HL Deb 03 May 1988 vol 496 cc446-8

7.46 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Sections 149 and 153 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 primarily to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985.

I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is dismissed as redundant after at least two years' continuous service, is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated according to, among other things, his period of continuous service. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own, an employee would be entitled to a payment every time he was dismissed as redundant, even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.

This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service, in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government, and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the statutory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".

Because there is no convenient and comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with which service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. Before the right to a redundancy payment can arise, an employee must first be made redundant by the authority which employs him, which must of course be one of those local authority or related bodies currently in existence. These are listed in Schedule 1. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the total period of service on which the payment will be based. This may be service with the current employer, or another employer still in existence, or an authority which has ceased to exist as a result of past reorganisations. The Appendix to Schedule 2 therefore lists all those employers with whom employment may constitute "relevant local government service".

The amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 and the Appendix to Schedule 2 to the 1983 order a number of bodies which were omitted in 1983 and 1985 or have come into existence since the last amendment was made. It is essentially a tidying-up measure. The number of employees likely to be affected is small. I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of what this order is all about and to say that from these Benches we support it because we believe it to be a sensible measure and entirely uncontroversial. It is my understanding also that the unions involved in local government support the order.

The only point I should like to make, as we are talking here about redundancy and redundancy payments, is that I hope the Minister will agree that redundancy payments are very much a fallback position. One would hope, particularly in public employment, that the first consideration will always be given to retraining and redeployment rather than to redundancy payments.

Having said that, we accept that this is a reasonable and non-controversial measure and from these Benches we support it.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I shall be even briefer than the noble Baroness. From these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the clear way in which he has explained this order to us. Like the noble Baroness we have no objection to its passage.

On Question, Motion agreed to.