§ Mr. DobsonI beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 26, at end insert
'provided that the effect thereof does not result in a retrospective adjustment of remuneration for a period greater than one year.'The Government have taken powers unto themselves to claw back what they call excess remuneration paid to the various contractors, including the pharmacists. All the contractors are saying is that this "son of clawback" should not be possible beyond one year. It would provide an incentive for the Department to sort out its negotiations quickly, and it would make it easier for small businesses to make some prediction as to their incomes and outgoings. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept that it is not reasonable to take money from people retrospectively as a result of the sloth of his own Department.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI do not accept that we are doing anything retrospectively. As I explained in the Standing Committee, we are simply seeking to legitimate long-standing arrangements between ourselves and the professions, and to implement an agreement that we had with the negotiators for the pharmacists last year.
I accept that it is desirable to make sure that we do not have great delays occurring before we seek to recoup from the pharmacists. It is a bit late to do so in relation to the previous negotiations. I am glad to say that we are about to enter into negotiations with them about the future contract. The main aim will be to simplify the procedures, making sure that there are not excessive delays, and that we do not discover, upon inquiry, that there are large sums accruing to one party or another after an undue period.
I prefer to reserve the matter for negotiation and to see whether we can reach some satisfactory understanding with the profession for the future that will make legislative change unnecessary.
§ Mr. DobsonI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.