HC Deb 17 October 1946 vol 427 cc1104-6

Amendment made: In page 16, line 20, column 3, after "three," insert "and sixty-six."—[Mr. Fraser.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Rankin

There was a point I desired to raise, but I had no opportunity of presenting it.

The Temporary Chairman

I am afraid the hon. Member has lost his opportunity. After the Bill is ordered to be reported the hon. Member cannot speak.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Maclay

There is a point I should like to raise on the Third Reading. It refers to the words: (2) Any person who, immediately before the date when an amalgamation scheme came into force, was an officer employed by a constituent authority or by a joint police committee and who, at any time within five years after the said date, … (b) relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform immediately before that date Those words are in the Clause which was put earlier. It is perhaps not a very important point, but I would like to know who decides this question. Is there provision anywhere for an appeal tribunal? The words that I am particularly concerned with are: relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform, immediately before that date. It is quite clear that there might be a very serious difference of opinion on this point, as to whether the duty was analogous to or was an unreasonable addition to those which he had been required to perform. That is all I wanted to raise on the Third Reading, except to say that I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has, as was said earlier, done an excellent piece of stonewalling. We are not at all happy about the lack of information.

Mr. T. Fraser

Is the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asking whether any such officers who might be prejudicially affected would have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Maclay

I was asking who decides, where it is a question of a man relinquishing his office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he was required to perform immediately before that date. It is a matter which is open to dispute, and it is not clear by whom this will be decided.

Mr. Fraser

In the first place, it would be decided by the joint committee when a scheme is brought about, but if the officer should be aggrieved by any such decision arrived at, he has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.