Clause 2.—(REVIEW OF REMUNERATION BY COMMITTEES.) (Hansard, 22 December 1964)

§ Mr. Prentice
I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 27 and to insert: make such modifications of the draft as are requisite for giving effect to any representations made by the committee with respect thereto". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to consider, at the same time, the next Amendment, in page 3, line 8, and the two Amendments to Clause 4.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the House so pleases.

§ Mr. Prentice
The purpose of these Amendments is to give effect to an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee, following Amendments which were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
All these Amendments deal with the duty of my right hon. Friend in dealing with representations made to him from a negotiating committee in respect of the terms of a draft document of a draft order which is designed to implement either an agreed settlement or an arbitration award.
In Committee it was generally agreed on both sides that the Bill should impose an absolute obligation on my right hon. Friend to accept such recommendations and to act on them if there had been an agreed settlement by negotiation between the two sides and also if there had been an arbitration award, except in the unusual circumstances where that award had been set aside by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
We seek by these Amendments to achieve the objectives in this way. The first two Amendments deal with the situation in which there has been an agreed negotiated settlement. They take out the words may if he thinks fit originally in the Clause, and substitute the words on the Notice Paper which make it clear that my right hon. 1167 Friend would give effect to the submissions made to him by the Committee. This has to be done twice in two seperate Amendments, because there are two circumstances here: one in which there is a draft document which lays down a new settlement entirely, and the other in which there is an order which amends a previous document, but the principle is the same in both cases.
In the circumstances where there has been an arbitration award, and one which has not been subject to the exceptional procedure of being overruled by Parliament, the same obligations would apply. There is no need to put down an Amendment to deal with this because Clause 4(1) applies the relative parts of Clause 2 to an award of that kind.
In the exceptional circumstances where Parliament has overthrown an arbitration award under the terms of Clause 4(2), rather different principles apply, and hon. Members will see that there we are proposing to have the words may if he thinks fit left in the Bill, whereas we are deleting them in the earlier Clause.
If the situation arises—which, of course, we hope will be very rare and exceptional—in which both Houses of Parliament have overthrown an arbitration award, under the terms of the Clause the Secretary of State would still consult both sides of the committee to try to get an agreed draft consistent with the views of Parliament, but I think we have to recognise that if that situation arose he may not be able to get agreement from both sides of the committee, and there would have to be some way out of the deadlock. Therefore, he must have this reserve power which we have allowed for in the Amendment.