§
Amendment made: No. 88, in page 41, line 16, at end insert:
(2) Where section (Employment wholly or partly abroad) or section (Modification of right to redundancy payment where previous redundancy payment has been paid) of this Act applies, sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall have effect subject to that section.—[Mr. Thornton.]
§ Mr. ThorntonI beg to move Amendment No. 89, Schedule 1, page 41, line 17, to leave out "3 and 4" and to insert "4 and 4A".
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendment we took the related Government Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 in Schedule 1, Nos. 94, 95, 99 and 101 in Schedule 4, and the Opposition Amendments to our Amendment No. 91, in line 5, leave out "sixty-fourth" and insert "sixty-third", in line 6, leave out "fifty-ninth" and insert "fifty-eighth", and in line 11, leave out twelve" and insert "twenty-four".
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI am always in the hands of the House. The Chair likes to know ahead what groupings are proposed, as I pointed out earlier. I understand that the House is willing to accept this suggestion, and I have no objection.
§ Mr. ThorntonThank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
1791 These are rather complicated Schedules, and perhaps I might short circuit the whole argument. In Committee, the Opposiiton pointed out that a man with full entitlement who became redundant within 30 weeks, or who contrived to become redundant then, or there was some collusion to that end, would get his 30 weeks' wages, but would not pay Income Tax, and would probably not have to pay National Insurance contributions. That could mean that he would be actually better off during that period than he would have been if he had remained at work.
We accepted the validity of that contention, and we now suggest a tapering arrangement going over 12 months. The Opposition Amendment would carry it over two years, as against the 2½ years they suggested in Committee. Their suggestion is, therefore, just half as generous as ours, and I must ask the House to reject their Amendment. I hope that they will see fit to withdraw their Amendment, as we have moved some way towards the point from which they started.
§ 1.30 a.m.
§ Mr. Godberrose—
§ Mr. ThorntonOn a point of order. Could we also consider in this group of Amendments, Amendment No. 100, Schedule 4, in page 47, line 10, leave out from "been" to first "the" in line 11 and insert:
reduced by virtue of paragraph 4A of that Schedule".
§ Mr. GodberI do not think I have any objection, but I am in some difficulty.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI think, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary might hold his hand and leave that Amendment for the moment.
§ Mr. ThorntonIt was my mistake. In referring to Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 I should have said Amendments Nos. 99 to 101.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI make my second comment tonight. The Chair ought to be informed of what Government Amendments are being taken 1792 together as the Chair must protect every hon. Member. If the Opposition have no objection to what is suggested, I have none.
§ Mr. GodberI have no objection. I have some sympathy with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that we are all in some difficulty in relation to this matter. All these Amendments hang together.
The Government have gone some way to meet the point we made in Committee when we were able to show quite clearly the complete nonsense which would have arisen had the then provision been allowed to continue. These provisions arranged for tapering off only in the last 30 weeks of employment as a man came up to age 65 or a woman to age 60. There would be grave temptation to abuse and obviously something should be done about it. I have always taken the view that it was wrong to go anywhere near this point and that there should be tapering off over a considerable period because the whole principle of redundancy payments is that there should be some relation to the expectation of continued employment. When one is getting towards retirement age it seems strange that only at the last moment should one take account of the fact.
At the same time, I recognise that opportunities for anyone near the age of 60 are smaller and that is an important factor. We sought to take a point where the person concerned was getting so near the age that it would be reasonable to start tapering and we suggested the period of 2½ years. In these Amendments we have come down to the last two years of employment. I believe that our suggestions would work out in actual practice in a better way and certainly there would be less danger of abuse or collusion arising. I fear that there is some possibility of this, which is something we would all wish to prevent. We welcome the fact that the Government have moved part of the way, but we feel that it would have been better to move the whole way. I think they have made an error and it would have been better to have inserted the figure which we suggested.
The other Amendments appear to be consequential and I add no comments in relation to them.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1793§ Further Amendments made: In Schedule 1, page 41, line 31, leave out paragraph 3.
§
In line 39, at end insert:
4A.—(1) Where in the case of an employee the relevant date is after the specified anniversary, the amount of the redundancy payment, calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this Schedule, shall be reduced by the appropriate fraction.
(2) In this paragraph "the specified anniversary", in relation to a man, means the sixty-fourth anniversary of the day of his birth, and, in relation to a woman, means the fifty-ninth anniversary of the day of her birth, and "the appropriate fraction" means the fraction of which—
§
In page 42, line 33, at end insert:
7. The preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect without prejudice to the operation of any regulations made under section 14 of this Act whereby the amount of a redundancy payment, or part of a redundancy payment, may be reduced.—[Mr. Thornton.]