Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
168 Amount of payments.
(1) The sum payable to an employee by the Secretary of State under section 167—
(a) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a redundancy payment or a part of a redundancy payment, is a sum equal to the amount of the redundancy payment or part, . . .
(aa) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement having effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of any redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee but for the agreement, whichever is less, and
(b) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which the employer is liable to make under an agreement in respect of which an order is in force under section 157, is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of the relevant redundancy payment, whichever is less , or
(c) receipt of information from the employer and consultation by the employer under section 188 (redundancies) or under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to the amount of the relevant redundancy payment is to the amount of the redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee on the assumptions specified in subsection (3).
(3) The assumptions referred to in subsection (2) are that—
(a) the order in force in respect of the agreement had not been made,
(b) the circumstances in which the employer’s payment is payable had been such that the employer was liable to pay a redundancy payment to the employee in those circumstances,
(c) the relevant date, in relation to any such redundancy payment, had been the date on which the termination of the employee’s contract of employment is treated as having taken effect for the purposes of the agreement, and
(d) in so far as the provisions of the agreement relating to the circumstances in which the continuity of an employee’s period of employment is to be treated as broken, and the weeks which are to count in computing a period of employment, are inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV, the provisions of the agreement were substituted for those provisions.
Your change, as a redline
168 Amount of payments.
(1) The sum payable to an employee by the Secretary of State under section 167—
(a) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a redundancy payment or a part of a redundancy payment, is a sum equal to the amount of the redundancy payment or part, . . .
(aa) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which his employer is liable to make to him under an agreement having effect by virtue of section 203(2)(e) or (f), is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of any redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee but for the agreement, whichever is less, and
(b) where the employer’s payment to which the employee’s application under section 166 relates is a payment which the employer is liable to make under an agreement in respect of which an order is in force under section 157, is a sum equal to the amount of the employer’s payment or of the relevant redundancy payment, whichever is less , or
(c) receipt of information from the employer and consultation by the employer under section 188 (redundancies) or under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to the amount of the relevant redundancy payment is to the amount of the redundancy payment which the employer would have been liable to pay to the employee on the assumptions specified in subsection (3).
(3) The assumptions referred to in subsection (2) are that—
(a) the order in force in respect of the agreement had not been made,
(b) the circumstances in which the employer’s payment is payable had been such that the employer was liable to pay a redundancy payment to the employee in those circumstances,
(c) the relevant date, in relation to any such redundancy payment, had been the date on which the termination of the employee’s contract of employment is treated as having taken effect for the purposes of the agreement, and
(d) in so far as the provisions of the agreement relating to the circumstances in which the continuity of an employee’s period of employment is to be treated as broken, and the weeks which are to count in computing a period of employment, are inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV, the provisions of the agreement were substituted for those provisions.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.