§
I3A. In section 64 of the Industrial Injuries Act, in subsection (4), for the words after paragraph (b) substitute the following-
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £50.
(5) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (4)(b) of this section, and the refusal or neglect is continued by him after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which it is so continued.
(5A) No one shall be required under this section to answer any questions or to give any evidence tending to incriminate himself or, in the case of a person who is married, his or her wife or husband."
§ Mr. DeanThe general effect of these amendments is to bring the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act 1965 into line with the relevant provisions of this Bill.
§ Mr. MeacherI want to raise a point on Lords Amendment No. 89, which concerns the priority for debts in the case of personal and company insolvency. The subsection (2) referred to makes it clear there is to be no priority protection for contributions where a company is wound up voluntarily for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation with another company.
This kind of decision would in most cases be made by an employer or takeover bidder, and it is not therefore a decision in which the members of a scheme or employees would normally participate. Therefore, what is the justification for the fact that there is to be no comparable protection for members of schemes in such cases when they have not participated in the decisions and may well in most cases be positively opposed to them?
§ Mr. DeanThe point does not arise on these amendments, which deal with penalties. Perhaps, therefore, it would be 209 convenient to the House if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about it.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.