§ 3.34 p.m.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I feel it would be right for me to say a further word about the possibility of an interim review—a matter which we discussed at Second Reading and again at Committee. In reading 362 my remarks at the Committee stage I think I may have given the impression that the initiative for an interim review would rest squarely with Lord Boyle's Committee. I think that this was somewhat to mis-state the position, although I said at the time that I was speaking personally and off the cuff.
I see that at Second Reading on June 30, at column 1128 of Hansard, I stated the position with my habitual accuracy; I said that the limit of the Government's commitment was to accept Boyle
and Boyle said a review in the lifetime of each Parliament, but did not preclude intermediate reviews ".The position here, my Lords, is that formally and indeed in practice the initiative for any review would rest with the Government. However, in making this clear, I should like to make equally clear two other points. First, I have taken careful note of the views expressed by noble Lords at Second Reading and at Committee. Second, the Government's undertakings to bring certain issues to the attention of the Review Body for the next review will be carefully observed. In this context I have particularly noted that there was one matter—the treatment of the pre-1964 M.P.s—where it was represented that if anything was to be done, it should be done without too long a delay.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now reed 3a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl; we know that he is doing his best in this matter. We discussed this whole subject, including the pre-1964 non-pensioners, very thoroughly at the Committee stage and there is nothing more that I wish to say now.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I have not taken part in the debate on this Bill at any time because I have an interest in the matter; but I venture to ask the noble Earl a question. Is it the case that the next review will not take place until the year 1974? That is my information.
EARL JELLICOENo, my Lords, that is not necessarily the case. I will read the concluding sentence of the Boyle Report:
For our part we consider that there should be a major comprehensive review at intervals of four years, i.e. corresponding roughly to 363 once in the lifetime of each Parliament of normal length. However, we should not wish to exclude the possibility of an intermediate adjustment between major reviews ".It was on that particular point that I was correcting any misconception which I might have left in the minds of your Lordships. But it would be a mistake on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to think that a decision has been taken on an interim review, for or against, at this stage, and by the same token that any date has been fixed for any such review.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, there appear to be conflicting statements about this. In conversation with the Chairman of the Trustees I was informed that the next review would not take place until 1974.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.