HL Deb 16 March 1989 vol 505 cc439-41

9.45 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Section 149 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 to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985 and was amended again in 1988 bringing in several bodies that were omitted in 1983 and 1985, or had since come into existence. I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is discharged as redundant after at least two years' service is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated, among other things, according to his period of continuous service with his last employer. 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 became redundant even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in the local government sector.

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 whom service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. The first, in Schedule 1 to the 1983 order, lists those employers currently in being, by whom anyone may be made redundant. The second, in the appendix to Schedule 2 in the same order, lists those bodies with which service may still be reckoned for redundancy purposes.

This amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 of the 1983 order bodies which have come into existence since the last amendment was made or were omitted in 1983, 1985 and 1988. 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. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I should like again to thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has explained the order. On this side of the House we have no objections to offer.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, we on these Benches have no objections to offer to the contents of this order, but I have given the noble Earl notice of a question that I wish to ask that is related indirectly to the order. I ask for your Lordships' indulgence if I take a few moments to explain.

During the passage of last year's Education Reform Act I moved an amendment on Report which sought to redress the difference in redundancy compensation between ex-GLC staff recruited and those transferred to ILEA when the GLC was abolished. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, responded that she accepted that ex-GLC employees recruited to ILEA who were under 50 years of age with 20 years' service would, if made redundant, receive less generous compensation than if they had retained their GLC terms. The noble Baroness said that the Government proposed to discuss with ILEA and the London Residuary Body whether employees in this category, recruited by ILEA in the belief that their redundancy compensation would remain unchanged, could be separately identified. If they could, compensation regulations to be made under the Superannuation Act 1972 would be drafted to ensure that such people, if made redundant by either ILEA or the LRB as a result of ILEA's abolition, could receive compensation on the same terms as their counterparts transferred from the GLC to ILEA employment.

Should it become clear that employees who believe their GLC rights have been retained could not be separately identified, the Government would consider widening the scope of the regulatations to include all ex-GLC employees recruited to ILEA. On the basis of those assurances, I withdrew my amendment at that time.

On 16th February last the promised draft regulations were published but they did not include special provision for ex-GLC recruits to ILEA. However, in a letter dated 21st February —the noble Earl has a copy of this letter —the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, assured me that the matter had not been overlooked and that a considerable amount of time was being spent in seeking to reach a fair conclusion. I hope that now a further month has passed since the draft regulations were published, the noble Earl will be able to assure me that a decision favourable to those involved has finally been reached.

Subject only to that reservation I am happy, on behalf of my noble friends, to approve this order.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for giving me advance notice of his question. As the noble Lord explained, his query concerns those staff recruited rather than transferred by statutory order to the employment of ILEA at the time of the abolition of the GLC in 1986 and the terms of redundancy compensation for which they will be eligible should they be made redundant on the abolition of ILEA.

I can assure the noble Lord that the Government gave very careful consideration to the representations made on this point. I have to say, however, that the evidence presented has not provided convincing grounds for exceptional provision for the group concerned. However, the Government are currently consulting on draft compensation regulations for staff affected by the abolition of ILEA and when responses to that draft have been received (the deadline is tomorrow) the Government will consider the matter further.

I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their general welcome to this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.