§ Mr. BowisTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what date it is now his intention that new contracts for prison education should come into362W force; who will bear the cost of the delay in commencing the contracts for prison education for the period from 1 April until the actual commencement date; what provision will be made to the cost of compensation and redundancy for staff made redundant during that period; what advice he has given on the contractual position regarding prison education under the Protection of Employment (Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 1981, during that period; if he will vary the arrangements for the tendering process for prison education that is now under way; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Peter Lloyd[holding answer 18 February 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 11 February, Official Report, column 1098. The present suppliers were not prepared to extend the existing arrangements beyond 31 March in respect of 16 prison establishments. To secure the continuation of education in these prisons it was necessary to let contracts from 1 April. Where agreement to continue the existing arrangements was achieved, reimbursement of actual costs plus 5 per cent. in respect of administrative costs will be made by the Home Office as before until the new contracts are let and become effective. The Home Office considers that any costs resulting from redundancy remain, as previously, to be resolved between the employers and employees. As to the application of "TUPE" and the EEC Acquired Rights Directive 77/87, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stretford on 8 December 1992, Official Report, column 555. Subject to the outcome of the judicial review, I do not propose any other variations to the arrangements for the tendering process already announced.