HC Deb 05 July 1933 vol 280 cc457-8

10.53 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out from the word "shall" to the word "be" in line 24.

This Clause contains provisions regarding the determination of any question which may arise in connection with Clause 1 (2) which provides that, in certain circumstances, a reduction in remuneration may be disregarded for the purposes of superannuation. It also provides for the determination of questions arising under Clause 2 as to whether payment or adjustment ought to be made under that Clause. Under Clause 3 the determination shall, if all the parties agree, be made by the Minister of Health and, in default of such agreement, shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister on the application of the parties concerned. It is suggested that many questions of this character could very properly and conveniently be determined by the Minister himself and not referred to an arbitrator. They are matters which could be better dealt with by a Minister and, further, I suggest that we would get better uniformity than if they were dealt with by arbitration.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

I beg to second the Amendment.

10.55 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)

I do not think this Amendment is appropriate. It would be far better to leave the Clause as it stands, so that if the parties agree the Minister will settle the case in dispute, and if they would prefer the appointment of an arbitrator to them, be it so. I think that on the whole it is fairer to leave the Clause as it stands.

Sir H. JACKSON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.56 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD

An Amendment of mine which was on the Order Paper was out of order on the Report stage, I understand, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an undertaking, so far as that is possible now, to arrange a, date a little later than April for negotiations which might have begun before April.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I think the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one. The object of the Bill is to see that where understandings were made in good faith within the defined period, between 1st September and 1st April, the person who accepted a cut should not thereby have his pension rights attacked. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman raises the question of cases where an understanding was just about to be negotiated but 1st April fell before the negotiations were completed. A similar appeal has also been made by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir II. Jackson) and another hon. Member. I cannot promise anything, but without making any pledge I think it reasonable to say that if that period were extended by three months to 1st July, it would cover the particular point which has been brought forward. Without giving any pledge, I think it reasonable to say that the Government might well insert that in another place.

Sir H. JACKSON

I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman.