Telecommunications Directorate (Hansard, 8 February 1994)

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, any prospective purchaser of the Directorate of Telecommunications must have the capacity to meet the liabilities and obligations which will be transferred as a result of the sale. It has been made clear to staff that their conditions of service will automatically transfer to their new employment. The new employer must also provide a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with that which is at present provided by the principal Civil Service pension scheme.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the terms which were offered by the Treasury to the Civil Service catering organisation have not been offered to the staff of the telecommunications directorate because the Treasury has stood in the way and will not allow that? Is that the case?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the circumstances regarding the transfer of the catering establishment to the private sector were different from those of DTELS, as it is called, which is a less competitive business than catering.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether this transfer comes under the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations? If so, can he tell the House what protection is required by those regulations for the staff of the telecommunications directorate and what assurances have been given to the staff?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, assurances have been given to the staff and any new purchaser is bound to give them conditions similar to those which they have received heretofore. There should be no problem over that.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend is in a difficult position. Will he try to persuade the Treasury to explain what the difference is between the staff of the Civil Service catering organisation and the staff of the telecommunications directorate, as that is not obvious to everyone?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, as my noble friend will know only too well, persuading the Treasury to do anything is always, shall we say, an uphill task. However, there is a difference in so far as catering is a 1494 much more competitive business than that of DTELS, which is restricted in its sphere of operation and is therefore less competitive.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the Minister is responding for the Government. He cannot get away with answering a question by saying that getting anything out of the Treasury is an uphill task. It is his Government's responsibility to deal with these matters and to control the civil servants who work for the Government. The Minister answered in general terms my question about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Will he say precisely whether this transfer comes under those regulations?

Earl Ferrers
Yes, my Lords, it does. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to make a trivial point by saying that I am supposed to answer for the Government. He is perfectly right in that I am supposed to answer for the Government. My noble friend asked me whether, as regards this matter, I would persuade the Treasury on his behalf. I merely commented about the difficulties of persuading anyone to do anything of this kind. However, it is a good deal easier to persuade the Treasury than to persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the fact that persuading the Treasury has comparative advantages, his earlier answer was reassuring in that it indicated that at any rate one department of state was going for restraint in public expenditure?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If I have not persuaded the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or the Treasury, I am glad that I have persuaded my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and that at least is a pleasure for me.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the noble Earl explain why a less competitive business cannot give the terms given by a more competitive business?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, it is perfectly simple. The Government's policy is that there should be a clean break on privatisation. A move into the private sector brings benefits and drawbacks which are obtainable in the private sector. If a company goes bust, there is no money for redundancy. In the case of the PSA and FORWARD, the conditions were different because catering is a far more difficult and volatile market. That is why it was considered appropriate to make special arrangements.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, to enable the House to understand the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the Minister, will the noble Earl lay in the Library the two sets of proposals so that the House as a whole can understand them and decide which side to support in the matter?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I did not know that there was any difference between my noble friend Lord Peyton and myself.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, will the noble Earl answer my question? I asked whether he would lay these papers in the Library so that the House as a whole will understand what the Government are proposing in regard to these two organisations?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the two papers are, but perhaps I may consider what the noble Lord said and if there are two such papers I can decide on whether they should be laid in the Library.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, the noble Earl—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Is my noble friend aware that there is this difference between us? When he speaks on behalf of his own department—the Home Office—we agree totally, but when he attempts to speak on behalf of that other department—the Treasury—there is quite a gulf between us.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my noble friend has been infected by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh and is now trying to be divisive. I speak on behalf of the Government not on behalf of any department.