§ 9. Mr. McKelveyTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with local government trade unions about employment conditions after local government reorganisation.
§ Mr. LangI have received no requests from local government trade unions for discussions about employment conditions after local government reorganisation.
§ Mr. McKelveyIf—God help us—the planned reorganisation of local government goes ahead will the Secretary of State make a commitment now that local government employees who have to transfer to a new authority or new employer will be guaranteed their conditions of pay, their pensions and their full rights under the European Union's acquired rights directive?
§ Mr. LangIt is too soon to be specific about the detailed decisions that will be taken; they will be considered carefully and taken nearer the time. Nor is it possible to generalise about the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 or the acquired rights directive. Individual circumstances will vary.
§ Mr. George RobertsonWill the Secretary of State confirm that the main savings that he was projecting for this gerrymandered reorganisation were to come from the sacking of staff currently employed by local councils? Will he now confirm what everyone else in the country knows is a fact—that European law, both the acquired rights directive and the TUPE regulations, will mean that he simply will not be able to sack staff across Scotland on a wholesale basis? Does that not mean that the Government's promises on the costs and savings from local government reorganisation are as bogus as their promises on value added tax at the last election, and that the taxpayers of Scotland will have to pick up the £700 million price tag for a reorganisation that is both unnecessary and completely unwanted?
§ Mr. LangIt is the hon. Gentleman's question that is bogus. What he still refuses to acknowledge, although even he must understand it, is that costs and savings are directly related. Just as costs derive from substantial redundancy payments, savings result from reduced staff numbers. The hon. Gentleman cannot therefore say that there will be no savings but that there will be substantial costs, because the figures are directly related. I envisage most local authority staff transferring by one means or another to the new councils, irrespective of TUPE, but it is impossible to generalise on the application of TUPE because individual circumstances will vary.