The Civil Service Catering Organisation (Hansard, 24 January 1994)

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the staff of Forward—formerly the Civil Service Catering Organisation—have been assured, first, that their terms and conditions of employment will be protected at the point of transfer by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations; secondly, that the Government will seek to sell the business to a purchaser who can demonstrate the competence and financial strength to assure its future; and thirdly, that if the purchasing company should fail within three years, the Government will guarantee the staff's redundancy payments earned during their time in the Civil Service to the extent that the company is unable to meet those commitments.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very informative reply. Would I be right in assuming that the Treasury, having behaved in such a very proper manner itself, would not stand in the way of other departments giving similar assurances to staff of similar organisations?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, each case obviously has to be considered on its merits. It was felt appropriate in this case to give the guarantees that I have repeated on this occasion. I understand that my noble friend has a Question down in some two weeks' time relating to the Telecommunications Directorate. I am sure that he will look forward to getting a full and proper answer on that occasion.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton? He said that the staff have been given assurances that they will be fully protected. In the light of some of the occurrences in areas that have been privatised in terms of the diminution of protection, can the Minister tell us what he means when he says that the staff will be given 810 full protection? Does that include wages and conditions right across the board, and how long will such protection last? Those are very important aspects of the matter.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, at the point of transfer they will be protected by the TUPE regulations which are applicable in this case. Thereafter it is a matter for negotiation between the new owners and the new staff as to what applies. It is important that I stress, as regards pension rights, that it is a requirement that for future service the purchaser in this case should offer a pension scheme which is broadly comparable with the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The precise details, including any adjustments for marginal detriment, will be subject to the approval of the Government Actuary acting independently in this matter.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, is there net a possibility of entrenchment of these rights? We have seen in the case of certain organisations such as APEX that staff have been browbeaten into signing away their rights within a very short period of the transfer of responsibility. is there no way in which these people can be protected against that kind of chicanery?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we have given a number of assurances and, as I have said, the TUPE regulations are applicable. Thereafter it is a matter for negotiation between employer and employees.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, will the Minister address the way in which the Government are conducting what would likely be described as negotiations with a series of pension funds which involve hundreds of thousands of people? They are doing so on the basis of using their powers to an extent which the late Robert Maxwell would have gone green with envy over—I am quite serious about that—and in a way which would not be tolerated in the private sector by the Government. Is it not high time that they produced and published consistent principles for dealing with all these public pension funds?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I reject allegations that we are browbeating the pension companies. The assurance I was trying to give is that in this particular case, as regards their pensions, the purchaser will offer a pension scheme which is broadly comparable to their existing arrangements. That will be subject to the approval of the Government Actuary—I stress this point—acting independently in the matter.

§ Lord Eatwell
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the National Audit Office found last year that the catering service was characterised by, mismanagement, irregularity and fraud"? Can he further confirm that the main form of fraud was tax evasion, no doubt induced by the record rates of taxation imposed by this Government? Will he tell us who was the Minister responsible for the department committing this massive fraud, and when can we expect a resignation?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I was not aware of those allegations. I shall certainly take them on board and write to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, if I may go back to the original Question and my noble friend's first supplementary answer, does he realise just how right he was when he said that I would await with some eagerness and great interest the reply to my next question on this subject?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very grateful that my noble friend awaits these answers with eagerness.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, governments of all political complexions have acknowledged in situations like this the civilised assistance they have received from the Civil Service unions. Would the Minister be prepared to consider contacting in particular the CSU, as I am sure that it would be prepared to help him.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we have had negotiations in this matter with all the relevant unions. I am not sure whether the union that the noble Lord has mentioned is one of those, but there have been full and frank discussions with them, and since the announcement was made.