§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now set out the eligibility of redundant trawlermen for compensation for redundancy in the light of his Department's decision in the case of Mr. Dennis Miller of Hull; and on what basis Mr. Miller was paid.
§ Mr. GummerThe qualifying conditions for a statutory redundancy payment are the same for employed trawlermen as for other employees. They are set out in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended by the Employment Act 1982. It is difficult for fishermen to meet these conditions if they work on the casual basis typical of the industry, that is under separate contracts on successive voyages of less than two years duration, and perhaps for different employers. Mr. Dennis Miller, however, had many years of service with the same employer with only very short gaps between voyages. His94W claim for a direct redundancy payment under section 106 of the 1978 Act was accepted because having studied his case, the Department's lawyers considered that he had been employed under a single contract of indefinite duration. Any other cases will be considered in the light of their own facts.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of his Department's decision to pay compensation to Mr. Dennis Miller for loss of his job as a trawlerman, he will now accept applications from all trawlermen with similar continuity of service who have been made redundant since 1976.
§ Mr. GummerThe decision to pay a direct redundancy payment to Mr. Dennis Miller does not set a precedent for other cases, as I have explained in answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question of today's date. If other trawlermen made redundant in the past took the necessary action to safeguard their rights within the time limits yin section 101 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, any claims they may now submit will be considered on their merits.