HC Deb 30 November 1965 vol 721 cc1380-4

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I beg to move: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Redundancy Payments Rebates Regulations 1965 (S.I., 1965. No. 1893), dated 1st November 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for putting down this Prayer on the same evening as the House has had such an interesting discussion on the grey seals. Being new to the House, I did not appreciate that so many hon. Members—and, in particular, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller)—were so interested in that subject.

The Order provides that where redundancy of 10 or more employees is contemplated, 28 days' notice of dismissal must be given. If the employer fails to do this, he loses 10 per cent. of the rebate to which he is entitled under the Act. The Act mentions loss of rebate, but many employers regard this as a kind of fine for not being able to give such notice.

I raise this subject because one industry in particular will find it almost impossible to give 28 days' notice in many circumstances, and that is the ship repairing industry, an industry which is pretty vital to the country. I can see four particular difficulties that could arise. First of all, it is almost impossible for ship repairing firms to estimate from day to day precisely how much labour will be required. let alone know 28 days in advance. There is no telling when ships will come in for repair, and there is no telling when there may be delays in their arrival because of storms, collisions, breakdown, or diversion to another port because of strikes.

The second difficulty which can arise is in steel deliveries. Although the shipyards are well served by private enterprise steel, it is not unknown for delays in deliveries to take place, perhaps with as little as a week's notice. This can have a considerable effect on the employment position. A particular question relating to Manchester has been brought to my attention. On some occasions the Manchester Ship Canal is blocked for lengthy periods and such a blockage could prevent the arrival in a dock of some ships for repair and could involve sudden payoffs. When a ship is nearing completion—this applies particularly to passenger liners—it is almost impossible to determine 28 days' in advance when an individual's job or the job of a particular trade, will finish. My fear is that, recognising this impracticability, far too many employers will fail to put in a 28 days' notice of dismissal under these Regulations and lose the benefit to which they are entitled. To hedge against possible redundancy, they might put in a notice to the Ministry which will remove much of the benefit which otherwise would accrue.

I do not think I need prove that it is often impracticable for the industry to give the notice because in discussions with the Ministry and in correspondence it has been accepted that in some circumstances the shipping industry will find it difficult to provide the 28 days' notice. The Ministry says that it intends to implement this provision in a reasonable way. I want to know what is suggested that the Ministry will accept as a reasonable excuse for not giving 28 days' notice. Will it accept delays in steel supplies as an excuse? I fancy that it would.

Suppose that there is a repair contract from a regular customer which is suddenly cancelled. Would that be a reasonable justification for not giving 28 days' notice? When it becomes known that a major pay-off is to take place, the pace of the work sometimes goes a little slower. In some circumstances the employers might wish to give as a reason for not giving the 28 days' notice that the general awareness that such a state of redundancy would take place would result in a slowing down of production, not only in the trade concerned but also in other trades. The ship repair industry is facing a difficult time and it would like assurance on this point which it feels could cause damage to the industry.

There are many other points I had hoped to raise, but I will end now in the hope that I have left sufficient time for a reply.

11.24 p.m.

Sir Edward Brown (Bath)

For the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has given the House, I join him in this Prayer.

We raise this matter not because we are against the principle of the Act, or against the principles in the Regulations. I think the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance of our attitude in Committee on the Bill. We are concerned that as we had a good Bill we should also have good regulations. I have discovered that there is a passage in the Regulations which does not line up with the Act. There is a section relating to termination of notice which is irregular in relation to the Act. In one case it specifies five weeks and in another four weeks. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has had his attention drawn to that. On these grounds I join my hon. Friend in praying that the Regulations be annulled.

11.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton)

I would admit at once, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) that there is a defect in these Regulations. We in the Ministry noticed it only this morning, and are now taking steps to substitute 21 days for 28 days. In that way the firm undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave, through myself, in Committee will be fufilled, that is not to require more than 28 days' notice. Having given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his point.

So far as the subject raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is concerned, I readily admit also that there are certain difficulties in the shipbuilding industry as there are, probably, in the construction industry. It is our hope that perhaps these industries will get together with the trade unions concerned and, possibly, formulate a scheme which will meet their own particular requirements. I would remind the hon. Member that the Act does provide for this, but I would point out to the hon. Member for Cathcart that questions of notice will arise only where there have been two years or more of service. Under the Contracts of Employment Act, if an employee has two years' continuous service, then the employer is under a legal obligation to give two weeks' notice or two weeks' pay in lieu. If an employee has more than live years' service, then the employer is under obligation to give four weeks' notice.

I believe that the Regulations will be interpreted reasonably, and that it will not be a question of officials in the Ministry of Labour giving a final decision on these claims. If the employer feels aggrieved, then he has a right of recourse to an independent tribunal which will interpret what is thought to be reasonable. As the chairman of each tribunal will have with him assessors from both the employers' and the trade union sides, it should not be difficult to achieve a reasonable decision.

Where it is impossible or unreasonable for an employer to give the notice which is prescribed, there will not be any financial penalty. It is also not our present intention that these decisions on the 10 per cent. deduction from the rebate will be taken at the local level. In the first stages, at least, all cases for making the 10 per cent. permissible deduction will be referred to headquarters and decided there. If the employer feels the decision is unjust, then he will have the right of recourse, as I have said, to a tribunal.

Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow these Regulations to go through on the basis of the amendment which we shall lay forthwith and which will entirely fulfil the undertakings I gave earlier on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I wish only at this hour to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and for the assurance which he has given.

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.