HC Deb 14 February 1929 vol 225 cc580-3

In page 94, line 29, leave out the words "having been," and insert instead thereof the words: was on the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

In line 30, after the word "from," insert to the words "or to."

In page 94, to leave out from the word "marriages" in line 32, to the word "and," in line 35.

Mr. SPEAKER

These Amendments are out of order, as they would increase the charge.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM

On that Ruling, may I suggest that these Amendments do not, in effect, do more than seek to make a provision under which officers in this part of the Bill may retire and become entitled to pension. In a later Clause of the Bill, is a provision for the retirement of officers who are asked to undertake duties not analogous to or resembling the duties of which they have so far been in charge. In our view these Amendments would simply mean the application of substantially that principle to this part of the Bill. These things are subject to a mass of regulations and considerable elasticity in practice, and I suggest that on that ground my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendments may be allowed.

Mr. SPEAKER

Would not the effect of the Amendments, among others, be that more people would be brought under compensation than if the Amendments were not made?

Mr. GRAHAM

My sumbission is that the Bill already does substantially the same thing in another Clause. These Amendments would merely bring this Clause into line with other provisions of the Bill. I would recall that on the Financial Resolution we pleaded for the greatest possible elasticity in the consideration of these Amendments both in Committee and on Report, and the view of the Government at that time was that our plea was in every way justified, and I gather that they did not oppose it on the Scottish Measure.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

The point of view of the Government is that we have no objection to this matter being put forward. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by bringing the Clause into conformity with other provisions of the Bill, but the Amendments would mean further pensions, because they would bring in a further body of people at an earlier period. That is the difficulty from the technical point of view.

Mr. GRAHAM

In a certain sense that is quite correct. In effect, you are doing these things every day under the existing Superannuation Acts, and we are doing nothing more than to bring this legislation into line. There are passages in existing Acts in which steps of substantially this kind can be taken.

Mr. SPEAKER

The point is that if these Amendments were included in the Bill, more people would be entitled to compensation. That is the only point that concerns me. It would, if it were included in the Bill, increase the charge, and therefore it cannot be in order.

4.0 p.m.

Sir HERBERT NIELD

May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in support of what my right hon. Friend has said, that this is not an increase of charge? It may be an acceleration of the period for which the charge is made, but all these officers are already entitled to compensation on being deprived of office or resigning. Therefore, this is simply giving the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to have that charge made possibly a little earlier.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that if these gentlemen received their compensation earlier than they would otherwise have done, that would obviously increase the charge.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN

May I draw your attention to the fact that this Clause in Committee, when an Amendment to increase the charge might not have been out of order, was never debated at all, and, therefore, the only opportunity which we have of raising the matter happens to be on the Report stage. I imagine you are powerless to help us.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that the only thing I have to consider now is whether the Amendments are in order or not.

Mr. KELLY

Does your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, apply to the whole of the Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) on Clause 113? I want to refer particularly to the Amendment in page 94, line 30, after the word "from," to insert the words "or to." I ask whether your Ruling applies to that Amendment, which really makes clear what, I think, was the intention of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER

My Ruling applies to all forms of the Amendment on Clause 113. Certainly, it would have the effect of increasing the charge. I call upon the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) to move his Amendment which is, I believe, a verbal one.

Sir E. TURTON

I beg to move, in page 94, line 42, to leave out the word "that," and to insert instead thereof the words "such net personal."

With great respect, I think that this is a little more than a verbal Amendment. Its object is not in the least to deprive any of the officers of that to which they are justly entitled, but there may be circumstances by which they have received certain emoluments or certain payments which do not strictly come within the purview of the Clause, and it is in order to avoid the necessity for any litigation or any trouble whatever with these officers, with whom we have worked so friendly in the past, that I desire to move this Amendment, to make it perfectly plain that all they are entitled to receive is compensation for the net personal loss.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, for the very simple reason that it is the unanimous view of the largest organisation covering these officers, with a membership of 49,000 in all parts of the country, that it would be unduly restrictive. It would probably exclude other grades of officers, and might lead to cases of very great hard- ship. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment, because I think everything that he desires to achieve is already achieved under the existing practice where a man who puts in his claim for compensation is required to show that any expenditure incurred by him was necessary for the purpose of earning his emoluments, and the compensation which he gets is the difference between the gross receipts and that expenditure. Therefore, I think what my hon. Friend requires is covered by the present practice, and that these words which he has put down will introduce a new system which would not be understood, whereas the existing system is understood, and to that extent the Amendment would introduce some doubts which are really quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.