HC Deb 10 April 1967 vol 744 cc725-6
26. Mr. Edelman

asked the Minister of Labour how many of the workers at Messrs. Rootes, Coventry, made redundant last December, have since been re-employed by the same firm; and what was the cost to the National Redundancy Fund.

Mr. Fernyhough

Of the 99 workers re-engaged by Rootes, 80 had received redundancy payments at a cost of £18,000 to the Redundancy Fund

Mr. Edelman

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these redundancies, which took place on the eve of the Chrysler take-over, were really necessary and that they were not merely designed to make the situation appear blacker than it was? Does he think it appropriate that the National Redundancy Fund should be used for tactics which have no real relationship to the purposes for which the Fund was established?

Mr. Fernyhough

I am perfectly satisfied that the workers who received redundancy payments were entitled to them under the law as it stands. As to whether the company acted with the fore- sight it might have shown, I would not like to comment on that.

Mr. Lubbock

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if a fixed amount of money is made available by the Government to help redundant workers, that money should properly go to those who have been out of work for a long time and not to those who obtain employment within a few weeks of being dismissed? If he agrees with this view, then the example quoted by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) shows that there is need to amend the Act.

Mr. Fernyhough

I would not agree with that. There was no guarantee that Rootes would ever again employ the men who were declared redundant. They therefore had every right under the Act to these payments. It must be remembered that, having now received redundancy payments, these men start afresh and will have to work for two years before becoming due to entitlement to further redundancy payments. This means that if they become redundant again during this period they will not, unlike other workers who may become redundant at the same time, get benefit.

Mr. Ridley

In view of the fact that some of these workers apparently volunteered to be made redundant in order to get redundancy pay, is there not an obvious and serious anomaly in the Act? When will the Government consider the Act again with the aim of bringing it up to date in regard to need?

Mr. Fernyhough

I would not like to say that the claim made by the hon. Gentleman is true; but if he can supply us with evidence, then that might be a different matter. The fact remains that under the Act as it stands these men qualified for this benefit. I believe, therefore, that they were entitled to it—and rather than be niggardly about it, I am glad that the industry's future prospects seem so much brighter and that it has been able to take on labour which it thought three or four months ago would not be required.