us that there may be people who do not have retained benefits. If people do not have retained benefits, or do not have much in the way of retained benefits, it is possible that the revenue would allow contributions under that provision.
On Third Reading I am proposing to make the necessary amendments to Clause 10 to make available that facility provided that the retained benefits are taken into account, in the sense that the facility would not be available to take the person in question above the revenue limits if the retained benefits were taken into account. The idea is to provide for those who, for one reason or another, may not have retained benefits. That is what I propose to do to this clause on Third Reading.
I understand the spirit of the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I am anxious to do exactly as he wants. His amendment would not help the cause which he wishes to espouse because the clause needs to commence before anything can happen under it. Therefore, even if this were added to it, while the clause has not commenced it does not operate. I intend to have regulations ready whenever the clause comes in so that it can be immediately and fully used.
Since last summer judges have been able to make the full provisions but at the beginning we found it difficult to devise an AVC scheme simply for derivative benefits—for spouses and children's benefits. We are now in a situation in which I believe that that will be possible. In order to facilitate the use of that power by the judiciary, I shall need to make some amendments on Third Reading. I hope that that explains the situation sufficiently to my noble friend.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I believe it does. I certainly understand that the implications are complicated and would need to go into some kind of subordinate legislation. I do not suggest for a moment that my noble and learned friend would avoid bringing those in by not activating the section. I believe he is aware that the device I used was simply to

1243
call attention to the fact that there was no such provision under the 1990 Act and that people had been waiting for it.
I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be able to do as he promised earlier with amendments tabled from the Cross-Benches, and give a little notice of what he proposes in more detail. It sounds as though it is exactly what everybody has been asking for. But the correspondence was not in regard to the 1990 Act. It was in the context of what was contained in Clause 10 of the Bill. At the stage when the correspondence took place it was nothing but gloom and pressure and not the matters about which my noble and learned friend told the House this afternoon. I believe therefore that some of the details should be circulated among those who will seek to take advantage of them. They can then be considered and decisions made as to whether or not they overtake what was previously thought to be the situation.
I do not invite my noble and learned friend to say anything further unless he wishes to. I am sure that he will bear in mind that those concerned do not know the details which are involved and that they need to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor My Lords with the leave of the House and on the invitation extended to me by my noble friend, perhaps I can say that there was a stage at which a great deal of doom and gloom existed in this area. It required a good deal of consideration to overcome that. I believe that we have now been able to overcome it in such a way as to make the facility possible within the limits I described.
The difficulty is that when the whole situation is covered by the retained benefits system, which certain levels of the judiciary particularly have said that they appreciate, the Inland Revenue has not been anxious to allow further tax advantages in other ways. I therefore sought to produce a facility for those who may not be in a particularly advantageous position with retained benefits to obtain the benefit of the new tax advantage. It is in order to make that possible that I need to produce amendments. I shall certainly table them as soon as I can. There are a large number. When we have done that we shall seek to communicate with the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that further explanation. It will be read with interest. I believe that in the context of our discussions both on Tuesday and this afternoon anything that can be done to increase the potential for a tax-free pension for those who do not possess large retained benefits will be all to the good.
The thrust of the debate so far has been that people will need to be appointed to the judiciary younger and therefore the ones who come in under the new scheme are likely to have accrued fewer retained benefits. The point we are discussing at the moment could be one of the most important discussed at Report stage.
The comments of my noble and learned friend are extremely relevant and I hope will bring a certain amount of relief. I hope, from what he has said and what he will be able to make clear before Third Reading, will enable everybody to grasp what is on
1244
offer. So far as I can, I shall ensure that they see a copy of his words. Anything else that he is able to do by way of communication with the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges will be extremely welcome, though I shall not press him further on that tonight. I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Provisions against pensions under two or more judicial pension schemes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.88:
Page 11, line 2, after ("applies") insert C, or would, apart from section 13 below, apply,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.88 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.90 and 91. The purpose of these technical amendments is to clarify the position of those judicial officers who would be members of the new scheme were it not for the fact that they had opted out under the provisions of Clause 13, or had opted out under previous judicial pension schemes and had that choice protected by the provisions of Clause 13(8).
The amendment brings such persons within the prohibitions of Clause 11(1) on accruing or receiving benefits from their former judicial pension schemes so long as their elections to make personal pension arrangements remain in force. Any such person will of course have any rights he accrued under his previous pension scheme frozen in that scheme until retirement or until he is transferred into the new scheme should the officer at any time elect to enter into it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.89:
Page 11, line 3, after ("scheme") insert (", apart from that constituted by section 19 below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.89 is intended to make it clear that the top-up scheme constituted under Clause 19 of the Bill is not one of the judicial pension schemes referred to in the clause. The provisions of the clause are not, of course, intended to prohibit any member of the new scheme from accruing rights under, or deriving pension benefit from, the Clause 19 top-up scheme, and the amendment seeks to make that clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.90 and 91:
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("those accrued rights") and insert (", in the case of a person to whom this Part applies, any such rights which he may have").
Page 11, line 21, after ("applies") insert (", or would, apart from section 13(8) (a) below, first apply,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.90 and 91 were spoken to with Amendment No.88. With your Lordships' leave I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Transfer of rights of persons holding qualifying judicial office before commencement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.92:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("made for the in") and insert ("under").
The noble and learned Lord said: moving Amendment No.92, I shall Amendment No.93. The amendments promote the flow of the language drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.93:
Page 11, line 40, after ("be") insert ("so").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.94:
Page 11, line 44, after ("scheme") insert ("constituted otherwise than by or under this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.94 is another purely clarificatory amendment to make plain that the expression "judicial pension scheme" is not referring to any judicial pension scheme established under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Election for personal pension instead of judicial pension]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.95:
Page 12, line 16, after ("applies") insert (", or to whom it would apply apart from this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.95, I shall speak also to Amendment No.96. Both amendments are drafting amendments. They again address the situation of persons who have elected under the new scheme, or under a previous judicial pension scheme, to make personal pension arrangements for themselves. Amendment No.95 makes plain that the clause applies not only to those to whom Part I of the Bill applies, but also to persons who have chosen their own personal pension. Amendment No.96 simply incorporates a cross-reference to the provision already included at Clause 1(4) which states that, so long as an election under Clause 13 remains in force in respect of a judicial officer, Part I of the Bill shall not apply to him. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.96:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("and, in accordance with section 1(4) above, where a person makes an election under this section, he shall not he regarded as a person to whom this Part applies at any time when the election is in force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.97:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.97, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.98,99 and 101. They are purely drafting amendments. Throughout subsections (8) and (9) reference is made to "the corresponding enactments". They are the provisions of the Acts and instruments concerning other judicial pension schemes (to which persons who may become eligible to enter into the new scheme currently belong) which enable a member of those schemes to opt out and make
1246
personal pension arrangements. Because some of those provisions are not contained in statute, the term "enactments" is inappropriate. The amendments replace it wherever it occurs in this clause with the more accurate term "provisions". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.98 and 99:
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("provision").
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.98 and 99 were spoken to with Amendment No.97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.100:
Page 13, line 24, after ("Tribunal") insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment to correct a typographical error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.101:
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No.97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Application of this Part to holders of the office of Lord Chancellor]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.102:
Page 13, line 46, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) In determining the appropriate annual rate of a pension payable under section 2 above to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above who either—

(a) was holding the office of Lord Chancellor immediately before the appointed day, or

(b) first held that office on or after that day,

the length of his service in qualifying judicial office shall be treated as increased by the aggregate length of his periods of service in the office of Lord Chancellor (excluding any day of service in that office which is also a day of service in qualifying judicial office).
(3) Where a pension under the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 is, or would, but for his death, have been, paid to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above (so that no derivative benefits are payable to or in respect of him under this Act) Part II of the 1981 Act shall continue to have effect with respect to the derivative benefits, within the meaning of that Part, which are payable to or in respect of him by virtue of his service in the office of Lord Chancellor, and shall do so notwithstanding anything in section 11 or 12 above.
(4) Except as provided by subsection (3) above, no pension or other benefit shall be paid under that Part of that Act to or in respect of a person to whom this Part applies.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to correct and clarify the drafting of the clause, not to alter the policy. At present the holder of this office has the choice between taking a pension under the special provisions of the Lord Chancellor's Pension Act and, should he be appointed to a subsequent judicial office, the 1981 Act. Following implementation of this Bill, of course, the

1247
choice will be between the 1832 Act and the new scheme. Whereas at present a former Lord Chancellor who opted for a 1981 pension could aggregate his service in the office of Lord Chancellor with his other judicial service, the clause as drafted has inadvertently omitted to include provision for this under the new scheme. The amendment rectifies that error.
The new subsections (3) and (4) are intended to put beyond doubt the fact that a former Lord Chancellor will only be entitled to receive benefits under one or other pension scheme. Derivative benefits in respect of the 1832 scheme are governed by the 1981 Act and the Bill will not alter that arrangement.
As noble Lords will see, this provision affects the position of the Lord Chancellor, but it is intended to ensure no change to the present situation. I possibly have an interest in these matters notwithstanding that.
I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches have no intention of calling a Division on this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his great generosity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Circuit judges: the Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.103 to 108:
Page 14, line 5, after ("Subject") insert ("to sections 1(6) above and (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) below and").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("(a)").
Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("accordingly-").
Page 14, line 11, leave out ("accordingly").
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("Parts II and III") and insert ("section 7").
Page 14, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) service as a Circuit judge by virtue of holding either of those offices shall not be regarded as service in qualifying judicial office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to modify the clause so that, although the Bill will continue not to affect the present arrangement whereby the Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant are paid and pensioned by the City of London, the way is left open for those offices to be added to the list of qualifying judicial offices in Schedule 1 at some time in the future should it become necessary to do so. I also take the opportunity in these amendments to correct the reference to the City of London (Courts) Act 1964. The amendments also ensure that the holders of the City offices do not qualify for a pension under the new scheme in respect of their service in those offices by virtue of the fact that the Recorder and Common Serjeant are declared to be circuit judges under the provisions of the 1971 Courts Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary]:
[Amendment No.109 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.110:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales
(".—(1) This section applies in any case where—

(a) an order under section 1(6) above amends Schedule 1 to this Act by the addition of any office ("the office") to those for the time being specified in that Schedule; and

(b) immediately before the coming into force of the order, a local authority was under a liability to defray, whether in whole or in part, pensions or other benefits payable in respect of service in the office.

(2) Where this section applies, the appropriate Minister may by order made with the consent of the Treasury—

(a) provide for the local authority to be discharged, to such extent as may be prescribed, from the liability to pay pensions or other benefits in respect of such service in the office as may be prescribed; and

(b) require the local authority instead to make prescribed payments to the Treasury.

(3) In framing the provisions of an order under subsection (2) above, regard shall be had to the desirability of securing so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) that the payments required to be made by the local authority are such as to reimburse the Treasury in respect of so much of—

(i) any pension or lump sum payable under Part I above, or

(ii) any sums payable by way of pension or lump sum under section 19 above,

to or in respect of any person to whom Part I above applies as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to his service in the office; and
(b) that the local authority is discharged, to a corresponding extent, from the liability to pay any pension or other benefit to or in respect of such a person in respect of his service in the office.
(4) In this section—

"local authority" means any county council, district council, London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London;

"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under subsection (2) above

.
(5) Nothing in this section applies in relation to any pension or other benefits payable under or by virtue of section 10 above.
(6) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 29 below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No.161. This new clause is consequential upon the provision in Clause 1(6) that new offices may from time to time be added to the list of qualifying judicial and other offices in Schedule 1. This clause deals with the financial arrangements which will have to be made where an office is salaried and pensioned by a local authority before it comes within the new scheme. Where the local authority in question is still to pay the officer's salary, the new clause enables an order to be made holding the local authority liable for reimbursing the Consolidated Fund for that part of the officer's pension derived from the salary which will continue to be paid to them by the local authority. The Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant whom we were discussing a moment ago are offices for which this might be appropriate were they at some point to come within the new scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Transfer of accrued benefits]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.111:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert ("(other than any such transfer which falls to be made under section 12 above)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely makes it clear that the provisions of Schedule 2 deal only with the transfer of accrued rights to and from pension schemes other than judicial pension schemes. The transfer-in to the new scheme of accrued rights from the judicial pension schemes of persons who hold qualifying judicial office prior to the commencement of the Bill will of course be determined by regulations made under Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of accrued benefits]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.112 to 114:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert:
(""contracted-out scheme" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, Part IV of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; ")".
Page 27, line 26, at end insert:
(""guaranteed minimum pension" has the same meaning as in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; "member", in relation to a scheme, means a person to whom Part I of this Act applies or has applied; ").
Page 29, line 11, after ("the") insert ("Commissioners of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are purely drafting amendments. They introduce definitions of the terms "contracted-out scheme", "guaranteed minimum pension" and "member", all of which appear in Schedule 2, into the interpretation paragraph of the schedule and correct the references to the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I make this point with great diffidence because if it is a point to be made he would have made it so much better. Is it not the desire of this House, in approving legislation or being responsible for it, that as little reference back as possible has to be made by those who read the Bill? Therefore, is it possible, when talking of a definition, actually to give it unless it is too complicated or too long? It would then be unnecessary to say to the person reading the Act that, for example, "contracted-out scheme" means what it says by way of definition in,
"Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and, in relation to Northern Ireland, Part IV of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; ").
It is not always easy for the practitioner and certainly not the layman to go back and find these orders and statutes in order to get a definition. I appreciate that if there is something very complex in a definition it is not the most simple way to refer to it in an Act by referring to it in terms. However, where there is no such complication—I do not think that there is in this case—is it not better parliamentary draftsmanship to give the actual definition in the Bill without forcing on the reader the research which is necessary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in general terms I would accept that. In the context that one has here, looking at the schedule it will be seen that it is intended
1250
to be read, because it is dealing with transfer-in values, against the background of other legislation. So in order to be familiar with the schedule and its operation, one has to have in mind the principal provisions of, for example, the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or, as regards Northern Ireland, the corresponding legislation. In that case the person already has ex hypothesi that in front of him or her so it is rather senseless to repeat the definition. It is a question of judgment. I accept the point in general, but in the particular circumstances of these amendments I would have thought that parliamentary counsel have chosen the right method although it would not be for me to pass judgment on that. I have to accept what he has done is what a skilful person would do.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Corresponding minor amendments to other pensions enactments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.115:
Page 33, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.116:
Page 17, line 16, at end insert:

("(f) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland;

(g) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;

(h) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No.121. The purpose of these amendments is to bring the three offices listed into the new pension scheme on the same terms as the equivalent offices in the rest of the United Kingdom. In doing so, I undertake to bring forward some further short technical amendments at Third Reading to deal with appeals on questions of pensions administration from these officers and other consequential matters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Pensions for senior public investigative officers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.117 and 118:
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("Part)") and insert ("Act)").
Page 40, line 27, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are drafting amendments the purpose of which is to make it clear that there is only one definition of the term "appropriate annual rate" used in the Bill and that this is the rate that shall apply to a Comptroller and Auditor General who elects to enter the new scheme. With your Lordships' leave, I shall put the amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.119 and 120:
Page 42, line 49, at end insert:

1251
( ) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect only in relation to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as substituted by Part II above; and accordingly in any case where—

(a) a person makes an election under paragraph 2(1) (a) of that Schedule for the old judicial scheme there mentioned, and

(b)the former enactments mentioned in paragraph 6 of that Schedule continue to apply by virtue of that paragraph,

the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above shall be disregarded in the continuing application of section 107 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in relation to those former enactments as they continue to have effect in relation to that person and that scheme.").
Page 43, line 20, at end insert:
( ) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above have effect only in relation to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as substituted by Part II above; and accordingly in any case where—

(a) a person makes an election under paragraph 2(1) (a) of that Schedule for the old judicial scheme there mentioned, and

(b) the former enactments mentioned in paragraph 6 of that Schedule continue to apply by virtue of that paragraph,

the amendments made by sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above shall be disregarded in the continuing application of section 107 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in relation to those former enactments as they continue to have effect in relation to that person and that scheme.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, both are purely drafting amendments designed to preserve the position of health service commissioners appointed before the Bill comes into force. They relate to the numbering of paragraphs to Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and ensure that, in relation to those officers who elect to continue under their present arrangements, the old paragraph numbering will subsist and not be affected by subsequent modifications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.121:
Page 43, line 20, at end insert:
("PART IV THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
5.—(1) The Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 shall he amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In Article 2(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "the appointed day" after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "(except in Article 4A)".
(3) In paragraph (4) of Article 4 (pension of the Comptroller and Auditor General), after the words "Northern Ireland" (where they occur for the second time) there shall be inserted the words "unless he elects under Article 4A for it to be treated otherwise".
(4) After that Article there shall be inserted the following Article—"
Pension of Comptroller and Auditor General: supplementary
4A.—(1) This Article applies to a person—

(a) who first holds office on or after the appointed day as the Comptroller and Auditor General; and

(b) who, immediately before he first holds that office, is a member of a judicial pension scheme.

(2) A person to whom this Article applies shall be entitled to elect between—

(a) the scheme of pensions and other benefits under the judicial pension scheme mentioned in paragraph (1) (b) (his "former scheme");

1252

(b) (if different from his former scheme) the scheme of pensions and other benefits constituted by Part I of the 1992 Act ("the 1992 scheme"); and

(c) the scheme of pensions and other benefits applicable under the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to the civil service of Northern Ireland ("the civil service scheme");

and, if he fails to make an election under this paragraph, he shall be treated as if he had elected for the civil service scheme.

(3) Where a person elects under this Article for his former scheme, that scheme shall, subject to regulations under this Article, apply as if his service as Comptroller and Auditor General were service which was subject, in his case, to that scheme.

(4) A person who elects under paragraph (2) (b) for the 1992 scheme, shall be entitled, when he ceases to hold office as Comptroller and Auditor General, to a pension under Part I of the 1992 Act at the appropriate annual rate (within the meaning of that Act) if he has held that office for at least 5 years and either—

(a) he has attained the age of 65; or

(b) he is disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of the office;

and, subject to the following provisions of, and regulations under, this Article, the provisions of Part I of that Act (other than sections 1(1) to (3) and 2) and of section 19 of that Act (which provides benefits in respect of earnings in excess of pension-capped salary) shall apply in relation to him and his service in the office of Comptroller and Auditor General as they apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of that Act applies.

(5) Subject to regulations under this Article, in the application of provisions of the 1992 Act by virtue of paragraph (4), a person who elects for the 1992 scheme shall be treated—

(a) as if the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General were a qualifying judicial office (within the meaning of that Act) by virtue of inclusion among the offices specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act;

(b) as if his election under this Article were an election such as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of section 1(l) of that Act (so that, in particular, section 12 of that Act, which provides for the transfer of accrued rights into the scheme, applies); and

(c) as if his pension by virtue of this Article were a pension under section 2 of that Act (and, accordingly, a judicial pension, within the meaning of that Act);

and, in the application of that Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General (whether by virtue of paragraph (2) (a) or (b)) the references to the appropriate Minister in sections 5(5) (c) (rate of deceased's pension where he died before it became payable) and 13 (election for personal pension) of that Act shall be taken as references to the Treasury.

(6) Where a person elects under this Article for the civil service scheme, Article 4(4) shall apply in relation to his service as Comptroller and Auditor General.

(7) Any power to make an election under this Article shall be exercisable within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations under this Article.

(8) The Treasury may make regulations for purposes supplementary to the other provisions of this Article.

(9) Any such regulations may, without prejudice to section 38 of the Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 or section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (employment in more than one public office), make special provision with respect to the pensions and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person to whom—

(a)his former scheme,

(b)the 1992 scheme, or

(c)the civil service scheme,

applies, or has applied, in respect of any service other than service as Comptroller and Auditor General.

1253

(10) The provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (9) includes provision—

(a) for aggregating—

(i) other service falling within his former scheme or the 1992 scheme with service as Comptroller and Auditor General, or

(ii) service as Comptroller and Auditor General with such other service,

for the purpose of determining qualification for, or entitlement to, or the amount of, benefit under the scheme in question;

(b) for increasing the amount of the benefit payable under either of the schemes mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) (i), in the case of a person to whom that scheme applied in respect of an office held by him before appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General, up to the amount that would have been payable under that scheme if he had retired from that office on the ground of permanent infirmity immediately before his appointment.

(11) Regulations made under this Article shall be subject to annulment in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

(12) Any pension or other benefit granted by virtue of this Article (except a pension or other benefit under the civil service scheme) shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

(13) In this Article—

"the 1992 Act" means the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992;

"the appointed day" means the day on which Part IV of Schedule 4 to the 1992 Act comes into force;

"judicial pension scheme" means any public service pension scheme, as defined in—

(a) section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, or

(b) Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975,

under which pensions and other benefits are payable in respect of service in one or more qualifying judicial offices, within the meaning of the 1992 Act, but does not include the civil service scheme."

PART V
THE NORTHERN IRELAND PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION AND THE NORTHERN IRELAND COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS
6.—(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (3) of section 2 (power to determine the pension and other benefits payable to person who has held office as Commissioner) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B))".

(3) After subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—"

(4A) Subsection (3) shall not apply in relation to pension and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person who first holds the office of Commissioner on or after the day appointed for the coming into force of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992.
(4B) The provisions of Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the pensions and other benefits to be paid to or in respect of persons who have held office as Commissioner."

(4) In subsection (5) of that section, at the end there shall be added the words "or by virtue of Schedule 1A".

(5) In subsection (6) of that section, at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Except insofar as Schedule IA otherwise provides".

1254

(6) Immediately before Schedule 1 there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 1A PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS
Persons taking office after the appointed day
1. A person who first holds office as the Commissioner on or after the appointed day shall be entitled, if he was a member of a judicial pension scheme immediately before he first holds that office, to elect between—

(a) the scheme of pensions and other benefits under that judicial pension scheme (his "former scheme");

(b) (if different from his former scheme) the scheme of pensions and other benefits constituted by Part I of the 1992 Act ("the 1992 scheme"); and

(c) the scheme of pensions and other benefits applicable under Article 3 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to the civil service of Northern Ireland ("the civil service scheme");

and, if he is not entitled to make an election under this paragraph, or if he is so entitled but fails to make such an election, he shall be treated as if he had been so entitled and had elected for the civil service scheme.
Transitional provision for persons appointed before the appointed day
2. If a person who held the office of Commissioner before the appointed day has made an election under the former enactment for the old judicial scheme, he shall be entitled to make an election under this sub-paragraph between—

(a) the old judicial scheme; and

(b) the 1992 scheme;

and, if he fails to make an election under this sub-paragraph, he shall be taken to have elected for the old judicial scheme.
Effect of election to continue in farmer scheme
3. Where a person elects under this Schedule for his former scheme, that scheme shall, subject to regulations under this Schedule, apply as if his service as Commissioner were service which was subject, in his case, to that scheme.
Effect of election for the 1992 scheme
4.— (1) A person who elects under paragraph 1(b) or 2(b) for the 1992 scheme, shall be entitled, when he ceases to hold office as Commissioner, to a pension under Part I of the 1992 Act at the appropriate annual rate (within the meaning of that Act) if he has held that office for at least 5 years and either—

(a) he has attained the age of 65; or

(b) he is disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of the office;

and, subject to the following provisions of, and regulations under, this Schedule, the provisions of Part I of that Act (other than sections 1(1) to (3) and 2) and of section 19 of that Act (which provides benefits in respect of eatninigs in excess of pension-capped salary) shall apply in relation to him and his service in the office of Commissioner as they apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of that Act applies.
(2) Subject to regulations under this Schedule, in the application of provisions of the 1992 Act by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), a person who elects for the 1992 scheme shall be treated—

(a) as if the office of Commissioner were a qualifying judicial office (within the meaning of that Act) by virtue of inclusion among the offices specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act;

(b) as if his election under this Schedule were an election such as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of section 1(1) of that Act (so that, in particular, section 12 of that Act, which provides for the transfer of accrued rights into the scheme, applies); and

1255

(c) as if his pension by virtue of this Schedule were a pension under section 2 of that Act (and, accordingly, a judicial pension, within the meaning of that Act);

and, in the application of that Act to the Commissioner (whether by virtue of paragraph 1(a) or (b) or 2(b)) the references to the appropriate Minister in sections 5(5) (c) (rate of deceased's pension where he died before it became payable) and 13 (election for personal pension) of that Act shall he taken as references to the Treasury.
Effect of election for, or to continue in, the civil service scheme
(5) Where a person elects under this Schedule for the civil service scheme, the principal civil service pension scheme within the meaning of Article 4 of the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and for the time being in force shall apply as if his service as Commissioner were service in employment in the civil service of Northern Ireland.
Effect of election to continue in the old judicial scheme
(6) Where a person elects under this Schedule for the old judicial scheme, that scheme and the former enactment shall continue to have effect in relation to him and his service in the office of Commissioner.
Time for, and manner of, election
(7) Any power to make an election under this Schedule shall he exercisable within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations under this Schedule.
Regulations
8.— (1) The Treasury may make regulations for purposes supplementary to the other provisions of this Schedule.

(2) Any such regulations may, without prejudice to section 38 of the Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 or section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (employment in more than one public office), make special provision with respect to the pensions and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person to whom—

(a) his former scheme,

(b) the 1992 scheme,

(c) the civil service scheme, or

(d) the old judicial scheme,

applies, or has applied, in respect of any service other than service as Commissioner.

(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) includes provision—

(a) for aggregating—

(i) other service falling within his former scheme, the 1992 scheme or the old judicial scheme with service as Commissioner, or

(ii) service as Commissioner with such other service,

for the purpose of determining qualification for, or entitlement to, or the amount of, benefit under the scheme in question;

(b) for increasing the amount of the benefit payable under any of the schemes mentioned in paragraph (a) (i), in the case of a person to whom that scheme applied in respect of an office held by him before appointment as Commissioner, up to the amount that would have been payable under that scheme if he had retired from that office on the ground of permanent infirmity immediately before his appointment.

(4) Regulations made under this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

Pensions and benefits to be charged on the Consolidated Fund
9. Any pension or other benefit granted by virtue of this Schedule (except a pension or other benefit under
1256
the civil service scheme or the old judicial scheme) shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Interpretation
10. In this Schedule—

"the 1992 Act" means the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992;

"the appointed day" means the day on which Part V of Schedule 4 to the 1992 Act comes into force;

"the former enactment" means the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints (Pension) Order (Northern Ireland) 1973 as it had effect from time to time before the appointed day;

"judicial pension scheme" means any public service pension scheme, as defined in—

(a) section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, or

(b) Article 2(2) of the Social Security
Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975,

under which pensions and other benefits are payable in respect of service in one or more qualifying judicial offices, within the meaning of the 1992 Act, but does not include the civil service scheme;

"the old judicial scheme" means the scheme of pensions and other benefits set out in Part II of the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints (Pension) Order (Northern Ireland) 1973."

7.— (1) The Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (2) of section 2 (remuneration), at the end there shall be added the words "or payable by virtue of Schedule 1A".

(3) In subsection (3) of that section, at the beginning there shall be inserted "Except insofar as Schedule 1 A otherwise provides".

(4) After that subsection there shall be added—

"(4) The provisions of Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the pensions and other benefits to be paid to or in respect of persons who have held office as Commissioner."
(5) After subsection (1) of section 13 (power to make provision by order) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to pension and other benefits payable to or in respect of a person who first holds the office of Commissioner on or after the day appointed for the coming into force of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."
(6) Immediately before Schedule 1 there shall be inserted as Schedule 1A the Schedule set out in paragraph 6(6) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.116. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Retirement date for holders of certain judicial offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.122:
Page 17, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person holding any of the offices for the time being specified in Schedule 5 to this Act (a "relevant office") shall vacate that office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 or such lower age as may for the time being be specified for the purpose in the enactments and instruments relating to that office, whenever passed or made.

1257

(1A) Any reference in this section to a person's holding an office includes a reference to his being a member of, or otherwise included in, any panel or list of persons appointed, nominated, approved or otherwise selected to serve from time to time in that office (whether or not the panel or list is required by or under any enactment); and any reference in this section or Schedule 5 to this Act to any particular office or to an office of any class or description, or to a person's appointment to, or vacation of, an office, shall be construed accordingly.

(1B) Subject to the transitional provision referred to in subsection (8A) below, subsection (1) above applies whether the person was appointed to the office before or after the coming into force of this section; but nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by it, shall be taken—

(a) to preclude a person from vacating his office before the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case; or

(b) to prevent a person's appointment to an office coming to an end before that date, in accordance with the terms on which he was appointed.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this amendment, I should explain that this is part of a series of amendments which serve to restructure the provisions of the Bill relating to the new retirement age. At present, transitional provisions are included in Clauses 25,26 and 27. On looking at these provisions, it was decided that it would be a considerable improvement to the uses of the Bill if the transitional provisions were taken out of the individual clauses and put into a new transitional schedule. That is what we have sought to do. I shall speak to the new schedule later. As a result Clauses 26 and 27 have been discarded and the substantive provisions are now confined to Clause 25 and to the new clauses to which I shall refer in due course. There are few changes of substance, but I hope that this restructuring will help to make the Bill easier to follow. I hope that your Lordships have found the Note for Peers, distributed in advance of today, a helpful pointer to these changes.
This particular amendment serves two purposes. The first is to clarify and improve the drafting of Clause 25(1). The substance of subsection (I) is now split more conveniently into two separate subsections. Subsection (1) states the general proposition that a holder of a relevant office must retire at 70. Subsection (1B) provides that this does not prevent earlier retirement or termination of appointment in accordance with the terms of appointment.
The new subsection (1A) is a further refinement. In a number of instances—for example, that of deputy High Court judges—appointment is made not directly to the office in question but to a list or panel. Then, when there is need, a person from that panel is selected to serve. In the case of a deputy High Court judge, I settle the terms with the panel and the judge in charge of the day-to-day operation of the courts selects a person from that panel to serve on a particular case. However, except when he is so sitting, that person cannot be said to be holding a relevant office. This amendment therefore makes clear that the new retiring age nevertheless applies to those appointed to a panel. Through its application to the transitional schedule, it also enables those on the panel at the date of commencement to have the benefit of the preserved retirement age. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this may be a most ignorant query, but when reading the amendment on its own I wondered whether the first three lines, which talk in terms of the automatic vacation of the office on the day on which the age of 70 applies, will cover the situation which we know applies in other parts of the Bill whereby anybody sitting on the very day on which he obtains the age of 70 is obviously allowed to continue and to finish the case on which he is engaged. As I have said, I may have missed something, but I am wondering why this clause does not contain a reference to "subject to the provisions or' whatever the other clause may be.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have christened the new provision a "Magnus Magnusson" provision for obvious reasons. I believe that it will be effective in covering cases of this kind as well as those cases which might more naturally fall under it. Since the noble Lord has raised this question, I shall check it in a quieter moment, but that is certainly what I understand the position to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.123:
Page 17, line 36, at end insert ("except—

(a) Lord of Appeal in Ordinary;

(b) judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, other than Circuit judge;

(c) Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Justice Clerk or other judge of the Court of Session;

(d) Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or Lord Justice of Appeal, or judge of the High Court. in Northern Ireland.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when we debated the retirement provisions of this Bill in Committee my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and others raised the question of the propriety of having a continuation power in respect of the judiciary, and especially the judiciary of the High Court typically in England and Wales—I am taking that for illustrative purposes—because of the judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court.
Your Lordships will also remember that at that stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice was of the view that it would be right to have this power subject to consultation with appropriate members of the judiciary. I was disposed to accept that suggestion from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and, in fact, we put into action the drafting to take account of that.
The resulting amendment proved to be quite complicated because of the desire to select an appropriate person or persons for consultation. However, since then, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has been to see me about this and other matters, along with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Benson. At that time, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner placed particular emphasis not only on the possibility of a judge being affected by the possible exercise or non-exercise of this power by the Lord Chancellor, but also on the perception that people

1259
might have. Seeing him or her operating, they might well be prepared to think that his or her judgment would be influenced by these provisions.
I believe 1 am right in saying that the point about perception had new force for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and he felt inclined at that stage to think that we might be wiser to proceed without the power of continuation at that level. Having considered the matter carefully, and taking account of the fact that this will not operate effectively for quite some time, I thought it right to give effect to that point of view.
We have powers of continuation in a number of other situations. Circuit judges have been subject to this power for some time without any objection that I know of. I would hope that I shall have to exercise it more and more sparingly. I exercised the power some time back when it was difficult to get circuit judges. The position has eased and I am not now required to exercise it generally in respect of circuit judges. The real objection is in respect of judges of the High Court and above in connection with judicial review. Therefore, I have excepted judges of the High Court and above in England and Wales, judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and judges of the High Court and above in Northern Ireland from any power of extension vested in the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No.123 and Amendments Nos.143 and 144 have that effect.
In the light of the discussions we have had I believe that this is an improvement to the Bill. It saves the power where it might be of some use but would not cause damage and removes it altogether in cases where it might cause damage—to perceptions would be the main emphasis. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may express my considerable gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having accepted in substance what I and now the Lord Chief Justice put forward very firmly. I have found some comfort—perhaps he will find some comfort too in the views which we expressed and which he has now adopted—in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Despatch of Business at Common Law 1934– 36, Cmnd.5065, under the chairmanship of Earl Peel. In paragraph 283 the report makes this observation:
"A discretionary power to extend a judge's tenure of office for a limited period—not exceeding, say, three years—would be of undeniable value in cases where it is desirable in the public interest to retain his services. But our witnesses"—
there were many judges—
"were strongly of opinion that, if a limit there is to be, it should be rigid: and since a conditional extension of office might conceivably be thought to endanger, in however small a degree, the independence of the judges, it is perhaps better on the whole that the retiring age should be inflexibly applied".
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth, put in a separate note because he did not agree with the retirement age. But he said this:
"The time limit—if any—for the age of High Court judges should be an absolute one and fixed, in my judgment, at 75. Any discretion, whether exercised by the Lord Chancellor or a Committee, would be invidious and difficult to carry into effect".
It may be of some comfort to my noble and learned friend's department to know that Sir Claud Schuster,
1260
who I believe was one of the most distinguished Permanent Secretaries, also put in a note which, in so far as it is relevant, says this:
"I concur fully with them"
those are the reasons for fixing the age at 72
"that if there is to be a retiring age it should be fixed and not in the discretion of any person or body".
I thought that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor might wish to see that there is some support, going back some years, for the propositions which we put forward.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the concession which he has made. Nothing I say is intended to derogate from it or to suggest that the consultations with my noble and learned friends the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Ackner have not been very fruitful.
I want to suggest that there may be a little danger here of throwing out a very small baby with this bath water. I appreciate the general structure of the new clause. It retains the power in relation to circuit judges where it is useful in practice but abandons it in relation to judges of the higher courts. I just wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would like to think a little more about the situation of High Court judges, and I refer not to judges of the Court of Appeal or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
There may well be cases where a particular judge—a commercial judge or a patents judge—is expert in a subject and yet his place cannot be filled for some time. The obvious successor may be busy on something else or may not be willing to accept the post for some time. I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there is not a case for enabling him, after consultation no doubt with the head of the division—any constitutional safeguard that may be thought fit—to extend the office of that judge in those circumstances.
I appreciate two points. First, I entirely understand that it would be possible to call that judge back after retirement to enable him to continue with his work. That would not be quite the same thing, because he would then be sitting as a retired judge, with a different title and a different status. That would not be the same or quite as good as enabling him for, say, one year to continue as a High Court judge, a judge of the Court of Session or of the High Court in Northern Ireland while the place was not capable of being filled.
As regards the citations by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner from the Peel Committee, those have very great force. But I would understand them rather as dealing with the possible situation that the Lord Chancellor might think fit to extend Judge X because he was so good, so lively and so possessed of his powers on a personal basis beyond the age of retirement. The case for not doing that is extremely strong and was probably the case with which both the committee and Lord Hanworth, the Master of the Rolls, were dealing. They might not have applied the same argument to the case which I envisage of a specialist judge required to fill a specialist place for a particular time. The commercial court is the strongest case but there may be others. It is difficult sometimes to find exactly the right man at the right time to fill

1261
those important and specialist posts. That should be met, if it can be done, by enabling someone to remain there for one period only—there would be no renewal from year to year—until a successor can be found.
I am entirely willing to accept the amendments on the Marshalled List but I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would not think fit, after consultation, to consider the case I have put and possibly confer a power to continue a judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. The power is useful in the case of circuit judges. It is exercised sometimes. On the face of it, it seems a little odd that a circuit judge can continue but not a High Court judge. There are constitutional arguments on one side and the arguments which I have ventured to put on the other. I simply invite, with the utmost respect, the noble and learned Lord to consider my point before the next stage of the Bill or before it goes to another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House always listens with the utmost respect to any contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, but I must say that I was very content with the judgment which appears to have been exercised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor after the consultations and meetings which have taken place with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Once one starts making an exception one is on very, very dangerous ground. I merely cite as an example a judge who until just before he reaches that age is a specialist and no other specialist is immediately available. Once one creates a precedent by exercising this power one has to be extremely offensive, if nothing else, to the judge in that position if it so happens that he is not at the retiring age very suitable for an extension. I make the mere point that once one starts making an inroad into this rigid rule one walks into very dangerous areas.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene only because I agree so strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said. When this provision appeared in the Bill it caused the most extraordinary consternation. What it did was to upset the separation of powers which is at the basis of the British constitution—the judiciary, entrenched in its independence, its salaries paid out of the Consolidated Fund and not from Votes of Parliament or, as was the case at one time, through grants by the Government. That this independence should be impaired by the Lord Chancellor being given the right to continue a particular judge in office, thereby rewarding him by increasing his right to earn his pension, the pensionable period now being increased to 20 years, was a dangerous proposition.
Moreover, it could not be judged without recollection of a very unfortunate episode which culminated in a scene in your Lordships' House in the 1930s. That was caused by the Lord Chancellor's Department attempting to alter the rules of seniority in the Court of Appeal. At that time there were only two divisions in the Court of Appeal of which the
1262
second, the Common Law Division, was presided over by the senior common law judge. That was proposed to be altered at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The object was to prevent Lord Justice Slesser from presiding over the Court of Appeal division. In itself, that was perfectly comprehensible because Lord Justice Slesser should never have been in the Court of Appeal at all; he was merely appointed to get him out of the way—he having previously been a law officer—so that some very distinguished parliamentary lawyers, including Sir William Jowett and, at one removed, Sir Stafford Cripps, could be appointed law officers.
Lord Justice Slesser went in great distress to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, knowing that the latter was on notoriously bad terms with the then Clerk of the Crown in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Lord Hewart came down to your Lordships' House and made a protest. There was a clash between him and the Lord Chancellor. Such naked intervention by the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Cabinet, in the independence of the judiciary, was not to be endured. That is the first thing that one recollected.
The second thing, I am sorry to say, is the Green Papers which preceded the Courts and Legal Services Bill. They were considerably modified after trenchant criticism of their unconstitutionality by my noble and learned friend Lord Lane. So there are already dangers which ought to have stopped the insertion of this provision. In addition, there was what was said by the Peel Commission. In view of those three matters, how was it that this unconstitutional provision ever appeared in the Bill? How was it that the damascene flash of constitutional light only descended on my noble and learned friend last week? The matter was raised with vigour both on Second Reading and in Committee.
I make these remarks only with reference to the proposition of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. If there is to be a very limited power—and it would require careful delimitation—to increase the term of office before retirement of a High Court judge, it should be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice and not by the Lord Chancellor.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that it is necessary for me to go into the detail of what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has just said. However, I hope that the appropriate change to make here is the one that has been proposed. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce raised a particular question. I should point out that it was consideration of that sort of possibility at different levels—that is, not just at the High Court level—that originally caused me to consider that this might be a power worth having, but, of course, properly safeguarded.
After consideration, including hearing the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, I have concluded that the exception would not be necessary. We have now sought to extend the number of specialist judges in the High Court. There is still one

1263
very specialist jurisdiction and one has to be careful to make provision for it. But, so far as concerns the patent jurisdiction, we now have, for example, a number of judges nominated for the patents court. I believe that that is a good change in its own right. For one thing it makes it more likely that people who go to the Court of Appeal will have some knowledge of the specialist areas, as well as being generalist. Therefore, the chance of precisely the situation that my noble and learned friend has figured arising is considerably lessened.
The other consideration that I have is that if there was any very specialist person in view, the absence of any power to except him or her would, I believe, concentrate the mind considerably in advance on trying to see who should be ready to replace that specialist. My main point is that, nowadays, the narrowness of specialist numbers has been somewhat alleviated. Therefore, the situation is not likely to arise in quite the critical way that my noble and learned friend suggested. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to him for raising the matter. I shall reconsider it in the light of what he said. I am also comforted by the fact that he made the proposal. It encourages me to think that one very distinguished judicial mind felt that this was a type of power that might, in some circumstances, be quite properly inserted in our legislation.
Subject to my undertaking to reconsider what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, I renew my request that your Lordships should agree to Amendment No.123.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.124:
Page 17, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will be apparent from what 1 have already observed that this amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No.124 not moved.]
Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.125:
Page 18, line 1 leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for similar reasons I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No.125 not moved.]
[Amendment No.126 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.127:
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment removes an unnecessary word. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No.127A:
Page 18, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert:
("(b) be a member of an Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or, as a Lord of Appeal, take part in a judicial sitting of the House of Lords, unless (in either case) he is the Lord Chancellor; ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest amendment which I moved substantially in
1264
Committee merely because sub-paragraph (b) appears to be defective and does not achieve what it is meant to achieve. No doubt for that very reason my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington was prepared to move its deletion. I should have been happy if it had been deleted.
I need not repeat the arguments. I am sure that they are fully in the mind of my noble and learned friend. The sub-paragraph does not do what it means to do; that is to say, disqualify persons over the age of 75 from sitting as judges of appeal. It only prevents them from being counted towards the quorum of three which that section of the Act requires. I was minded to approach this matter head on—to go for the jugular—instead of going around in a circle, and to provide directly, as the amendment does, that one should not be eligible to sit as a Lord of Appeal in the House of Lords after attaining the age of 75. It was pointed out in Committee that there were two objections to my amendment as then drafted. The first was that it did not cover the possibility that an appeal might be heard in the Chamber instead of upstairs.
As your Lordships know, appeals may be heard in the Chamber in three circumstances: after dissolution; during prorogation; or just because the House is not sitting in its legislative capacity and it is thought fit to have hearings in the Chamber. I have amended the clause to deal with that position.
Your Lordships may wonder whether the words,
"take part in a judicial sitting",
are sufficiently legal. I have checked that against the official Minutes of the House when it does sit in the Chamber and the Minutes record the House as then having a judicial sitting, so the words have at least an official imprimatur. I hope that those words cover the objection made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge that I did not cover such cases. I also deal tentatively with the case of the Lord Chancellor. I hardly presume to deal with his case because he would be much the better person to deal with it himself. Having preserved the Lord Chancellor's position 100 per cent., I feel that I have done my duty. If he feels that the amendment goes too far, my noble and learned friend will no doubt say so.
I commend the amendment to the House. I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept it. It is merely a helpful suggestion designed to make the sub-paragraph more effective. It has no effect on judicial pensions, the retirement age or otherwise, and it is totally uncontroversial. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his consideration of the point. I too have been considering it. We have come to the conclusion—I hope to propose an amendment on Third Reading—that the best way to deal with the point is to provide that no one over 75 (other than the serving Lord Chancellor) is eligible to hear any appeal (or petition for leave to appeal) to the House of Lords.
My noble and learned friend's proposal covers most of those matters, but it leaves open the possibility of dealing with a petition for leave to appeal, if that were heard by the Appellate Committee. Having

1265
considered the matter, the way I am now advised it should be dealt with may be slightly simpler than the route taken by my noble and learned friend.
That said, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has proposed. If he is willing to allow me to propose my amendment on Third Reading, I shall be grateful. I should be pleased to know whether that course is acceptable to him.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. The course that he suggests is entirely appropriate. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I dealt in Committee with leave to appeal to the Appellate Committee. I did not feel it necessary to include that case because, in practice, those over the age of 75 are never asked to sit on Appeals Committees. Of course there are no statutory provisions with regard to them. If my noble and learned friend sees fit to add them, I should have no objection. I am content to leave the matter to him. I am content to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move Amendment No.142A which goes with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.128:
Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("1978") to end of line 25.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It simply removes a reference to the prohibition of a person over the age of 75 holding office as a deputy judge in Northern Ireland. The amendment raises no point of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.129:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert:

("(f) act as a deputy, or as a temporary additional officer, under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 by virtue of subsection (3) of that section (persons who would otherwise be disqualified by age);

(g) hold office as a deputy district judge in any district registry under subsection (1) of section 102 of that Act by virtue of subsection (3) of that section (persons who would otherwise be disqualified by age) or, in the case of a person who has previously held the office of district judge for a county court district, as a deputy district judge under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984;

(h) hold any office—

(i) to which appointments are made by or under any Act or statutory instrument;

(ii) for which there would, apart from this paragraph, be no compulsory retirement date; and

(iii) for appointment to which only persons who have held relevant office are eligible; ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 25(5) as drafted cites a number of statutory provisions under which persons who have retired from full-time office may sit on a part-time basis and introduces an age limit of 75 for that purpose. The amendment adds three further such statutory provisions to the scope of Clause 25(5).
In addition, sub-paragraph (f) provides that Clause 25(5) shall apply also in respect of persons sitting
1266
under any other provision of a similar kind otherwise not specifically referred to in the clause. That is intended to catch anything we may not have so far lighted upon. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.130:
Page 18, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) After the day on which a person attains the age of 70, he shall not be appointed or re-appointed as—

(a) one of the additional members, referred to in subsection (5) of section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, of the appeal tribunal established under that section;

(b) the person, or one of the persons, constituting a tribunal for the purposes of section 150(3) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, or as an assessor assisting such a tribunal;

(c) an assessor assisting with an inquiry under section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970;

(d) chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland constituted under regulation 7 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979;

(e) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986;

(f) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 28 of the Banking Act 1987;

(g) an arbitrator, or (in Scotland) an arbiter, under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989;

(h) chairman of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992;

(i) chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides a further aspect to the ever-expanding Clause 25. It deals with what may be termed "one-off" appointments. There are a few tribunals to which people are appointed, not to hold office for a term, but merely to deal with a particular case. That is because the tribunal itself is only constituted to hear specific appeals. It happens with the additional members I appoint to the tribunal established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.
In view of the fact that those people are not appointed for a term but only for specific purposes, on reflection we felt that it was not appropriate for them to be subject to the statutory retiring age. Instead, we have included this provision which prevents appointment or re-appointment to any one of the offices beyond the age of 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.131:
Page 18, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No.131 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.139 and 146. Amendment No.131 deletes Clause 25(6) and paves the way for the new clause provided by Amendment No.139. This is what my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson described during the debate in Committee as a "Magnus Magnusson provision".
Your Lordships will recall that Clause 25(6) referred to existing statutory provisions under which those who have otherwise ceased to hold certain posts may nevertheless continue to act in order to complete unfinished business. The posts so covered by the existing provisions are a fairly haphazard collection and I mentioned in Committee that I was

1267
contemplating a more general provision. Having considered the points made on that occasion, I have indeed decided to bring forward the new clause which provides that anyone who has otherwise ceased to hold office otherwise than by virtue of his removal may continue to act to complete unfinished business. The offices to which this will apply are listed in subsection (3) of the new clause, and subsection (2) provides for the remuneration of those acting in that way.
On further reflection, I have also decided that for this limited purpose there should be no age limit, so that the limit of 75 in the earlier Clause 25(6) will no longer be applicable. I hope that this new clause will help to meet the concerns that were expressed on the earlier occasion and provide appropriate flexibility in relation to the limited circumstances with which it deals. Amendment No.139 simply amends Section 9(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, consequentially upon the new clause and the repeal of Section 9(7) of that Act.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.132 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.133 and 134:
Page 18, line 42, leave out ("either Part of")
Page 18, line 44, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Schedule")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos.133 and 134 together with Amendment No.142 is to correct and simplify Schedule 5. The schedule provides a list of those offices to which the new statutory retiring age of 70 years will apply. Originally it also served a transitional purpose; namely, to enable those holding full-time appointments only prior to this Bill to carry their preserved retirement ages to a new post. To that end the schedule was divided into two parts covering full and part-time offices. As I will be bringing forward a new schedule covering all transitional arrangements, the need for the two separate parts to Schedule 5 has gone, and I propose to replace it with a simple list of all the relevant offices regardless of whether they are full or part-time.
Most of the substance of the schedule is still the same but your Lordships will notice some slight variations. Upon further scrutiny it was discovered that Schedule 5 contained a few offices that should not be there, for example the office of part-time district judge. We have corrected that schedule. Likewise I have not thought it appropriate to include offices where I do not make the appointment myself such as non-legal members of the Foreign Compensation Commission or where people are appointed for very short periods, like the three-month terms of acting stipendiary magistrates or on an ad hoc basis like the Electricity Arbitrator. I have also removed the reference to the vice president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal as this is not a statutory office.
I do not propose to take noble Lords through all the changes. I have merely indicated changes occasioned by the kind of considerations that I have mentioned. I beg to move Amendments Nos.133 and 134 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.135 to 138:
Page 18, line 47, at end insert ("; but those amendments are subject to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement) below and Schedule (Retirement dates: transitional provisions) to this Act.
(8A) Schedule (Retirement dates: transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision in relation to persons holding relevant offices immediately before the appointed day; and—

(a) subsections (1) and (18) above are subject to the provisions of that Schedule; and

(b) any reference in this section to the compulsory retirement date for an office shall he construed in accordance with those provisions.").

Page 19. line I, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Page 19, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Page 19, leave out lines 34 to 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the new transitional provisions will be provided by Amendment No.160. The amendments I have moved, and also Amendments Nos.140 and 141, delete transitional provisions previously contained in Clauses 25,26 and 27 now reproduced in the new schedule. The transitional schedule provides that office-holders already serving at the date of commencement will retain their pre-existing retirement dates. Paragraph I contains definitions and provisions governing the interpretation of the schedule. I need not go into all the detail of that transitional arrangement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.139:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Completion of proceedings after retirement
(".—(1) Notwithstanding that a person has vacated or otherwise ceased to hold an office to which this section applies—

(a) he may act as if he had not ceased to hold the office for the purpose of continuing to deal with, giving judgment in, or dealing with any ancillary matter relating to, any case begun before him before he ceased to hold that office; and

(b) for that purpose, and for the purpose of any proceedings arising out of any such case or matter, he shall be treated as being or, as the case may be, as having been a holder of that office;

but nothing in this subsection shall authorise him to do anything if he ceased to hold the office by virtue of his removal from it.
(2) Where a person has vacated or otherwise ceased to hold a qualifying judicial office but the office in question is one to which this section applies, then, notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, any remuneration that may be paid in respect of service of his in that office by virtue of that subsection shall be remuneration by payment of fees (and not a salary) and accordingly that service shall not be regarded as service in qualifying judicial office.
(3) The offices to which this section applies are—

(a) any relevant office, within the meaning of section 25 above;

(b) any office falling within any of the paragraphs of subsection (5) of that section;

(c) (Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals;

(d) Vice Judge Advocate General;

(e) Assistant Judge Advocate General;

(f) Deputy Judge Advocate;

(g) Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "potential retirement date" and "pre-commencement office" in section 25]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.140:
Leave out Clause 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Recorders and certain other periodical appointments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.141:
Leave out Clause 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Retirement provisions: the relevant offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.142:
Leave out Schedule 5 and insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE RETIREMENT PROVISIONS: THE RELEVANT OFFICES

Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

Judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, other than the Lord Chancellor

Deputy judge of the High Court

Lord President of the Court of Session

Lord Justice Clerk

Judge of the Court of Session

Temporary Judge of the Court of Session

Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland

Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Circuit judge

Sheriff principal or sheriff in Scotland

Temporary sheriff principal or temporary sheriff in Scotland

County Court judge in Northern Ireland

Deputy County Court judge in Northern Ireland

Master, Queen's Bench Division

Deputy or temporary Master, Queen's Bench Division, appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Admiralty Registrar

Deputy or temporary Admiralty Registrar appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Master, Chancery Division

Deputy or temporary Master, Chancery Division, appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court

Deputy or temporary Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

Taxing Master of the Supreme Court

Deputy or temporary Taxing Master of the Supreme Court appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

District judge of the principal registry of the Family Division

Deputy or temporary district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section.

Registrar of Civil Appeals

Deputy or temporary Registrar of Civil Appeals appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

1270

Master of the Court of Protection

Deputy or temporary Master of the Court of Protection appointed under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section

District judge (whether appointed under section 100 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984)

Deputy district judge appointed under section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a district registry

Deputy district judge appointed under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a county court district

Recorder

Assistant Recorder

Any appointment under section 70 or 75(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to an office from time to time specified in column 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act (statutory office) or any appointment under section 74 of that Act to act in any such office

Stipendiary magistrate in England and Wales

Resident Magistrate appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964

Deputy Resident Magistrate appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner (including appointments in pursurance of section 52(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992)

Chief or other Child Support Commissioner (including appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991).

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (including appointments in pursuance of section 50(2) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992)

Chief or other Child Support Commissioner for Northern Ireland (including appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991 as that paragraph has effect by virtue of paragraph 8 of that Schedule).

President of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals.

President of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals.

Chairman of child support appeal tribunals.

Chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of child support appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland.

Chairman of vaccine damage tribunals.

Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission.

Commons Commissioner.

President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) President of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland).

President or Vice-President of Industrial Tribunals and of the Fair Employment Tribunal (Northern Ireland).

Chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

Chairman of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

1271

Chairman of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed under section 3(1)(c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

Member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 135(2)(c) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

President of other member of the Lands Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

Judge Advocate General

Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet

president of Value Added Tax Tribunals.

Chairman of value added tax tribunals

Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970

Deputy Special Commissioner appointed under section 4A of the Taxes Management Act 1970

President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Immigration adjudicator

President or other member of Pensions Appeal Tribunals

Chairman or other member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal constituted under the Mental Health Act 1983

Member of the Financial Services Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor

Chairman of a tribunal constituted for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Chairman of an advisory body constituted for the purposes of section 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Appointed member of the Restrictive Practices Court, within the meaning of section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976

Chairman or other member of the tribunal constituted by section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Arbitrator appointed under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 11 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Chairman, deputy-chairman or other member of an Agricultural Land Tribunal (other than an assessor added to the Tribunal under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947)

President of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal

Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963

Chairman or deputy chairman of the Copyright Tribunal

Chairman or deputy chairman of the Data Protection Tribunal

Chairman of an Independent Schools Tribunal

President of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975

Chairman of the tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977

Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal constituted under the Registered Homes Act 1984

Chairman or other member of Rent Assessment Committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977

President or chairman of the Transport Tribunal

President of the tribunal established under section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949

Wreck commissioner appointed under section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970

Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee constituted under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.138. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid I am utterly lost with the grouping as explained by the noble and learned Lord as it differs entirely from that on the groupings list. I do not know why that should be so. I hope that my noble and learned friend will kindly indicate which amendment he will call next.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall call Amendment No.142A next.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Retirement dates for certain judicial offices]:
[Amendment No.142A not moved]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendments Nos.143 and 144:
Page 47, leave out lines 10 to 13.
Page 47, leave out lines 19 to 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No.123. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.145:
Page 47, leave out lines 23 to 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.145 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.147 to 159. These amendments operate to expand the scope of Schedule 6 so that it makes all the textual amendments to the statute book that are needed in consequence of the new retirement age provisions. We have sought to include the new provisions in every statutory provision that provides for these judicial offices. That is quite a large operation but it is an important one. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton, for example, who believes that textual amendment is wise, will support this proposal.
Schedule 6 contains a large number of such textual amendments so as to include references to the new statutory retiring age and the power to extend appointment up to the age of 75. There are also a few minor textual amendments that do not produce any changes of substance. I hope that the Note for Peers that I made available earlier will assist any of your Lordships who wish to look at the detail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.146:
Page 48, line 3, at end insert:
("(3) In subsection (6) (b) of that section (which refers to subsection (7) of that section, relating to the completion of proceedings after retirement), for the words "subject to subsection (7)" there shall be substituted the words "subject to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.131. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendments Nos.147 to 159:
Page 48, line 14, at end insert:
("Acting judges of the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
In section 7 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, in subsection (1) (which provides that certain judges and former judges may, at the request of the Lord Chancellor, sit as judges of the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland)—

(a) the words "at any time" shall be omitted; and

(b) at the end, there shall be added "at any time on or before the day on which he attains the age of seventy-five."")

Circuit judges
—(1) Section 17 of the Courts Act 1971 (retirement of Circuit judges) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) For subsection (1) (which requires a Circuit judge to vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72, subject to the possibility of extended appointment) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Subject to subsection (4) below and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75), a Circuit judge shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70."

(3) Subsection (2) (which contains power to continue a Circuit judge's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.")

(4) Subsection (3) (day on which certain persons are to be regarded as completing a year of service) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 48, leave out lines 42 to 46.
Page 49, line 31, at end insert:
("Officers of the Supreme Court
—(1) Section 92 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (tenure of office of certain officers of the Supreme Court) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In subsection (1) (certain Masters, Registrars and other officers of the Supreme Court to vacate office at the end of the completed year of service in which they attain the age of 72)—

(a) after the words "Subject to the following provisions of this section" there shall be inserted the words "and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) for the words from "at the end" onwards there shall be substituted the words "on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years".

(3) In subsection (28) (offices to which subsection (2A) applies) the words "and the office of Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals" shall he omitted.

(4) Subsection (2C) (which makes provision for determining the day on which persons who successively hold offices falling within column 1 of Part I or II of Schedule 2 to that Act are to be regarded as completing a year of service, and which is of no further utility) shall cease to have effect.

(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—"

(2D) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who holds an office to which this subsection applies shall vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of sixty-two years.

(2E) Subsection (2D) applies to the office of Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals."

(6) Subsection (3) (which contains power to continue a person's appointment to an office to which subsection

1274

(1) applies up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(7) In subsection (4) (offices to which subsection (1) or (2A) applies to be held during good behaviour) for the words "or (2A)" there shall be substituted the words ", (2A) or (2D)".

Deputy and temporary officers of the Supreme Court
In section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in subsection (3) (which permits certain appointments as a deputy or temporary officer to be made, notwithstanding that the person would be disqualified by age from holding the office in question) after paragraph (c) there shall be added—
"but no appointment by virtue of this subsection shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person in question attains the age of seventy five years."
Deputy district judges of district registries of the High Court
In section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, at the end of subsection (3) (which permits certain appointments as a deputy district judge of a district registry of the High Court to be made, notwithstanding that the person would be disqualified by age from holding the office in question) there shall he added the words "; but no appointment by virtue of this subsection shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person in question attains the age of seventy-five years."
District judges and deputy district judges of county courts
—(1) In section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984 (deputy district judges) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—"
(1A) Any appointment of a person as a deputy district judge—

(a) if he has previously held office as a district judge, shall not be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 75 years; and

(b) in any other case, shall not be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70 years, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."

(2) Section 11 of that Act (tenure of office of district judge etc) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(3) For subsections (1) and (2) (which provide for a person to whom subsection (1) applies to vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72) there shall be substituted—

"(1) This subsection applies to the office of district judge.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75), a person who holds an office to which subsection (1) applies shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years."

(4) Subsection (3) (which confers power to continue district judges etc in office up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Statutory officers in Northern Ireland
In section 71 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, for subsection (3) (which provides that a statutory officer, within the meaning of that Act, is to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72, but subject to the substitution of a lower age. under subsection (4)) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's

1275
power to authorise continuance in office beyond the age of 70, up to the age of 75), a statutory officer shall retire on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years."").
Page 50, line 36, at end insert:
("(6) In sub-paragraph (7) (which provides that nothing in sub-paragraph (2) or (4) applies to a Commissioner appointed before 23rd May 1980) the words "(2) or" (which are of no further practical utility) shall be omitted.").
Page 51, line 5, at end insert:
("Child support: Commissioners and chairmen of appeal tribunals
—(1) In Schedule 3 to the Child Support Act 1991 (child support appeal tribunals), in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3) (chairman of child support appeal tribunals to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) sub-paragraph (4) (which contains power to continue a chairman's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(2) In Schedule 4 to that Act (Child Support Commissioners), in paragraph 1—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (Child Support Commissioner to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)"; and

(b) sub-paragraph (2) (which contains power to continue a Commissioner's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

(3) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule (deputy Child Support Commissioners) at the beginning of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A)", and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—"

(2A) No appointment of a person to be a deputy Child Support Commissioner shall be such as to extend beyond the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."

(4) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Advocate before exercising certain powers under the Schedule) for the words "paragraph 1(2) or (3)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 1(3)".

Chairmen of child support appeal tribunals in Northern reland
In Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (child support appeal tribunals), in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3) (chairman of child support appeal tribunals to retire at the end of the completed year of service in which he reaches the age of 72) for the words from "at the end" to the end of that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words "on the date on which he reaches the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)", and

1276

(b) sub-paragraph (4) (which contains power to continue such a chairman's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission
In section 1 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (constitution of the Foreign Compensation Commission), at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of the chairman, to subsection (3A) of this section," and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The chairman of the Commission shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Commons Commissioners
In section 17 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (which includes provision for the appointment of Commons Commissioners) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(IA) A Commons Commissioner shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power of Lord Chancellor to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)." ").
Page 51, line 9, after ("tribunals") insert ("(England and Wales)").
Page 52, line 9, at end insert:
("Members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal
In Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (which includes provision concerning the tenure of office of those members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal who are appointed under section 135(2) (c) of that Act), in paragraph 2 (which provides that such a member may by notice resign his membership), after the word "member" there shall be inserted "(a)", and at the end of that paragraph there shall be inserted "; and
(b) shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70;
but paragraph (b) is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)." ").
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("(Northern Ireland) Act") and insert ("and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland)").
Page 53, line 37, at end insert:
("(2) In section 4A of that Act, at the end of subsection (2) (which provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a deputy Special Commissioner unless he is qualified for appointment as a Special Commissioner) there shall be added the words "(and, accordingly, no appointment of a person as a deputy Special Commissioner shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992)".").
Page 53, line 44, leave out from ("(3)") to ("shall") in line 45 and insert ("A member of the Tribunal").
Page 53, line 48, at end insert:
("Immigration adjudicators
In Part I of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971 (immigration adjudicators) in paragraph 2 (terms of appointment) at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph" and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(3) An adjudicator shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy, but subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."").
Page 54, line 15, at end insert:
("Mental Health Review Tribunals
In Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which makes provision with respect to Mental Health Review Tribunals), at the beginning of paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph 2A below," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"2A. A member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal shall vacate office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
The Financial Services Tribunal
In Schedule 6 to the Financial Services Act 1986, in paragraph I (which includes provision concerning the term of office of persons appointed to the panel from which persons are nominated to serve on the Financial Services Tribunal) at the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph," and after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be added—
"(3) A member of the panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Tribunals and advisory bodies under the Misuse of Drugs Ac 1971
—(l) Schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (which includes provision in relation to tribunals and advisory bodies established for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of that Act) shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In paragraph 1 (membership of tribunals) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—"
(2A) The chairman of a tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(3) In paragraph 13 (membership of advisory bodies) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted"
(1A) The chairman of an advisory body shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Restrictive Practices Court
—(1)In section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976 (appointed members of the Restrictive Practices Court), in subsection—(2)—

(a) at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"; and

(b) the words "(not less than three years)" shall cease to have effect.

(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—"(2A) No appointment of a person to be an appointed member shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years); ".
Tribunals constituted under section 706 of the Income and orporation Taxes Act 1988
Section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (appointment of a tribunal to hear appeals in connection with the cancellation of tax advantages from
1278
certain transactions in securities) shall be numbered as subsection (I) of that section, and at the end of that section there shall be added—
"(2) A person appointed as chairman or other member of the tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Arbitrator appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act 986
In Schedule 11 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which makes provision in relation to the determination by arbitration of matters arising under that Act), after sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph I there shall be added—
"(6) A member of the panel constituted for the purposes of this Schedule shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Agricultural Land Tribunals
—(1) Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947 (constitution etc of Agricultural Land Tribunals) shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In paragraph 13 (which relates to the chairmen of such Tribunals), in sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph,"; and

(b) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted "such period as may be specified in the terms of his appointment".

(3) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—"
(2A) No appointment of a person to be the chairman shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(4) Paragraph 14 (which provides for there to be a panel of deputy-chairmen for each such Tribunal) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—"
(2) A member of the panel of deputy-chairmen shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
(5) In paragraph 15 (which provides for there to be panels of persons representing farmers' and landowners' interests), after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—"
(IA) A member of either of the panels drawn up under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal
In section 42 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, at the beginning of subsection (5) (which makes provision in relation to the terms of appointment of the members of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) there

1279
shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (5A) below," and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(5A) No appointment of a person to be the president of the arbitration tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
In section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (appointment of a tribunal to hear appeals concerning bookmakers' levy) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words ", but subject, in the case of the chairman, to subsection (2A) of this section", and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The chairman of any such tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
The Copyright Tribunal
In section 146 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (membership of the Copyright Tribunal) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person who is the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
The Data Protection Tribunal
In Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 1984, in paragraph 8 (tenure of office of members of the Data Protection Tribunal), at the beginning of sub-paragraph (I) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph," and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(3) A person who is the chairman or a deputy chairman of the Tribunal shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Independent Schools Tribunals
In Schedule 6 to the Education Act 1944 (constitution etc of Independent Schools Tribunals) at the beginning of paragraph 3 there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of a member of the legal panel, to paragraph 3A below," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"3A. No appointment of a person to be a member of the legal panel shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
President of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975
—(1) In Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975, paragraph 6 (terms of appointment of members of a tribunal established to arbitrate in a dispute arising under that Act) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
(2) At the beginning of that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of the president of a tribunal, to sub-paragraph (2) below", and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) No appointment of a person to be the president of a tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70 years; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75 years)."
Tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977
In regulation 26 of the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 (tenure of office of chairman of Tribunal constituted under section 46 of the National Health Service Act 1977) at the beginning of paragraph (I) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph (I A)," and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The chairman shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, at the beginning of sub-paragraph (2) (tenure of office of chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2A) of this paragraph," and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(2A) No appointment of a person to he the chairman of the Tribunal shall he such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of 70; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of 75)."
Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal
In section 40 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, at the beginning of subsection (6) (terms of appointment of persons to the panels of chairmen and other members of Registered Homes Tribunals), there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of a person appointed to the legal panel, to subsection (7) below," and after that subsection there shall be added—
"(7) No appointment of a person to the legal panel shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Rent Assessment Committees
In Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977, after paragraph 2 (appointment by Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State of persons to constitute the panels from which the members of rent assessment committees are selected) there shall be inserted—
"2A. No appointment of a person to any panel by the Lord Chancellor shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which the person attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (Lord Chancellor's power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."")
The Transport Tribunal
—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 (tenure of office of judicial members) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) (judicial member to hold office until the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72 and then retire)—

(a) after the words "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph" there shall be inserted the words "and to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of the Judicial Pensions and

1281
Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five)"; and

(b) for the words "the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of seventy-two" there shall be substituted the words "the day on which he attains the age of seventy".

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) (which contains power to continue the member's appointment up to the age of 75 and which is superseded by section 25(2) to (4) of this Act) shall cease to have effect.

Tribunal established under section 9 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949
In Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, in paragraph 1 (period for which members of the appeal tribunal established under section 9 of that Act are to hold office) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) No appointment of a person to be the president of the appeal tribunal shall be such as to extend beyond the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years).
(1B) No person shall be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of seventy years to act as one of the additional members of the appeal tribunal under subsection (5) of section 9 of this Act."
Wreck commissioner
In section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 (appointment of wreck commissioners) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) A wreck commissioner shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this subsection is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee
In Schedule 2 to the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, paragraph 2 (composition of Reinstatement Committees) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and at the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) A member of the panel of persons referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (a) shall vacate his office on the day on which he attains the age of seventy years; but this sub-paragraph is subject to section 25(2) to (4) of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 (power to authorise continuance in office up to the age of seventy-five years)."
Tribunals constituted for the purposes of section 150(4) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954
In Schedule 3 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, at the end of paragraph 1 (constitution of tribunals to inquire into whether a certificate of competency granted under that Act should be withdrawn or suspended) there shall be added the words "; but no person shall be appointed—

(a) as the person, or one of the persons, constituting such a tribunal, or

b) as an assessor to assist any such tribunal,

after the day on which he attains the age of seventy years."

Courts of inquiry under section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970
In rule 5 of the Merchant Shipping (Section 52 Inquiries) Rules 1982 (appointment of courts of inquiry for the purposes of section 52 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970) after paragraph (3) there shall be added—
"(4) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to assist with a section 52 inquiry as an assessor."
Chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland
In regulation 7 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979 (constitution etc of vaccine damage tribunals), in paragraph (1B), at the end of subparagraph (a) (which provides for the chairman of a vaccine damage tribunal in Northern Ireland to be appointed by the Secretary of State) there shall be added the words "but no person shall be so appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70".
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986
In section 47 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (tribunals to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Building Societies Commission) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 28 of the Banking Act 1987
In section 28 of the Banking Act 1987 (tribunals to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Bank of England), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section."
Arbitrators appointed under Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989
In paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the Electricity Act 1989, after sub-paragraph (2) (appointment of arbitrator etc to determine third parties' claims for compensation arising out of certain transfers of property etc) there shall be added—
"(3) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be an arbitrator or arbiter under sub-paragraph (2) above."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992
In Schedule 3 to the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (tribunals to hear appeals in relation to the registration of school inspectors), at the end of paragraph 1 there shall be added—
"(3) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the Chairman of a tribunal."
Chairman of a tribunal constituted under section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992
In section 59 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (tribunal to hear appeals against certain decisions of the Friendly Societies Commission), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A person shall not be appointed after the day on which he attains the age of 70 to be the chairman of a tribunal under this section.").
Page 54, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 56.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos.147 to 159 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.160:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE RETIREMENT DATES: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Interpretation
1.—(1) In this Schedule—

"potential retirement date", in relation to any office, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below;

"re-appointment" to an office includes extension of a subsisting appointment to the office, otherwise than by the exercise of a continuation power.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's office—

(a) is "salaried" if and so long as his service in the office is remunerated by payment of a salary; and

(b) is "fee-paid" if and so long as his service in the office is remunerated by the payment of fees;

and any reference in this Schedule to a person's being "salaried" or "fee-paid" shall be construed accordingly.

(3) Subsection (1 B) of section 25 of this Act applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that section.

(4) Expressions used in this Schedule and in section 25 of this Act have the same meaning in this Schedule as they have in that section.

(5) This Schedule is without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4) of section 25 of this Act, but is subject to subsection (5) of that section and to section (Completion of proceedings after retirement)of this Act.

Salaried offices
2.— (1) This paragraph applies to any person who for the time being holds, or who is seeking appointment or re-appointment to, a salaried relevant office (in this paragraph referred to as his "post-commencement office"), if—

(a) immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that or any other salaried relevant office (in this paragraph referred to as his "pre-commencement office");

(b) he has at all times on and after that day held some one or other salaried relevant office (whether the same office or not); and

(c) his potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office falls later than the date that would, apart from this paragraph, be the compulsory retirement date for the post-commencement office in his case.

(2) If and so long as this paragraph applies to a person—

(a) nothing in section 25 of, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to, this Act shall—

(i) require him to vacate his post-commencement office before his potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office; or

(ii) affect his eligibility for appointment or re-appointment to the post-commencement office; and

(b) that potential retirement date shall be taken for the purposes of section 25 of this Act (and, accordingly, of this Schedule) to be the compulsory retirement date for the post-commencement office in his case.

(3) If a person has two or more pre-commencement offices (so that he would, apart from this sub-paragraph, have two or more potential retirement dates) his potential retirement date for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) shall be determined by reference only to that one of his pre-commencement offices to which he was first appointed, or

(b) shall be such later date, falling on or before the day on which he attains the age of 75, as may be agreed in writing by him and the appropriate Minister, determined by reference to that pre-commencement office;

and any reference in this Schedule to the person's potential retirement date by reference to his pre-commencement office shall be construed accordingly.
(4) If immediately before the appointed day—

(a) a person who holds a salaried relevant office ("office A") also holds another relevant office ("office B"), but

(b) in consequence of holding office A, he is either—

(i) unremunerated in respect of his service in office B, or

1284

(ii) remunerated by payment of a supplement, in respect of that service, to the salary payable in respect of his service in office A,

then, in determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above the number of pre-commencement offices which that person has, and to which of them he was first appointed, he shall be taken to hold office B at that time as a salaried relevant office and to have been so holding it at all previous times when the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) above were fulfilled.
Fee-paid offices
3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any person who for the time being holds, or who is seeking re-appointment to, a fee-paid relevant office, if—

(a) immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office as a fee-paid office;

(b) he has at all times on and after that day held that office as a fee-paid office; and

(c)his potential retirement date by reference to that office falls later than the date that would, apart from this paragraph, be the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case.

(2) If and so long as this paragraph applies to a person—

(a) nothing in section 25 of, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to, this Act shall—

(i) require him to vacate the office referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above before his potential retirement date by reference to that office; or

(ii) affect his eligibility for re-appointment to that office as a fee-paid office; and

(b) that potential retirement date shall be taken for the purposes of section 25 above (and, accordingly, of this Schedule) to be the compulsory retirement date for that office in his case.

Persons holding a relevant office by virtue of a continuation power
4. Where, immediately before the appointed day, a person was holding a relevant office by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, nothing in section 25 of this Act or this Schedule, and no amendment made by Schedule 6 to this Act, shall affect the continuing validity of that exercise of that power in relation to that person.
Ascertainment of potential retirement date
5.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's potential retirement date by reference to an office is—

(a) in a case where, immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office otherwise than by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, the day on which he would have been required by any enactment or statutory instrument to vacate that office, apart from this Act and apart from any continuation power;

(b) in a case where, immediately before the appointed day, he was holding that office by virtue of the exercise of a continuation power, the last day of the period for which he is authorised to continue in that office by virtue of that exercise of the continuation power; or

(c) in the case of an office to which any of the following sub-paragraphs applies (offices for which there was no compulsory retirement date before the appointed day, but whose standard terms of appointment are reflected in the provisions of the sub-paragraph in question), the day specified in the sub-paragraph as the appropriate day.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a salaried office—

(a) President or other member of the Lands Tribunal, or of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, set up under the Lands Tribunal Act 1949;

(b) Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts, appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(c) President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal;

1285

(d) Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission;

(e) Chief or other Commons Commissioner;

(f) Chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(g) Chairman of industrial tribunals or of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or appointed under section 3(1) (c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;

(h) President of Pensions Appeal Tribunals;

and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in that office in which the person attains the age of 72.
(3) In the case of the office of immigration adjudicator (whose usual terms of appointment, whether as a salaried or a fee-paid office, require the holder to vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of 70—

(a) this sub-paragraph applies only in those cases where, immediately before the appointed day, the office is held on terms which require the person in question to vacate it on the day on which he attains the age of 72; and

(b) where this sub-paragraph applies, the appropriate day is the day on which that person attains that age; and, accordingly, no person shall have a potential retirement date by reference to that office (whether held as a salaried or a fee-paid office) in any other case.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to the office of deputy judge of the High Court, as a fee-paid office; and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the day on which the person attains the age of 75.
(5) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a fee-paid office—

(i) in the case of appointments under subsection (1) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, each of the following offices—

(a) deputy or temporary Master, Queen's Bench Division;

(b) deputy or temporary Admiralty Registrar;

(c) deputy or temporary Master, Chancery Division;

(d) deputy or temporary Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court;

(e) deputy or temporary Taxing Master of the Supreme Court;

(f) deputy or temporary Registrar of Civil Appeals;

(g) deputy or temporary Master of the Court of Protection;

(ii) assistant Recorder;

(iii) chairman of social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals in England and Wales;

(iv) chairman of child support appeal tribunals, in England and Wales;

(v) Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission;

(vi) Commons Commissioner;

(vii) chairman of industrial tribunals, appointed in pursuance of regulations under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(viii) chairman of industrial tribunals or of the Fair Employment Tribunal, appointed in pursuance of regulations under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or appointed under section 3(1) (c) of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;

(x) Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts, appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(xi) deputy Special Commissioner, appointed under section 4A of the Taxes Management Act 1970;

(xii) President or other member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal;

1286

(xiii) President or other member of Pensions Appeal Tribunals;

(xiv) Chairman or member of a Mental Health Review Tribunal constituted under the Mental Health Act 1983;

(xv) member of the Financial Services Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor;

(xvi) chairman of a tribunal constituted for the purposes of sections 14 and 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;

(xvii) chairman of an advisory body constituted for the purposes of section 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;

(xviii) appointed member of the Restrictive Practices Court, within the meaning of section 3 of the Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976;

(xix) chairman or other member of the tribunal constituted by section 706 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

(xx) arbitrator appointed under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule II to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986;

(xxi) chairman or deputy-chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal;

(xxii) President of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal;

(xxiii) Chairman of a tribunal established by section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963;

(xxiv) chairman or deputy chairman of the Copyright Tribunal;

(xxv) chairman or deputy chairman of the Data Protection Tribunal;

(xxvi) chairman of an Independent Schools Tribunal;

(xxvii) president of a tribunal constituted under Schedule 3 to the Industry Act 1975;

(xxviii) chairman of the tribunal constituted under Schedule 9 to the National Health Service Act 1977;

(xxix) Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal;

(xxx) Chairman of a Registered Homes Tribunal constituted under the Registered Homes Act 1984;

(xxxi) President of the tribunal established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949;

(xxxii) wreck commissioner appointed under section 82 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970;

(xxxiii) Chairman of a Reinstatement Committee constituted under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985;

and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in the office in which the person attains the age of 72.
(6) This sub-paragraph applies to each of the following offices, as a fee-paid office—

(a) deputy or temporary district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division appointed under subsection (I) of section 91 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 otherwise than by virtue of subsection (3) of that section;

(b) deputy district judge appointed under section 102 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a district registry;

(c) deputy district judge appointed under section 8 of the County Courts Act 1984, except in a case where the person in question has previously held office as a district judge for a county court district;

(d) Deputy Resident Magistrate, appointed under the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964;

(e) member of an Agricultural Land Tribunal, other than chairman, deputy chairman or an assessor added to the Tribunal under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947;

(f) chairman or other member of Rent Assessment Committees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977;

1287
and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the last day of the completed year of service in that office in which the person attains the age of 70.

(7) This sub-paragraph applies to the office of member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 135(2)(c) of the Employment Protection (Consolidated) Act 1978, as a fee-paid office; and the appropriate day in the case of an office to which this sub-paragraph applies is the 31st March next following the day on which the person attains the age of 70.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are the new transitional provisions to which I have already referred when speaking to Amendment No.135. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Payments charged on Consolidated Fund etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.161:
Page 22. line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Any sums received by the Treasury under section (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.110. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulations and orders]:
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.161A:
Page 22, line 32, leave out from ("to") to end of line 33 and insert ("approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the regulation empowering clause, Clause 29. That clause has a largely formulaic appearance. Indeed it generally appears in that form on the computer in the draftsman's office.
The first amendment standing in my name, Amendment No.161A, deals with the only exception to that provision. Subsection (2) of Clause 29 lays down, all embracingly, the negative resolution procedure in respect of all the regulations to be made under the Bill. That of course is just a try-on. The Executive will always try, understandably, to get away with the minimum parliamentary control. That provision constitutes the minimum control in this Bill apart from the commencement regulation which Parliament always allows these days to be made without parliamentary control.
Quite clearly, a number of these regulations should have more parliamentary control than the negative resolution procedure. The matter was considered and the criteria were laid down by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1971– 72. The criteria appear in paragraph 46(1) of the report. Three or four alternative criteria which call for an affirmative resolution are propounded there. The first is important here, but so is the second where there are important financial regulation-making powers.
Your Lordships will remember that there were regulations affecting contributions under Clauses 9 and 10 and you will have in mind the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Quite plainly, those ought not to be made subject to the minimal negative procedure. The first is even more important. The Joint Select Committee's report, which was accepted in both Houses of Parliament, said that it should be the affirmative resolution procedure if the regulation effected substantial change in the law. The committee went on to say that it realised that "substantial" was a vague term and it defined what it meant by "substantial". It was anything that might be described as not trivial or tidying up or consequential.
It is quite plain that a great number of these regulations cannot possibly be described as trivial or tidying up or consequential. One has only to look at subsection (3) to see there reference to,
"transitional, consequential, supplementary or incidental".
Of those only "consequential" falls within the remit of the joint select committee's report.
At this point in most Bills a delightful pas de deux occurs between my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My noble and learned friend proposes, on behalf of a Government department, the minimum possible parliamentary control. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then expostulates that quite obviously a great many other provisions call for the affirmative resolution. My noble and learned friend then says,"Yes, that may be so. I would like to consider it" and comes forward with a better offer. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that that is not enough. They then get together and come to a compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, like any sensible lawyer, is generally content to settle for half and I myself would do so in this case. I have provided for an affirmative resolution in all cases. That is because, at this late stage of the Bill, if my noble and learned friend were to say that he agrees that there should be an affirmative resolution in respect of some of the regulations and that he will discuss the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should be content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No.161B is largely probing because I was not quite clear what was sought by that subsection. Amendment No.161C relates to subsection (6), which states that:
"Regulations and orders under this Act may make different provision for different cases or classes of case".
That also is an invariable formula and nine times out of 10, including this, is perfectly unnecessary, but its object is to obviate the argument that you must make the same regulation, however different the circumstances may be. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the number of silly arguments that can be put forward, but if every one was forestalled in an Act of Parliament our statute book would go on growing and become more bloated than it has for years. This is obviously completely unnecessary here and although it is all too time-honoured—in fact it is starting to grow whiskers—I suggest to your Lordships that it is high time that something so obviously unnecessary should be removed. For a start, I beg to move Amendment No.161A.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with his usual kindness the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has given me credit as a negotiator with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which I really do not deserve. However, one lesson that I have learnt as a negotiator is that one should leave to the other side a proposal which may be more generous than the one that oneself offers. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to meet the valid points that have been put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and thereby show his usual generosity and ability to compromise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is proper to look at the practice in this situation. I have looked at the existing judicial pensions legislation for the regulation and order-making powers and these are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore believe that it is not appropriate to provide for affirmative resolution procedure in this Bill. The 1981 Act has now operated for a considerable time and, so far as I know, without any complaint whatsoever. Most of the regulations that I seek to make will be of a very uncontroversial nature. Parliamentary time is already at a premium for dealing with matters that require primary legislation. Having regard to the precedent of the 1981 Act, I do not wish to suggest that any of the powers in this Bill should require that resolutions made under them would need to be approved first by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. For that reason I cannot accept Amendment No.16IA.
Subsection (4), which Amendment No.161 B seeks to delete, is subsidiary to subsection (3). It deals with the situation in which transitional and consequential provisions appear to be necessary or expedient. In that situation subsection (4) allows us to modify the operation of the Bill or other enactments for that type of purpose. It is not a power to amend the text of enactments, but rather one to modify the operation of those enactments for the purpose of the transitional and consequential provisions.
So far as Amendment No.161C is concerned, as my noble and learned friend has said, this is a standard clause to deal with different cases or different classes of case. I understand the argument that one does not need it. However, as my noble and learned friend recognised, it has been generally provided and if one does not use that form of words one is at least opening up the possibility of an argument that the same provision has to be made for everyone, for example in relation to the contribution provisions to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred. I think it would be wise, having regard to the advice I have had from parliamentary counsel, to leave in subsection (6). For those reasons I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment he has moved and perhaps not move the other two.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me for saying that that is the most dismal answer to the argument put forward. In so far as Amendment No.161A is concerned, my noble and learned friend merely said
1290
that that kind of thing had been done before in other pension Acts. That may be. Parliament cannot be constantly on the watch for encroachments by the Executive on its supervisory role. My noble and learned friend did not even do us the courtesy of mentioning my point that the criteria had been laid down and accepted by Parliament, namely, financial provisions like the contribution provisions under Clauses 9 and 10, the Henry VIII provision (to which I drew attention on Tuesday) and other important provisions. He never even adverted to the test that something is substantial if it cannot be nominated as trivial, tidying up or consequential. Of course he did not because he could not possibly put forward that argument with a straight face. That is the argument behind the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the support he gave.
As for subsection (6), my noble and learned friend agrees that it is designed to obviate or forestall an argument. He did not pretend for a moment that that argument was other than fanciful, far-fetched and would never get anywhere. Are we going to go on repeating these sillinesses just because they come up on a computer in the draftsman's office? Are we going to try to forestall every silly argument that may possibly be conceived? If so, there is no hope for our statute book. It will go on becoming more voluminous and expensive, to the grave detriment of its users.
My noble and learned friend has been given no flexibility on this Bill, even on this clause, which is of no particular interest except to his department. Certainly it has no particular Treasury interest. But, as I am going to get nowhere by calling a Division on it, with great reluctance and disgust I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.161B and 161C not moved.]
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor: moved Amendment No.162:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert ("(whether or not in respect of service in such offices alone)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Some of the pension schemes of which holders of qualifying judicial offices are currently members provide pensions not only for judicial officers but for other persons. The amendment makes it clear that any public service pension scheme which provides pension benefits for a holder of a qualifying judicial office shall be regarded as a judicial pension scheme for the purposes of this Bill, even if it also provides benefits for persons who are not holders of qualifying judicial offices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.163:
Page 24, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Where a calculation falls to be performed under this Act, any resulting fraction of £ 1 shall be rounded up to the next whole £ 1.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment together with Amendment No.83. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I think it would be wrong to let Amendment No.163 be passed without

1291
expressing appreciation for what is yet another example of the generosity that the Treasury shows to the legal profession. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate what will be the cost to public funds of this concession in a full year.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the cost of doing that would probably exceed the cost of the benefit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Short title, supplementary provisions and extent]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.164:
Page 24, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) The enactments and instruments mentioned in Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments) to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified (being tumor amendments and amendments consequential on the provisions of this Act).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No.168. These amendments insert a new schedule before the presently numbered Schedule 7. The schedule makes minor and consequential amendments to former enactments. All the amendments are consequential upon the provisions contained in the main body of the Bill and have no substantive effect beyond that entailed by those provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.165 and 166:
Page 24, line 30, after ("enactments") insert ("and instruments").
Page 24, line 30, after ("repealed") insert ("or revoked").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No.165 I should like to take Amendment No.166. They simply add a reference to the secondary legislation which is to be revoked in the schedule. With your Lordships' leave, I propose to take them en bloc.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.167:
Page 24, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Section (Pensions payable to judicial officers etc. by local authorities in England and Wales) extends to England and Wales only.
(5) The amendments, repeals and revocations in section 21 and Schedules 3,4,6, (Minor and Consequential Amendments) and 7 have the same extent as the enactment or instrument to which they relate.
(6) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, this Act extends to Northern Ireland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to show the extent to which the Bill applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. In general the Bill is a United Kingdom Bill. However, there are parts of it which can apply only to parts of the United Kingdom and the amendment serves to clarify this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.168:
Before Schedule 7. insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951
1. Section 35 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (pension arrangements for Vice Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocates General and Deputy Judge Advocates) shall be numbered as subsection (I) of that section and at the end of that section there shall be added—
"(2) The foregoing subsection shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959
2. At the end of section 116 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (pensions of county court judges in Northern Ireland) there shall be added—
"(7) This Part shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960
3. In section 2 of the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 (pensions of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1 A) This Act shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Foreign Compensation Act 1962
4. (In section 3 of the Foreign Compensation Act 1962, after subsection (1) (which makes provision for the pensions or other benefits payable to or in respect of members of the Foreign Compensation Commission) there shall be inserted—
"(1 A) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect in relation to a chairman or former chairman of the Commission who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964
5 In section 2 of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (pensions of members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Subsection (5), so far as relating to allowances and gratuities by way of superannuation, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part 1 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Superannuation Act 1965
6 In section 39A of the Superannuation Act 1965 (superannuation benefits in respect of persons who have been employed in two or more judicial offices) in subsection (6), in the definition of "judicial office", after the word "means" there shall be inserted—

"(a) any qualifying judicial office, within the meaning of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992, and

(b)".

The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969
7 In section 2 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (pensions for president of the industrial court, president and vice-president of the industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal, etc in Northern Ireland) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—"
(IA) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Taxes Management Act 1970
8 In section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, after subsection (6) (pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of Special Commissioners) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) Subsection (6) above, so far as relating to pensions (including allowances and gratuities), shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Immigration Act 1971
9 In Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971, paragraphs 3 and 9 (which, among other things, make provision for the pensions, allowances and gratuities etc payable to or in respect of immigration adjudicators and members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal) shall each be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and at the end of each of those paragraphs there shall be added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) (b) above shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Administration of Justice Act 1973
10.—(1) Section 10 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (which, as it has effect by virtue of subsection (8) thereof, provides for certain widow's and children's pensions in Northern Ireland to be increased) shall be amended as follows

(a) in subsections (1), (2) (a) and (3), after the word "or widow's" in each place there shall be inserted the words "or widower's";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (b), after the word "widow", where it occurs for the first time, there shall be inserted the words "or widower", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (i) of that paragraph, for the words from "was" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "left a spouse and he or";

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) after the word "him" or "his" in each place there shall be inserted the words "or her", and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (c), after the word "widow's" there shall be inserted the word "widower's"; and

(d) in subsection (5), after the word "widow's" there shall be inserted the word "widower's".

(2) In Schedule 3 to the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (which sets out the enactments in relation to which section 10 of that Act has effect), for the reference to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of Economic Development.
The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975
11. In paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (pensions of social security commissioners in Northern Ireland) after sub-paragraph (I) there shall be inserted "
(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Pensions Act 1975
12. In section 59C of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, after subsection (2) (rights of appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman on matters of fact or law) there shall be inserted
"(2A) Subsection (2) above does not have effect in relation to any scheme constituted under or by virtue of—

(a) the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961;

(b) the Judicial Pensions Act 1981; or

1294

(c) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975
13. In Article 69C of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, after paragraph (2) (rights of appeal to the Pensions Ombudsman on matters of fact or law) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Paragraph (2) does not have effect in relation to any scheme constituted under or by virtue of—

(a) Part XIII of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(b) the Resident Magistrates' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;

(c) Schedule 10 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975;

(d) the Judicial Pensions Act 1981; or

(e) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978
14. At the end of section 72 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (pension arrangements for statutory officers) there shall be added—
"(4) This section does not apply to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Supreme Court Act 1981
15.—(1) In section 12 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in subsection (7) (pensions to be payable to or in respect of the judges mentioned in subsection (I) in accordance with section 2 of the 1981 Act) after the words "section 2 of the Judicial Pensions Act 1981" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a judge who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, in accordance with that Act".
(2) In section 93 of that Act (certain officers to be treated as employed in the civil service of the State for the purposes of salary and pension), in subsection (2) (exception, in respect of pension, for persons holding offices specified in paragraph I of Schedule I to the 1981 Act) for the words from "an office" onwards there shall be substituted the words "an office for the time being specified in Schedule 1 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 ("qualifying judicial offices" for the purposes of that Act)."
(3) In section 102 of that Act (deputy district judges for district registries of the High Court), for subsection (5) (which includes a reference to section 91(5) of that Act, a provision which is repealed by this Act) there shall be substituted—"
(5) Subsection (6) of section 91 applies in relation to a deputy district judge appointed under this section as it applies in relation to a person appointed under that section."
The Value Added Tax Act 1983
16.—(1) In Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (4) (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President of Value Added Tax Tribunals) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
(2) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule, after sub-paragraph (4) (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of chairmen of value added tax tribunals) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Sub-paragraph (4) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect

1295
in relation to a person to whom Part 1 of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The County Courts Act 1984
17. In the County Courts Act 1984—

(a) section 7 (which relates to assistant district judges), and

(b) in section 9 (qualifications for appointment) the words "assistant district judge",

shall cease to have effect.
The Social Security Act 1986
18.—

(1) In section 12 of the Social Security Act 1986 (member's right to make voluntary contributions) in subsection (I0A) (which precludes the application of the section in relation to pensions under the 1981 Act etc) after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992,".

(2) In section 17 of that Act (general power to modify statutory provisions) in subsection (3) (which specifies the Acts in relation to which the power to make consequential provision under subsection (2) is exercisable) after paragraph (h) there shall be inserted—

"(j) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
19—

(1) In Article 14 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (member's right to make voluntary contributions) in paragraph (10A) (which precludes the application of the Article in relation to pensions under the 1981 Act) after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 or".

(2) In Article 18 of that Order (general power to modify statutory provisions) in paragraph (3) (which specifies the provisions in relation to which the power to make consequential provision under paragraph (2) is exercisable) after paragraph (k) there shall be added—

"(1) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992."

The Criminal Justice Act 1988
20. In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (2) (pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board) there shall be added—
"(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply to a chairman or former chairman of the Board who is a person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Child Support Act 1991
21.—(l) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Child Support Act 1991, after sub-paragraph (7) (remuneration of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, full-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals) there shall be added—
"(8) Sub-paragraph (7), so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement. Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
(2) In Schedule 4 to that Act, at the end of paragraph 2 (remuneration and expenses of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, Child Support Commissioners) there shall be added—
"(3) Sub-paragraph (1), so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
22 In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, after sub-paragraph (7) (remuneration of, and pensions, allowances or gratuities for, full-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals for Northern Ireland) there shall be added—
"(8) Sub-paragraph (7). so far as relating to pensions, allowances or gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to any person to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Administration Act 1992
23. In Schedule 2 to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, paragraph 2 (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President and full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals etc) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and after that sub-paragraph there shall he added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act."
The Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992
24 In Schedule 2 to the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, paragraph 3 (remuneration, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to or in respect of the President and full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals etc) shall be numbered as sub-paragraph (1) and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above, so far as relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities, shall not have effect in relation to persons to whom Part I of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1992 applies, except to the extent provided by or under that Act." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No.164. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.169 to 179:
Page 56, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("In section 10, in the definition of "sheriff", the words "except in subsection (2) of section six".").
Page 56, line 36, at end insert:

("1970 c.9.

The Taxes anagement Act 1970.

Section 4A(5).").

Page 56, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("Section 24(4).").
Page 56, line 40, at end insert:

("1976 c.33.

The Restrictive Practices Court Act 1976.

In section 3(2), the words "(not less than three years)".

1978 c.23.

The Judicature (Northern Ireland)Act 1978.

In section 7(1), the words "at any time". Section 8(4).").

Page 56, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, the entry "Assistant district judge".").
Page 56, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 9(7). Section 91(5).").

Page 56, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("Section 103").
Page57, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 7. Section 8(2). In section 9, the words "assistant district judge".").

Page 57, line 5, at end insert:

("1990 c.41.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

In Schedule 18, paragraph 42(b).

1991 c.48.

The Child Support Act 1991.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4) and, in paragraph 8, the word "(4)". In Schedule 4, paragraph 1(2).

S. I.1991/2628 (N. I. 23).

The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4).").

Page 57, line 9, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 57, line 11, column 3, at end insert ("and, in sub-paragraph (7), the words "(2) or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.169 to 179 merely add to the schedule of repeals consequential on the rest of the Bill. They are of a technical nature and add nothing of substance. Since they are all of the same kind perhaps your Lordships will allow me to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.180:
Line 5, after ("judicial") insert ("and related").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to amend the Long Title of the Bill so that it reflects the full range of offices contained in Schedule 5, some of which may not normally be referred to as "judicial offices". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [H.L.]
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I described it as a modest technical measure to enable the delegation of management functions within the Civil Service. I recognised that there were many noble Lords opposite who saw it initially as something much more sinister. Our discussions at Second Reading and in Committee were correspondingly lively as we got to the bottom of some technically difficult points. Thanks to the time and trouble that your Lordships have spent on the Bill in this House, in correspondence and in meetings we have made very considerable progress since then.
I think that our debates and discussions have served to allay any misgivings that the Bill is capable of being used for some purpose other than that for which it was intended. I believe it is now generally accepted that the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for achieving an important part of the Government's programme to
1298
improve the management of the Civil Service. That was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, at Report stage. I am grateful to her and her colleagues, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening, for the constructive, lively and thorough scrutiny which they have given the Bill in this House and outside. I should also like to thank my noble friends Lord Prentice, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls for their most useful contributions.
It was never the Government's intention that the Bill should be or be seen to be a politically charged measure. I am pleased that the Bill, having been given no less a thorough going-over than one would expect from your Lordships' House, has emerged much better understood, a better Bill and still suitable for the important purpose that the Government had always intended for it.
There is one outstanding matter to raise before I move the Third Reading of the Bill. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I had an exchange on the subject of the arrangements for the parliamentary scrutiny of proposed privatisations. Subsequently, I wrote to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, setting out the position in more detail. I have not yet had an opportunity, as I promised the noble Lord, to put that letter on the record, and I do not think I would be in order to dwell on this subject in the course of moving a Bill on a separate topic. Instead, I have arranged for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House. I trust that that will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our scrutiny of this measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Earl Howe.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I cannot let the Bill leave this House without making some comment with particular reference to the way in which the Bill was brought before us in the first place. I am very grateful that we were able to secure an amendment which certainly makes things a lot clearer, particularly to those who will be affected by the Bill.
However, it will be recalled—the noble Earl has already referred to the point—that the Bill was introduced in the wake of publicity surrounding a widely reported speech by the Secretary of State which had been taken to mean by the media that the Government were about to embark on wholesale privatisation of the Civil Service. Reports indicated that a large number both of blue and white collar jobs in the Civil Service would be subject to competitive tender and contracted out. Headlines in some newspapers said:
"Civil servants to lose their jobs for life".
It was scheduled as the biggest shake-up of the Civil Service in decades with civil servants having to compete with outsiders for their own jobs. It was hardly surprising that when this Bill appeared, with its opaque phraseology, alarm bells should have started to ring all over the Civil Service. The result was that

1299
the unions, which clearly had not been consulted at that time, began to lobby Members of your Lordships' House.
I have to say that it was an example of poor handling of an issue by the Government since in the atmosphere thus created we tended to listen somewhat sceptically to the noble Earl's protestations that it was all a misunderstanding and that this was a purely technical Bill the purpose of which was not wholesale privatisation. The noble Earl assured us that it could not be used as a vehicle for that, although he confirmed that that was still an ultimate objective of the Government. Thus we had a purely technical Bill designed simply to facilitate, as we understand it, a delegation of management functions within the Civil Service itself. We are very glad that as a result of pressure inside and outside the House there has now been consultation with the appropriate union. Moreover, on Report the noble Earl accepted the wording of an amendment that we had put down, which certainly, as I said earlier, makes the objectives of the Bill much more clear. Furthermore, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the quite specific guarantees that he has given on the Floor of the House during the debate on the Bill.
I myself remain opposed to the kind of so-called shake-up indicated in press reports which appears to be the Government's ultimate objective. I was somewhat disturbed to see that there is an advertisement in The Times today indicating that the Inland Revenue is putting out to tender its typing, secretarial and office support services. I understand that the jobs involved are in any case already filled by staff employed within the Civil Service. In my view this kind of privatisation is simply ideological. Ultimately, it is bad for the public and even worse for staff relations within the Civil Service.
We accept that the Bill itself is not a vehicle for privatisation but we still object to the manner in which apparently it is intended to hive-off Civil Service functions to the market. We do not believe that in that way the functions will be any better performed—on the contrary. I have a very high regard for the Civil Service in this country and I regret that that still remains the Government's ultimate objective.
Having said that, I accept that the Bill will leave this House as the technical Bill that we have been assured it is by the noble Earl.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must say something to support my noble friend Lady Turner and to justify the commotion that occurred when the Bill first made its appearance. I am strongly of the opinion that more lies behind the Bill than within it.
We appreciate the skill, lucidity and agreeableness of the noble Earl who found himself on a mystifying and difficult wicket at the start. But the misunderstanding about the Bill, to which he referred, occurred to a large extent through the silly speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time the Bill was being printed and published. Naturally, it was his boastful and arrogant speech about what he was going to do with the civil servants that led us to believe that the Bill had intentions far beyond its contents. However, the obscurity of
1300
language and prejudice against what we suspected to be its motives led to a misunderstanding as to what the Bill proposed. As the noble Earl just said, those misconceptions were removed and our confidence in the good faith of the Government in regard to this Bill restored when my noble friends Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lady Turner went to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to have the matter cleared up.
I much regret that the source of the misunderstanding and much else, including the advertisement in The Times today on behalf of the Inland Revenue to which my noble friend referred, was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I deplore that. At one time I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is a noble office which has obligations to the Crown and to time available for government and Cabinet business. I divided my time between the two. My salary was paid by contributions from both. But now the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been dragged into the marketplace. Instead of being the holder of a noble and historic office he has become the public service auctioneer. He is creating wide unrest and disturbance in the Civil Service at present.
The Bill itself deals with a matter which requires legislation, although of a minor character, namely to remove some of the red tape that stood in the way, on constitutional grounds, of transferring work from one Minister to another within the Government. That has now been made a shorter procedure.
So far so good. If that was all that there was to it and if that was all that was going to come out of the Bill we should not have any anxieties. However, what is happening now is precisely what we feared at the beginning. Although it is not covered by the Bill we see that that is beginning to happen quite apart from the Bill. We are entitled to inquire what is the statutory authority for what is now being done outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not expect that we shall receive a reply from the noble Earl on that point. We must have some sympathy with him. This is not his pitch. He has been brought in to represent the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in your Lordships' House on this Bill. I venture to suggest, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, that he has had nothing to do with the preparation of the Bill. He has probably had nothing to do with what has been decided on the Bill itself. His area of expertise lies in drift-net salmon and sea trout fishing which he will be called upon to deal with in the debate next week. There we shall see him blossom forth, in full command of the subject he is asked to deal with. I am sure that what was put into his hands with this Bill must have been a puzzle to him and was probably not welcome.
I do not know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will do in the further course of his destructive task. He holds an office covering the public sector and science, but he is not a departmental Minister. So far as I know he holds no other office. He does not have the usual parliamentary support and equipment enabling him to take his position in

1301
another place. However, that is their business and not ours. But this matter will be watched with critical attention.
I should add to what my noble friend said a moment ago about the advertisement in The Times today. That is now fixed in our minds as being directly associated with the Bill. It is not covered by the Bill or authorised by it. As I said a moment ago, I do not know how it has been authorised. All I know is that in the 75 years I have been connected with the Inland Revenue department, which I entered in 1915, nothing so humiliating has ever come out of Somerset House as the advertisement in The Times today.
The advertisement asks for tenders for work on which people are currently engaged. The advertisement relates particularly to Glasgow. It is intended that it should be followed by similar developments in relation to Bristol, Southampton, Central London and elsewhere. It is part of the dismemberment of the Inland Revenue. That department is not the only one which will be given this treatment.
I should stress that the posts described—well over 200, with management to match—are at this moment in full operation in Glasgow. The office is fully staffed. What does it amount to when an advertisement appears asking people to tender for the whole lot—staff and all? Tenders are to be delivered in January; the new scheme is supposed to start in April. What do the Government expect people to think about their future when they find themselves in such an uncertain position? Men and women who are already doing the job have been put up for auction. And, incidentally, they are handling confidential material, for which, so far as I am aware, no safeguards are being introduced in respect of the new employers who might emerge in that field. That is a serious prospect. If the approach is to be extended over the whole of the Civil Service it will be a serious and savage blow to the spirit and composite nature of public administration.
It is therefore in the gravest spirit that I feel that I must refer to the matter. Happily, in the Financial Times today a warning is published that those who tender for such work may find themselves blocked by an EC directive from worsening the conditions of pay and service which a transfer to the new employment might entail. We do not know where we are and they do not know where they are. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hopes that he can get rid of a large slice of public administration.
The Property Services Agency's project division has just been sold lock, stock and barrel to Tarmac for £ 84 million. That is quite a large slice of the Civil Service to be handed over. However, there are all sorts of complications and difficulties about contracts of service. The proposed Inland Revenue contract is for three years. What then? The approach is untried. There has been nothing like it before. I need not dwell further on the turmoil which is now being created.
In conclusion, I shall just add that the change of attitude by the Government and their apparent weakness on the pit closures question has stirred the militant Left in the Civil Service unions to feel that,"If the miners can do it we may be able to do it". That is
1302
a new problem for Civil Service organisation and control which has to be dealt with. I know from my own experience and my close knowledge of what is happening at the moment that that is disturbing for everybody involved.
Why is this being done? I am told that the magic formula is "value for money"—VFM. There is to be detailed consideration of the economics of the coal industry and consideration may have to be given to the economics of public administration, in which an ethos, integrity and desire for service exist in our Civil Service which are unique.
I must part with this Bill with the gravest concern about what is to follow. The Bill is the stalking horse. Now that we understand it fully we realise that it does not give rise to any problems. However, we can understand the motive behind it; that is, that the Government wish to remove any obstacles which stand in the way of moving Civil Service work around and moving it out to private tender. That matter should receive the major consideration of Parliament. It is an affront to the Civil Service and it is too important to be dealt with in the smaller hours of our work in Parliament. Prominent consideration should be given to where the Government intend to go and the way in which they propose to safeguard the legitimate interests and affairs of the public.
I am sad to deal with the matter in such tones but I never thought that I should stand in your Lordships' House in order to deal with an advertisement in the Personal Contracts column of The Times announcing a slab of work in Glasgow to be transferred to private enterprise lock, stock and barrel. Invitations for tender are invited and must be considered quickly if they are to take effect from next April. When dealing with another such case I asked that copies of contracts should be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House so that we know exactly what is required and what is expected to be done.
I thank the noble Earl for his work on the Bill as deputy to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I only deplore the fact that he was given this mission to carry out in your Lordships' House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for their closing remarks. I cannot blame the noble Baroness for rehearsing the difficulties that we experienced on Second Reading and in Committee. I accept, as I said in Committee, that the origins of those difficulties lie in an unintended coincidence of events and, with hindsight, in the Government not being in a position to take the unions into their confidence a little sooner.
I yield to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I can assure him that his suspicions about the Bill are entirely misplaced. I have said repeatedly, and I hope that the noble Baroness accepts my statement even though the noble Lord may still be in doubt, that the Bill has no connection with the Government's policy on privatisations. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken of the possible contracting out of the functions of the Inland Revenue. I am sure that those and other related matters will be the object of scrutiny in our debate on

1303
market testing, which will occur when an opportunity arises in due course. I look forward to a lively debate on that occasion. I stress that the subject has nothing to do with the Bill, as the noble Baroness has accepted.
Perhaps I may be allowed to summarise the purpose of the Bill. We cannot expect to deliver effective services to the public unless we are effectively organised to do so. We have good reason to be proud of our Civil Service. Better management which is better tuned to the needs of the Government's many different businesses will enable our civil servants to give of their best in serving the public. I believe that through the use of the power of delegation the Bill will
1304
do a great deal to help Civil Service managers to build on the improvements produced by the Next Steps initiative and to fulfil the aims of the Citizen's Charter within the Civil Service.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.