HC Deb 19 June 1925 vol 185 cc974-7
Mr. LAWSON

I desire to move, in page 15, line 32, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

This Clause deals generally with service previous to the passing of this Measure which may be counted for pension in certain circumstances, as defined in the various stages of the Clause, and Sub-section 2 of the Clause says: Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, the pension or gratuity granted to a professional fireman who is serving at the commencement of this Act, and whose past pensionable service was not wholly contributory service, may be increased… Instead of making it permissible, I desire to make it obligatory on the local authority to reckon such service in the circumstances laid down in the Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER

It rather appears to me that to change "may" into "shall" in this Clause might involve an increased charge on the rates, and that is a thing which cannot be done on Report. Can the Home Office help me on the point?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson)

I confess that that point had not occurred to me. The Home Office have no particular objection to this Amendment, but I suppose it is conceivable that it might add to the contribution from the rates.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON

Judging from experience of these questions, I am inclined to think that the alteration of "may" into "shall" would not be interpreted as increasing the charge, because the word "may" as it stands may involve additional expense. All that is done by the alteration is to enforce upon the local authority pressure to do this.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am afraid there is no doubt that it would increase the contribution from the rates.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid so.

Mr. LAWSON

May I say it does not seem to me that it would mean any increase in the contribution from the rates? Under the Bill as it stands, the local authority have the right to pay certain pensions, and to levy contributions from the rates for the purpose. They may do that now, and all that happens is that the rates themselves find part of the pension to which the fireman contributes himself. Those rates will be levied in any case.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

I myself cannot quite agree that this alteration would involve any increased charge on the rates. The real object of the series of three Amendments of which this is the first is simply to make it clear that if the fireman wishes to get the whole of his back service—he is allowed half in any case—and if he offers to pay for it, the local authority will not have any option in regard to refusing to give it to him. Under the words as they stand at present, the local authority have it in their discretion as to whether they shall give him the whole of his back service, even if he offers to pay his back contributions. The reference to back contributions comes later in the Clause. The simple fact that he offers to pay up his contributions surely makes it clear that it will not make any difference to the rates, so far as the alteration of the word is concerned. That is the way in which I look at it, though I may be wrong.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

The word "shall" would turn the possibility which already exists into a certainty, and I think there is no doubt that in practice the contribution from the rates would be increased.

Mr. LAWSON

I am sorry I did not anticipate that this point would be raised, as it looks-rather a meagre one, although, of course, it is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rates. I may point out that in any case it is laid down in this Bill that certain rates can be levied in order that the local authority shall pay their contribution towards these pensions, the other part of which is paid by the firemen themselves. The local authority in any circumstances will have to levy those rates, and all that this Amendment says is, not that they shall raise extra rates, but that, instead of allowing that money to lie in hand they shall use the money which they have already raised to pay that part of the contribution.

Colonel GRETTON

On a point of Order. I submit that this Sub-section cannot be contended to allow local authorities to give in certain cases full pensions, even though the fireman may not have contributed for the full period. This is a contributory scheme, and to enable the local authority finally to increase the pension to the full amount, though the fireman may have only contributed to the scheme for part of the period, is clearly to allow them to make an increased charge upon the rates. Therefore, I submit that the word "shall" would make that increase imperative, whereas the word "may" leaves it discretionary.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

As I said before, the Home Office have no objection to this Amendment. I take it that it is purely a question of Order. I do not know whether it would put the matter in order if the hon. Member moved a proviso to say, "Provided that no increased contribution from the rates is involved"?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think that that could be done. I am bound to carry out the Rules of the House. I am sorry, but it is clear to me that, in so far as the change would have any effect, it must be an effect that would involve an increased charge on the funds, for which the ratepayers ultimately have the responsibility. I am bound, therefore, to disallow the Amendment.