Clause 2.—(LUMP SUM ON RETIREMENT OR DEATH.) (Hansard, 4 December 1950)

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Attorney-General.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
On a point of order, Sir Charles. There is a purely drafting Amendment on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—in page 1, line 14, after "that," insert "reduced." I think it would meet the scope of the Bill if you accepted it, Sir Charles.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that Amendment is unnecessary.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I understood that if it were moved it would be accepted, Sir Charles.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We have not moved anything yet and we can go back to it, but I thought it was not necessary.

§ The Attorney-General
That Amendment is only a matter of a drafting nicety, and I am not sure that the nicety was not on our side.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
May I just formally move the Amendment? It is a purely drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that the pension which is referred to in Clause 2 is.—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I take the view that it is unnecessary. The Attorney-General.

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to add: (5) No lump sum may be granted under this section in respect of the service of a person who died before the passing of this Act. This Amendment is intended to make explicit what is already implicit in Clause 12 in the Bill as introduced, which relates to persons who have already retired, and the Amendment is needed owing to a proposed Amendment to Clause 12 which is intended to make the Bill retrospective to persons who retire between 10th November, the date on which the Bill was introduced, and the passing 150 of this Measure. I dare say that hon. Members will not want me to discuss the reasons for that now, but this is one of the reasons why I was so distressed at the better being the enemy of the good as exemplified by the last Amendment. It is desirable in the interest of arrangements already made to get this Bill as soon as may be, and this Amendment is designed to promote that end.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
This Amendment, like so many other Amendments, would perhaps appear at first sight to some to be unnecessary, but I am quite sure in view of the Amendment which is tabled later that it is, in fact, necessary, and we welcome it. I was indeed glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say, with reference to the debate we have just had, that that was a case where the Amendment was better than the good which was already contained in the Bill. I think that this Amendment again will make the Bill better than the good already contained in it.

§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
I regret that I must bring the Committee back to the point which was raised a moment ago. It relates to what seems to me to be a clear ambiguity, if there is such a thing, in subsection (1). It says: Where a person on retirement becomes eligible for a pension for service in any of the capacities listed in the First Schedule to this Act, he may be granted a lump sum equal to twice the annual amount of that pension. The only place in which the phrase a pension for service in any of the capacities has been referred to before is in Clause 1, and it there refers to such a pension being reduced by one-quarter. I should have thought it was quite clear in Clause 2 (1) that it is the unreduced pension which is referred to in the words a pension for service in any of the capacities. I ask the Attorney-General to consider this matter. If the Amendment cannot be made now, perhaps such an Amendment can be moved on Report. I think it should be made obvious in the wording 151 of the Bill that it is the pension as reduced by one-quarter which is the basis for the lump sum.

§ The Attorney-General
We have considered the Amendment. We might have been prepared, after a little discussion, to accept it in order to please the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller); but as the Amendment was not called, we cannot now accept it. We are satisfied that the drafting needs no change and that the Amendment was not necessary. The hon. and learned Member has made his argument about it, and I will certainly look at what was said when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and reaffirm my view about it. If I do not reaffirm my view, we can move an Amendment on the Report stage.