§ 4. Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has to relieve firms of their share of the cost of redundancy pay where they have become seriously financially embarrassed by Government policy.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter)None, Sir.
One of the principles implicit in the Redundancy Payments Act is that the cost of statutory redundancy payments is a proper charge on industry. This principle was generally accepted by hon. Members opposite during the passage of the Bill. I can see no case for departing from it now, and certainly not by reason of present Government policies whose specific aim is to make British industry more efficient.
§ Mr. RidleyWhere specifically a firm has followed the Government's lead and has increased its production and now finds itself in serious financial difficulties, would not the Minister agree that it is the Government's responsibility to help it out? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the case to which I refer and about which I have written to him?
§ Mr. GunterYes, indeed, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we debated this matter during the Committee stage of the Redundancy Payments Bill. In fact, it was brought to a head in a debate on a Clause, in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) participated. At that time the argument related to when a particular contract such as the TSRII contract was breached. It was never argued in the way in which the hon. Gentleman is arguing it now.
§ Mr. OnslowWill the Minister not confirm that a man transferred from one company to another within the same group still qualifies for redundancy payments? Is not this absurd?
§ Mr. GunterWhether or not it is absurd, that is the law.
§ 10. Mr. Scottasked the Minister of Labour what evidence he has of collusion between employers and employees in claiming redundancy payments.
§ Mr. GunterNone, Sir.
§ Mr. ScottDid not the right hon. Gentleman raise this matter in the debate on 15th November, and was he not ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on that occasion? Having raised it himself, is it not regrettable that he now refuses to bear out the allegation which he then made?
§ Mr. GunterThe question that I am asked is what evidence I have of collusion between employers and employees. I have no evidence at the present time of actual collusion. I am looking carefully into the case which the hon. Gentleman has submitted to me. If I may say so, there are certain aspects of this case which rather fascinate me but collusion is not one of them.
§ Mr. OnslowThe right hon. Gentleman has told the House that it is inevitable that a man who is transferred from one com- 6 pany to another within the same group must get a redundancy payment. Does not this open up opportunities for collusion?
§ Mr. GunterIt may do. All I am being asked to say is what evidence I have of collusion. Collusion has a certain meaning. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman understands the word, it has a particular meaning. I have been asked what is the collusion between employers and employees. My reply is that at the moment I have no evidence.
§ 49. Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour what has ben the total cost of redundancy payments between 1st January, 1966, and 30th June, 1966, and from 1st July to 30th November; and how much has been expended on unemployment benefits in the same two periods.
§ Mr. GunterAs the Reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
§ Following is the information:
| 1st January to 30th June, 1966 | 1st July to 31st October, 1966 (latest available date) | |
| £ | £ | |
| Redundancy Payments Unemployment | 10,296,000 | 9,771,000 |
| Benefit | 24,218,906 | 16,972,529 |
| National Assistance payments to persons registered as unemployed | 12,558,687 | 8,103,616 |