COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 30 June 1994)

§ Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 en bloc.
The amendments give effect to the undertaking which the Secretary of State made in another place at Second Reading to reassure staff that they will have their full rights under employment protection legislation, including rights to consultation with representatives of staff and trade unions about prospective redundancies and notice of redundancy—matters which caused your Lordships considerable anxiety when the discussion took place both in Committee and on Report.
Amendment No. 41 closes a loophole in Clause 45 by giving the Secretary of State power to stop the unnecessary payment of compensation to individuals on a fixed term contract with an old authority who, but for the amendment, would have been able to secure a job by competition in one of the new authorities but, although 885 they would be paid a full salary for that, would be able to claim compensation for loss of office under the existing contract.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, we are comforted in the thought mat the new Clause 44 is a great improvement upon the original clause. The new clause no longer deems a contract of employment as having been frustrated by reorganisation.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is quite right to remind the House that we were extremely concerned about the original Clause 44, and we welcome this amendment. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that local government employees who are made redundant or suffer loss or detriment as a result of the reorganisation on 1st April 1996 are entitled to the benefit of all existing employment rights, including those in respect of consultation and notice?
Secondly, perhaps I may refer to the words: or by or under any other enactment". They are inserted in the penultimate paragraph of Clause 44. Do those words mean that the provisions of the Bill, in the words of the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, cannot override the requirements of European legislation, such at. the TUPE regulations, which implement the acquired rights directive"?—(Official Report, Commons, 1676/94; col. 789.] Having listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it seems to me mat there may remain one area of concern for the staff; and I agree that in practice it affects only a small number of senior and middle management staff. They are anxious because as yet the Welsh Office has not formally stated in clear terms mat it agrees with the proposal of the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Council of Welsh Districts and the Local Government Management Board (Welsh Region) that an employee who has not voluntarily agreed the terms of redundancy with his existing authority but wishes to be included in the staff transfer order to a new authority will be so transferred. Is that question still being considered by the Government or have they made up their minds about it?

§ Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
My Lords, as your Lordships will see, the position under Clause 34 is mat, if the contract of employment of a person who is in service immediately before 1st April 1996 with one of the old authorities is not transferred to a new principal council or the residuary body on that date, it is treated as terminated-In mat situation, by virtue of Clause 44(1), he becomes entitled to all the rights under Parts IV, V and VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and under Chapter II, Part IV of me Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Those include the right to consultation and notice to which the noble Lord referred.
As has been indicated on previous occasions, the Government do not intend that all employees will transfer. We believe that the vast majority of employees, in practice, will transfer because most of the services will be carried on. If teachers were required before 886 reorganisation, they will be required after reorganisaion. Therefore, we believe that most, but not all, will transfer. As we have indicated on a previous occasion, at the end of the day we do not believe that it would be sensible or kind to the officials concerned to provide for some kind of notional transfer on 1st April 1996 which would mean only the postponement of the decision as to whether employment with the new authority would be continued. We believe that it is better that the matter should be considered as soon as possible so that everyone knows what will be the position.
By virtue of the fact that large numbers of people will transfer, coupled with those who will transfer by virtue of TUPE—though we hope that among those who will not transfer there may be people who will opt for taking voluntary redundancy—we hope, in that way, that the numbers of people who will be affected will be small. However, the Government do not intend mat all will do so.