New Clause.—(RIGHT TO REDUNDANCY PAYMENT BY REASON OF LAY-OFF OR SHORT TIME.)

HC Deb 21 July 1965 vol 716 cc1655-77

5	(1) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment by reason of being laid off or kept on short-time unless he gives notice in writing to his employer indicating (in whatsoever terms) his intention to claim a redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time (in this section and in section (Supplementary provisions as to redundancy payments in respect of lay-off or short-time) of this Act referred to as a "notice of intention to claim") and, before the service of that notice, either—
	(a) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for four or more consecutive weeks of which the last before the service of the notice ended on the date of service thereof or ended not more than four weeks before that date, or
10	(b) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for a series of six or more weeks (of which not more than three were consecutive) within a period of thirteen weeks, where the last week of the series before the service of the notice ended on the date of service thereof or ended not more than four weeks before that date.
15	(2) In this Part of this Act "the relevant date", in relation to a notice of intention to claim or a right to a redundancy payment in pursuance of such a notice,—
	(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, means the date on which the last of the four or more consecutive weeks before the service of the notice came to an end, and
20	(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, means the date on which the last of the series of six or more weeks before the service of the notice came to an end.
	(3) Where an employee has given notice of intention to claim,—
25	(a) he shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of that notice unless he terminates his contract of employment by a week's notice which (whether given before or after or at the same time as the notice of intention to claim) is given before the end of the period allowed for the purposes of this paragraph (as specified in subsection (5) of section (Supplementary provisions as to redundancy payments in respect of lay-off or short-time) of this Act), and
30	(b) he shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of the notice of intention to claim if he is dismissed by his employer (but without prejudice to any right to a redundancy payment by reason of the dismissal):
35	Provided that, if the employee is required by his contract of employment to give more than a week's notice to terminate the contract, the reference in paragraph (a) of this subsection to a week's notice shall be construed as a reference to the minimum notice which he is so required to give.
40	(4) Subject to the next following subsection, an employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of a notice of intention to claim if, on the date of service of that notice, it was reasonably to be expected that the employee (if he continued to be employed by the same employer) would, not later than four weeks after that date, enter upon a period of employment of not less than thirteen weeks during which he would not be laid off or kept on short-time for any week.
45	(5) The last preceding subsection shall not apply unless, within seven days after the service of the notice of intention to claim, the employer gives to the employee notice in writing (in section (Supplementary provisions as to redundancy payments in respect of lay-off or short-time) of this Act referred to as a "counter-notice") that he will contest any liability to pay to him a redundancy payment in pursuance of the notice of intention to claim.—[Mr. Thornton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Thornton

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that we discuss, at the same time, the two Amendments to new Clause No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), in line 7, at end insert in the case of lay-off or eight or more consecutive weeks in the case of short-time, or partly the one and partly the other". In line 12, after "weeks", insert in the case of lay-off, or for a series of twelve or more weeks (of which not more than six were consecutive) within a period of twenty-six weeks in the case of short time, or of partly the one and partly the other".

the Government's new Clause No. 4.—"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF LAY-OFF OF SHORT TIME."
5	(1) If, in a case where an employee gives notice of intention to claim and the employer gives a counter-notice, the employee continues or has continued, during the next four weeks after the date of service of the notice of intention to claim, to be employed by the same employer, and he is or has been laid off or kept on short-time for each of those weeks, it shall be conclusively presumed that the condition specified in subsection (4) of section (Right to redundancy payment by reason of lay-off or short-time) of this Act was not fulfilled.
10	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of that section, and for the purposes of the preceding subsection, it is immaterial whether a series of weeks (whether it is four weeks, or four or more weeks, or six or more weeks) consists wholly of weeks for which the employee is laid off or wholly of weeks for which he is kept on short-time or partly of the one and partly of the other.
15	(3) For the purposes mentioned in the last preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any week for which an employee is laid off or kept on short-time where the lay-off or short-time is wholly or mainly attributable to a strike or a lock-out, whether the strike or lock-out is in the trade or industry in which the employee is employed or not and whether it is in Great Britain or elsewhere.
20	(4) Where the employer gives a counter-notice within seven days after the service of a notice of intention to claim, and does not withdraw the counter-notice by a subsequent notice in writing, the employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of the notice of intention to claim except in accordance with a decision of a tribunal.
25	(5) The period allowed for the purposes of subsection (3) (a) of section (Right to redundancy payment by reason of lay-off or short-time) of this Act is as follows, that is to say,—
	(a) if the employer does not give a counter-notice within seven days after the service of the notice of intention to claim, that period is three weeks after the end of those seven days;
30	(b) if the employer gives a counter-notice within those seven days, but withdraws it by a subsequent notice in writing, that period is three weeks after the service of the notice of withdrawal;
35	(c) if the employer gives a counter-notice within those seven days and does not so withdraw it, and a question as to the right of the employee to a redundancy payment in pursuance of the notice of intention to claim is referred to a tribunal, that period is three weeks after the tribunal has notified to the employee its decision on that reference.
40	(6) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection no account shall be taken of any appeal against the decision of the tribunal, or of any requirement to the tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court or the Court of Session, or of any proceedings or decision in consequence of such an appeal or requirement.

and the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) to new Clause No. 4, to leave out lines 8 to 12.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could clear up the question whether we shall be able to vote on our Amendments to new Clauses Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Speaker

I was not proposing to allow a vote on them unless someone felt very strongly. I was proposing merely that they should be discussed with the two new Clauses.

Mr. Godber

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are points here on which we feel strongly. Would you allow us to vote on at least one of the Amendments, for otherwise we should be compelled to vote against the Clause with which in general we are in agreement?

Mr. Speaker

I will do that. However, I should be grateful if it were limited to the first Amendment, for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Thornton

The main purpose of the two new Clauses is to introduce various time limits into the process of establishing rights to redundancy payments arising from prolonged lay-off and short time. The need for provisions of this kind was generally accepted in Committee. The Clauses also introduce a few minor changes designed to improve the procedures contained in the existing Clauses 6 and 7.

I should make it clear that the Clauses would incorporate any change of substance in the basic provisions governing rights following lay-off or short time. These remain unchanged. But rather than introduce a long series of detailed Amendments we thought on balance that it would be more convenient to embody this in new Clauses.

The first change is contained in new Clause No. 3(1). The effect is that if a claim for redundancy payment is to succeed the worker must serve notice on his employer of his intention to claim it and must serve that notice not later than four weeks after the end of the period of lay-off or short time which has continued for the length of time specified in the subsection. The object here is to limit the extent to which the worker can claim retrospectively. It may be that a worker could be kept on short time for as long as eight successive weeks and might decide to put up with the situation and not claim a redundancy payment. Normal working might then be resumed. Unless we insert a time limit such as this he would be able to continue in that employment for up to six months and then still make a valid claim in respect of the period of short time which had ended six months before, because the only time limit in the Bill as it stands is the six months' limit in Clause 21.

We accept that it would be clearly unsatisfactory for the employer if left at risk over such a long period and for compensation to be required for a situation which the worker had accepted at the time and which had long since disappeared. I suggest, therefore, that a limit of four weeks from when the employee has undergone the period of four to six weeks lay-off or short time would be a reasonable provision. It gives the worker a short period in which to consider his position but does not allow the situation to drag on for a long time.

The next change in substance is contained in new Clause No. 3(3) which needs to be read in conjunction with new Clause No. 4(5). These provisions relate to the situation where the worker has already served notice on his employer that he intends to claim a redundancy payment and where, although the employer does not contest liability, the case has gone to a tribunal which has awarded a payment.

The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that in this situation the worker cannot continue in the employment for any period up to six months as laid down in Clause 21 and still have, as it were, a frozen right to redundancy payment of which he could avail himself at any time if he chose to walk out. I do not think the need for this is in dispute.

There is also a limit of this kind in the existing Clause 7(3,c), but that only covers the case where the claim has been referred to a tribunal. It was recognised in Committee that this was not wide enough and the provisions now proposed will fill the gap. The time limit in Clause 7(3,c) is in the form that the worker must not continue in that employment for more than four weeks after the day of the tribunal's award. We have changed this to a stipulation that he must give a week's notice of termination, or longer if his contract so requires, within three weeks of the date specified in the relevant paragraph of Clause 4(5).

The effect will be much the same as before but we are getting round the possible difficulty, which I think the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) recognised, in which the worker could be under an obligation to give more than a week's notice, or even more than four weeks' notice.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Could not that be seven weeks; if it were three weeks and if the man was on a monthly contract?

Mr. Thornton

I am not sure of the point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

If the man were on a weekly employment basis, then a week's notice on top of the three weeks would bring it back to four weeks, which would seem to be the amount of time the hon. Gentleman has in mind. However, if the man were on a monthly contract it could be seven weeks—four weeks on top of the three—which could mean quite a gap.

Mr. Thornton

That is quite correct. The hon. Gentleman has summed the position up admirably.

The points I have made so far are the main changes which the new Clauses introduce. They are in line with what the Committee felt was required. There are two other minor points with which, in the interests of brevity, I will not deal at the moment. I will merely repeat that, apart from the changes which I have mentioned, the new Clauses do not alter the main substance of the Bill on lay-off and short time.

Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the consequential Amendments, Nos. 19, 20, 102 and 103?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly, if the House so pleases.

Mr. John Page

I am grateful to you for calling me so early in the discussion on these new Clauses, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to confine my remarks to the substance of the Amendments, which deal with the most controversial aspects of the new Clauses, which is the period of lay-off and short-time and combined periods of lay-off and short-time which would give an employee the right to redundancy payments.

As the Bill stands, in general terms an employee could claim if he was laid off or was on short time for four or more consecutive weeks. Where lay-off or short-time is not consecutive, he would have to be affected for six out of 13 weeks, of which not more than three weeks were consecutive.

In Committee we had a detailed and useful discussion about these periods of short-time and lay-off. My hon. Friends and I divided the Committee because we felt that the Government were not making sufficient distinction between lay-off and short-time. For "short time" I use the definition given by the Parliamentary Secretary—a week in which an employee earns less than half a week's wages.

My hon. Friends and I feel most strongly that a greater distinction should be made between lay-off and short-time. Our Amendments are designed to draw attention to the necessity for such a distinction. I do not quarrel with the way in which the Government propose to deal with lay-off and the Amendments would make no change in the period of lay-off. We are very unhappy indeed, however, about the period of short-time, which is indentical to the period of lay-off and also to the period of mixed short-time and lay-off.

If the Government's proposal for the period of lay off is right, then it seems to us that the period of short time and mixed short-time and lay-off—which I will call "mixed-time"—should be longer. It cannot be right for the periods of lay-off and the periods of short-time and mixed-time to be identical. The Parliamentary Secretary did not accept our view in Committee and said at one point: … I am not prepared to admit that there is a very substantial difference, or any difference at all, between lay off and working two days a week. I emphasise that in practical terms it means a two-day week. Taking a wage of £15 a week—£3 a day—a man will have a weekly wage of only £6 for as long as eight weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1965 c. 273.] The difference between the four-week and eight-week period is due to the fact that an employer is entitled to offer an employee a continuing period of a further four weeks of full-time employment, in which case the claim for redundancy would normally lapse.

Not only cannot we accept the view of the Parliamentary Secretary but we can prove statistically that his argument does not stand up. If we accept his definition of short-time—that the employee would be working for two days out of a five or five-and-a-half day week—he would receive his payment for that two days of the week. On top of that, after a waiting period of three days, he could claim one-sixth of the unemployment benefit per day for the other three or three-and-a-half days. This must put an employee on short-time in a significantly better position—probably amounting for a married man with, say, two children, to £4 or £5 a week—compared with the total income during a period of a man who is laid off. That is an important reason why there should be, from the employees point of view, a difference between lay-off and short-time.

The other aspects on which we propose longer periods of qualification before a redundancy payment can be claimed are clear, and examples can be given from a large number of industries and agricultural and service employments. The first likely reason for a period of four weeks' of short-time is the weather. My constituents in Harrow, West have extremely good judgment and they blame the present Government for many of the ills which are brought down upon the heads of hard working and honest people. However, when they start blaming the Government for the weather I stick up for the Government and say that it is not their fault—which shows how fair minded and oecumenical we are.

It is not difficult to think of times, particularly in the building and construction industry, in agriculture and in horticulture, when the weather could mean short-time working for fairly long periods, without any fault whatever on the part of the employer. Many of us on this side have been told by our constituents how worried they are about this aspect. Frost and snow could, even in a fairly moderate winter, affect those industries very considerably. We think that four weeks consecutive short-time because of weather should not be considered extremely abnormal or unusual. I should have thought that in such a country as this we could expect those conditions once, say, in every three years.

The smaller employer, particularly in the building industry, might have to meet a substantial claim for redundancy payments after four weeks just at the very moment when the firm's finances were at their worst. The period in the Bill is not realistic and should be increased as suggested in our Amendments. In the manufacturing industries, in which the Parliamentary Secretary has had so much experience, there can be many reasons for short-time working for periods of at least four weeks, again through no fault whatever of the employer.

A sub-contractor might fail to provide supplies when they were expected by the main contractor. Manufacture of an article might have to be put off while potential retail and wholesale purchasers waited to see what a forthcoming Budget might contain—that often lowers demand between Christmas and April when, in any case, demand is often at its lowest. The effect of swingeing taxes in a new Budget, such as we have had this year, could gravely affect the purchase of certain manufactured articles. Upward alterations in hire-purchase down payments for some consumer durables could easily cut out a manufacturer's whole programme for a period, when it would be important to put the factory on short-time. In fact, one could easily imagine workpeople pleading that short-time rather than that full-time should be worked by all employees so that some would not be made redundant because of lack of demand. A high Bank Rate could have a very considerable effect.

All these reasons must appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, with his experience and knowledge of industry, especially in Lancashire. He must appreciate that four weeks is far too short a period to be accepted either in respect of short-time or of a mixture of short-time and lay-off. We have suggested that the lay-off period should be as it is in the Bill, but that we should increase from four consecutive weeks to eight the period of short-time and mixed-time working; and that where the short-time and mixed-time working is not consecutive the period should be increased to 12 or more weeks, of which not more than six are consecutive within a period of 26 weeks.

We very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will take notice of our feelings and in some way find it possible to meet what we believe to be sensible and realistic Amendments to a Clause which in many ways we find quite acceptable.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

Now we really know what Palmerston said in 1852. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has put forward one of a series of Amendments all of which are intended or designed to reduce the rights of the worker, and all of which are intended or designed to reduce the alleged burden on employers. It is a strange attitude to a Bill of this kind. The hon. Member has certainly put the Victorian employer's point of view, which I do not find to exist in Oldham today. I do not come across it.

He refers to an anomaly which has existed throughout my life. I remember the days when a miner working at the coal face for three days a week at 10s. a shift, and having a wife and children, got something up to £2 10s. as unemployment pay, but if he was working four days a week he only got a couple of quid, and no unemployment pay.

There was a lot of suggestion in the pits at the time that the employers rather arranged these timings in what they thought to be the national interest—the "national interest" being this curious thing called the Exchequer, which throughout my time I have been told has been empty, yet from which people always seem to be extracting paper money for many and varied purposes.

There is another anomaly to which I sought to call attention in a Bill which I presented to the House, which was received with enthusiasm, but for which time has not been found. It is the anomaly, quite relevant to this matter, of the restricted ambit of employment becoming recognised as, and held to be, a full working week. There are reactionary decisions on this point. Disabled and blind people have been told, "You have been working for so long at four days a week that we have come to the conclusion that this is the full ambit or this type of employment, and it will be restricted to that".

I have tried to put that position right, and it is astonishing that a Labour Government should not be able to find 10 minutes for this Measure. I should be out of order were I to say that tomorrow night we shall find many hours to consider other matters, but we should reconsider, whether we cannot find 10 minutes to put this anomaly right. I have had, and I say this quite seriously, sympathetic and helpful observations and views, and a good deal of assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not objected to any of my proposals.

Nevertheless, I rejoice that I can assist the Government on their difficult way, and I put my massive sholders to the wheel on their behalf. I applaud the attitude of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. He must stand firm. It is vitally important that he should stand firm on this provision, because it is vital, while the Amendment is destructive of the purpose of the Bill.

The figures given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee were fair figures. There may be terribly hard cases, but what does the hon. Member for Harrow, West suggest? He says "We want our freedom. Tory Freedom Works—for the employer. If someone mucks up a contract which delays delivery of materials, the worker must be laid off. He has to bear the blame and his wife and kids must suffer as a consequence of someone else's delay. If Bank Rate goes up the worker is to be laid off." The worker is to be laid off for almost any emergency under the sun.

The hon. Member was wrong in suggesting that we were not even blamed for the weather. I can remember that the Tories moved a motion of Censure on us because of difficulties caused when snow was on the ground. This is a regrettably Victorian attitude taken by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that they sincerely believe it, but they go through the motions of being a successful Opposition and try to show that they sustain an interest in industrial problems, even though the Leader of the Opposition does not know much about them.

The problem of short-time working is very serious. It just is not true that a worker who has been employed by a firm for many years and has the prospect of receiving substantial compensation would walk out and leave his work every time it rained. Throughout my time the building workers' union has been complaining about employers who say to men, "It is too cold to have you on; we shan't get work out of you", or, "It is too wet", or, "We cannot deliver materials". This has been working gravely to the detriment of some workers. It is time that employers were brought up to date in providing employment for their men. If they do so, they will have the confidence of the British workman, who is the most decent workman on earth and is not likely to cash in on this proposal in the way suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

I did not intend speaking on this matter, but as my name is attached to the Amendments I take up the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I think that he was having a little fun at our expense. If so, I have no complaint to make, but he rather suggested that when we put down these Amendments we were exhibiting a Victorian attitude and taking from workers one of the rights they ought to have. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If the hon. Member listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), he would have realised that there are many occasions on which an employer is forced to lay off his men or to ask them to work short time through circumstances over which he has no control. The hon. Member talked about keeping a man off work because of rain. If he could tell me of ways in which bricks could be laid when there is heavy frost I should be interested. At present, there seems no alternative to saying, "Do not mix any more cement, because it will be no good".

Mr. Thornton

Would not the hon. Member agree that in the case indicated, of a construction industry, it is lay-off which is the problem, not short-time?

Mr. Mawby

The hon. Gentleman may be right about that. The important thing is that there are many reasons one can think of for an employer having to take certain actions in circumstances which are not within his control. My hon. Friend mentioned some, such as a change in Bank Rate or as a result of Government action. When one thinks of the cancellation of the TSR2 one realises that there are things which happen over which the employer has no control. I hope that every employer would take all possible steps to make certain either that he was able to give continuous employment to all his employees or, being fair-minded, that he would say, "I am sorry, redundancy is occurring. I shall give you the longest notice possible".

These Amendments are not concerned with protecting the employer but with protecting the fund from which redundancy payments are made. We should keep a proper balance. If money is to be used from the fund and paid to people who are by no means redundant but because of particular circumstances are laid off or working short-time, others will not be helped. We should try to strike a period which is fair both to the employee and to the central fund. If the fund is to be depleted by these cases, obviously the money cannot be used for other cases.

Our main consideration should be that payments should be made to those who suffer or are likely to suffer hardship as a result of genuine redundancy. In those cases they ought to be paid in full for the hardship they suffer and for all the things they have to do to obtain other employment including, perhaps, moving from home. That must be done, but we must keep in mind that if we dissipate the fund on people who are working short-time there will not be money available to deal with desperate cases. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has been accusing us of motives which we do not have.

Mr. Hale

What I specifically said—and I should be happy if the hon. Member can refute it because I like an atmosphere of good will—was that on reading through the Amendments put forward by the Opposition I found that they would all seek to reduce the rights of the worker. They all seem to cost him something and to be designed to protect the fund or the employer. Is that true or is it not?

Mr. Mawby

I cannot speak on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but the Amendments to which I have added my name are required to make certain that the balance is maintained at a proper level so that the employee who suffers genuine hardship shall receive full benefit, and the fund will not be dissipated by payments to those who suffer no hardship but who, in the course of some temporary change in circumstances, are working short-time and therefore require no payments.

Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)

When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope that he will deal with one or two points of explanation. By new Clause 1 we give protection to the employers. In this new Clause 3 we are giving extended protection to the employers against the workers. I should like to know what "short-time working" means. Short-time working can become the normal working week, and it can occur quickly by a change of contract.

I should also like to know what being laid-off means. Does it include a lockout? The position is quite clear in a strike, but there is no indication of what the rights of the worker may be in a lockout. Will my hon. Friend say something about the important point of whether a lockout can deprive a worker of rights to redundancy payment or if it is to be treated as if he were laid-off? I hope my hon. Friend will deal with the distinction between these situations.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Godber

I understand that the new Clauses take the place of the old Clauses 6 and 7. We understand the new drafting. We accept this. We think that this is a useful development and yet one further indication of what we have already said, which I will not keep repeating, about the need for greater clarification in drafting.

Coming on to the Amendment to the Clause, I want to say one word to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). It is unfortunate that we did not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's advice in Committee. We should have been very happy if we had had it.

Mr. Hale

There were a number of reasons for that. Perhaps I may mention that one reason was that I was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Godber

That was the point I was seeking to make. The hon. Gentleman has clarified it for me, and I am grateful to him for doing so. We did not have the hon. Gentleman's advice. Had we had it, the hon. Gentleman might have realised a little more the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the whole purpose of the Bill. This is a Bill which we have supported and which we believe to be right. It is a Bill which imposes additional burdens on employers which are generally accepted. They are accepted in a good spirit by employers throughout the country. The Bill will be very helpful to industry and to relations in industry.

These additional burdens having been accepted, it is natural that in considering a Bill of this nature we must consider how certain aspects of it will operate in certain cases. The hon. Gentleman has said that certain of the Amendments we have tabled would operate against the workers. It is the function of an Opposition, looking at a Bill of this kind, to see that proper provision is made so that there will not be abuse of funds which are provided in this way. Much of this money will not be provided by the individual employer himself, but through the funding system by employers generally all over the country. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or anybody else would wish to see the funds improperly used.

We have felt all along that there was a distinction between lay-off and short-time. We have taken the view that certain industries—we have had this forcibly brought to our attention by various industries—have special problems outside their control. We debated this in Committee. I do not propose to go over those debates again. We highlighted the problems of the building industry in regard to short-time. We have also received very strong representations from the furniture trade, representatives of which went to the Ministry to point out some of its seasonal difficulties.

One point which genuinely worries some employers in the furniture industry is that a man who has been on short-time for slightly more than the period provided in the Bill might take his redundancy pay and then not go back to the same employer, which is what happens at present, but will go to another employer. Having taken his redundancy payment, he will probably not feel that he can very well return to his old employer. There is a feeling that this may disturb relations between employers and workers, who have over the years accepted the difficulties which arise in this industry in regard to short-time working.

There is another point which I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West, will appreciate if I put it to him in this way. Take the case of a man who has, by reason of employment with one firm, built up a very considerable sum which he will be entitled to receive on redundancy. If he goes on short-time now and takes this redundancy payment at this stage, even though he will be on short-time for only the number of weeks provided by the Bill, when he returns to work he will have exhausted his right to the redundancy payment and must start all over again from scratch.

The general purpose of the redundancy payment is to help a man who finishes work with one employer and spends some time looking for work elsewhere. If a man exhausts his right to redundancy payment, it takes him two years before he begins to build up his right again. This problem must be faced in regard to a man who has taken redundancy payment at this stage and returns to employment again, because he will not be entitled to receive redundancy payment again for some time if he does become fully redundant, as opposed to being merely on short-time. I make this point merely in passing, but it is a point to be borne in mind.

Mr. Hale

It seems to be similar to the golden handshake.

Mr. Godber

I do not think that that arises in relation to short-time. This is the equivalent of the golden handshake in industry. This is the purpose of the Bill. Generally speaking, this is why we support it. We do not feel that the Government have paid sufficient attention to our argument in regard to short-time. We believe that it should have been eight weeks in the case of short-time and four weeks in the case of lay-off. We argued this at length in Committee. I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer now. We believe that this is an important issue which affects certain industries and which could have a harmful effect on relations within those industries.

For these reasons, we shall have to press this Amendment at the appropriate moment.

Mr. Thornton

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), a worker cannot accumulate a right to payment by being locked out. The Bill neutralises industrial disputes, both strikes and lockouts. The new Clauses do not in any way diminish the rights to redundancy payments.

Mr. Ness Edwards

My hon. Friend cannot dismiss my point in that way. During the currency of a strike, a worker's right is diminished. A strike is something for which the worker is responsible. If he is locked out, it is the employer who is responsible and the worker wants a protection against the employer. The employer is given a protection against the worker when the worker strikes. That protection is not given to the worker when he is locked out.

Mr. Thornton

As fairly as possible we attempt to neutralise the incidence of both strikes and lockouts in the Bill. I assure my right hon. Friend that the new Clauses do not effect any diminution in the right to redundancy pay in respect of short-time and lay-off. They merely place a reasonable limit on the time in which the employee lodges his claim or gives notice of his claim after he has qualified for that claim.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) introduced a new argument. It is the first time I have heard from the other side a justification for extending short-time, namely, that it would save the Redundancy Fund. I am not impressed by this new argument.

I must draw the attention of the House to what is involved in short-time. The provision is that for a worker to be on short-time he must be in receipt of less than half a normal week's wage. The House must recognise that the general pattern of employment in this country is a five-day or a five-shift week. So this provision means two shifts a week. All the experience of my Department is that it rarely happens for a firm to go on to a two-day week. Short-time is usually worked as a three-day or a four-day week, or a three-shift or a four-shift week. When production requirements fall to that level, the situation is usually met by a week of closing down the plant and then a week of employment.

Both in Committee and again this evening we have been accused of producing a very complicated Bill. It is complicated because it deals with a complicated problem. But to introduce these formulae would add remarkably to the complications—eight consecutive weeks of short-time, four consecutive weeks of lay-off, a combination of the two, 12 weeks in 26 of either short-time or lay-off or a mixture of the two.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has tried to work this out and to find all the combinations which an employee would have to fit to satisfy those requirements, but I spent an hour at it and gave up because it was so complicated. The formula would be so complicated that it would be very difficult for a worker to unravel whether he had qualified.

Much has been made of the fact that the Bill has a limit of four weeks for short-time and lay-off, but if the employer contests the worker's claim of four weeks short-time or lay-off, he can appeal to the tribunal and if the tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable prospects within a further four weeks of the worker having employment which is not short-time, then the tribunal will uphold the employer's view.

Let us remember that short-time will mean less than three shifts a week, so that the employee is working less than three out of five. Under the Amendment, a worker could be on short-time if he were doing two shifts or two days a week for eight weeks, plus a further four weeks, making 12 weeks in all, when for the whole of that period he would not have half a week's wage in any of the 12 consecutive weeks. That would be going too far.

These are matters of judgment, but I am satisfied that what we propose—four weeks for short-time and four for lay-off, six in 13—is a reasonable proposition which is fair to the employer and reasonably fair to the worker. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that we shall stand fast on this matter.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Perhaps I ought to know, but does the Bill lay down that short-time is less than half a week?

Mr. Thornton

Yes.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I did not have the advantage of being a member of the Standing Committee, but I have listened to the debate today with a great deal of interest. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary sticking to his new Clause and not accepting the Amendment. If we are to have a good Redundancy Payments Bill, it must be as progressive and as generous as possible, to create the right atmosphere in British industry.

I was not impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who has great experience in these matters but who did not put forward any kind of convincing case, for saying that if the Amendment were not accepted there would be, as it were, a great run on the Redundancy Fund. Experience of British industry is such—and this experience must be available to the Ministry—that the difference between the Clause as drafted and as amended can fairly well be guaged. I understand that short-time working is defined in the Bill as less than half the weekly wage.

Mr. Thornton

It is less than half the normal weekly earnings.

Mr. Hooson

I am most grateful for that information. I understood that that was so. The Government are taking absolutely the right course. They are providing a fairly simple formula, which they must have calculated on the experience available to the Ministry as being practical, and no arguments have been advanced by the Opposition to support the Amendment. I shall certainly advise my hon. Friends to support the Government on this occasion.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

I was not quite clear about my hon. Friend's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). There are bad as well as good employers. An employer may suddenly and without consultation with the trade unions change the conditions of employment. Because there have been no negotiations, the employees may decide to refuse to accept the conditions and the men may then be locked out. Will there be any safeguard so that such an employer is not allowed to use that kind of threat so that the men concerned, afraid of not being able to claim redundancy payment, will accept those conditions which the employer has imposed?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Has not the hon. Gentleman heard of the Contracts of Employment Act which was passed by the previous Government?

Mr. Wainwright

Of course I have. The hon. Gentleman has not had as much experience of this sort of thing in industry as I have. Employers can often quickly get round legislation. I want to make certain that my hon. Friend will take account of the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and will see that the Bill safeguards the employee against the bad employer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause: In line 7, at end insert: in the case of lay-off or eight or more consecutive weeks in the case of short-time, or of partly the one and partly the other".—[Mr. John Page.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 147.

Division No. 259.]	AYES	[8.17 p.m.
Astor, John	Goodhew, Victor	Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H. K.	Gower, Raymond	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Barlow, Sir John	Grieve, Percy	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Bell, Ronald	Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Gurden, Harold	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bossom, Hn. Clive	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Peel, John
Box, Donald	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.	Hawkins, Paul	Pitt, Dame Edith
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hay, John	Pounder, Rafton
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Pym, Francis
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry	Hendry, Forbes	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buck, Antony	Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)	Royle, Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hunt, John (Bromley)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Burden, F. A.	Iremonger, T. L.	Sinclair, Sir George
Cary, Sir Robert	Jennings, J. C.	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cooke, Robert	Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)	Stainton, Keith
Costain, A. P.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Studholme, Sir Henry
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kilfedder, James A.	Talbot, John E.
Crawley, Aldan	Kirk, Peter	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver	Lagden, Godfrey	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Crowder, F. P.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Curran, Charles	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Teeling, Sir William
Dalkeith, Earl of	Litchfield, Capt. John	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	MacArthur, Ian	Whitelaw, William
Digby, Simon Wingfield	McMaster, Stanley	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Marten, Neil	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric	Maude, Angus	Wise, A. R.
Eyre, Reginald	Mawby, Ray	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Gammans, Lady	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wylie, N. R.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Glyn, Sir Richard	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Mr. R. W. Elliott and
		Mr. Jasper More.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Fernyhough, E.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Barnett, Joel	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Kelley, Richard
Beaney, Alan	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Lawson, George
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Ford, Ben	Leadbitter, Ted
Binns, John	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Blackburn, F.	Garrow, A.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Ginsburg, David	Loughlin, Charles
Boardman, H.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Lubbock, Eric
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Gregory, Arnold	McBride, Neil
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Grey, Charles	McGuire, Michael
Boyden, James	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Mclnnes, James
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hale, Leslie	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Carmichael, Neil	Hannan, William	McLeavy, Frank
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Harper, Joseph	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Chapman, Donald	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Coleman, Donald	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Manuel, Archie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Heffer, Eric S.	Mapp, Charles
Crawshaw, Richard	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Mendelson, J. J.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Hooson, H. E.	Millan, Bruce
Dalyell, Tam	Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Monslow, Walter
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Howie, W.	Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Oakes, Gordon
Dempsey, James	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Ogden, Eric
Doig, Peter	Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)	Orme, Stanley
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.	Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)	Oswald, Thomas
Dunnett, Jack	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Owen, Will
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)	Jackson, Colin	Parker, John
Ensor, David	Jeger, George (Goole)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Pentland, Norman	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Probert, Arthur	Small, William	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Snow, Julian	Wallace, George
Randall, Harry	Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Whitlock, William
Reynolds, G. W.	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Rhodes, Geoffrey	Stones, William	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Rose, Paul B.	Swingler, Stephen	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Winterbottom, R. E.
Rowland, Christopher	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Sheldon, Robert	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Woof, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)	Thornton, Ernest	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Tuck, Raphael
Silkin, John (Deptford)	Varley, Eric G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Wainwright, Edwin	Mrs. Harriet Slater and
		Mr. Brian O'Malley.

Clause added to the Bill.