HC Deb 18 February 1944 vol 397 cc605-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Sir I. Albery

In this Schedule, I notice the words: An order requiring that employment shall be made available to the applicant by his former employer may be made notwithstanding that more than six months have elapsed since the end of the present emergency, and notwithstanding that the date on which employment is to be made available to the applicant is more than six months after the end of the present emergency. When I turn to Clause 1 of the Bill, I see, in Sub-section (2, b,) that in no case shall the former employer be under any obligation to take the applicant into his employment after six months have elapsed from the end of the present emergency. I do not know whether some legal point arises, but this Bill is going to affect a great many ordinary persons, and it seems to me contradictory that in the body of the Bill there should be such a passage as I have just read out— An order requiring that employment shall be made available to the applicant by his former employer may be made notwithstanding that more than six months have elapsed since the end of the present emergency, and notwithstanding that the date on which employment is to be made available to the applicant is more than six months after the end of the present emergency"— and that in the Second Schedule there should be these other words. I hope that we shall receive some explanation.

Mr. McCorquodale

I think the intention is quite clear. A previous Amendment, which was accepted by the Committee, provided that if, owing to the fact that somebody's case was put before the Reinstatement Committee, which ordered him to be reinstated, there was delay, he should not be penalised from going back into his employment altogether if by that time the six months was up. That is surely fair. Whether the very definite words of the Clause cut that out in practice is another matter, and I will look into it, but I do not think they do. I am sure the hon. Member does not want people to lose their rights because there has been such a dispute.

Major Manningham-Buller

One is all in favour of the rights of people being preserved, but the fact remains that the provision in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 is contradicted by the Schedule. No matter what the intention of the Schedule is, it is contradictory to the Bill, and it is important that the intention should be clearly stated in the Bill; Of course, it can be reconciled by some Regulation; but does the Schedule take effect in precedence of the Bill, or vice versa?

Mr. McCorquodale

If my hon. and gallant Friend had listened, he would have known that I said I would look into it and see whether there is any contradiction.

Sir I. Albery

Even if my hon. Friend finds that the position is as he has stated, will he still consider whether it would not be desirable to alter the words slightly on the Report Stage, so as not to mislead anybody reading the Bill and to give an entirely wrong impression of what is intended?

Mr. McCorquodale

If necessary, certainly.

Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 12].