HC Deb 21 July 1965 vol 716 cc1740-2
Mr. Thornton

I beg to move Amendment No. 48, Clause 24, in page 17, line 34, to leave out "fourpence" and to insert "fivepence".

The effect of the Amendment is to increase the cost of the surcharge for men by 1d. In other words, the National Insurancee stamp for men, instead of costing 4d. more than at present, will cost 5d. more. The need for this increase arises from the decision of the Standing Committee to increase the amount of rebate that the employers will be entitled to reclaim from the fund from some 60 per cent. on an average of redundancy payments to something over 70 per cent. This has to be paid for and the increase in the surcharge for men achieves it. The increased level of the rebate means an increase of outgoings from the fund of between £2 million and £3 million per annum and the addition of 1d. on the men's stamp will yield about £3 million. I ask the House to agree that, having willed the end, we must now will the means.

Mr. Godber

I was somewhat surprised at the last comment of the Parliamentary Secretary, when he referred to willing the means, our having willed the end. That was not very appropriate here.

We are in a slight difficulty because my hon. Friends and I willingly acknowledge that the Government went a substantial way towards meeting us in regard to what we believe to be one of the main issues of the Bill; namely, the degree of funding. The Government took note of the proposals which we put to them and they brought forward an Amendment in Committee which provided for a substantial increase in funding. This, we acknowledge, has improved the Bill and helps to safeguard many small employers, with whom we were concerned, by spreading the burden more evenly, not only safeguarding them but also people in the contracting industries. This is, of course, a thoroughly sound thing for the Government to have done.

However, we now take issue with the Government on the question of the payment. The problem is that any estimate—and the Parliamentary Secretary used the word "estimate"—must be based on a great many assumptions. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that. Indeed, his right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear on Second Reading, when he said: None of these factors can be forecast with any precision. We have had to take into account a range of possibilities, using the best information available to my Department. In the light of this, we have proposed a level of surcharge which should, we think, ensure that the Redundancy Fund is self-financing over a substantial period".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 44.] The truth is that it is not only an estimate but is largely guesswork. In our view this has been fully ensured, if not over-ensured.

We should remember that there is provision in the Bill to enable the Minister to make Amendments later, up or down. We believe that the former sum, 4d., would have been adequate and that it is a pity to increase it now. Therefore, while we welcome the reasons which have led the Government to propose the increase—that is, the increase in funding—we believe they could have achieved this without making the increase as proposed in the Amendment. After all, if we had been proved wrong the amount could have been increased later, say in 12 months' time. We feel that there will be less keenness to reduce the amount. As I say, the Treasury could have catered for the amount had we been proved wrong, and the amount could have been increased in 12 months' time. It would indeed have been more sensible to have left the figure as it was before.

Amendment agreed to.