GLC AND MCC STAFF: POST-ABOLITION RECRUITMENT (Hansard, 26 March 1986)

§ The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton)

Sir Philip Woodfield, Chairman of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission, wrote to me on 21st March enclosing a copy of Circular No. 15 and asking about the Government's policy on the application of Section 55(3) of this Act as it might affect the recruitment of former employees of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils who will benefit from the commission's decision, announced in their circular, that their ring-fencing procedures will remain in place for a time after the abolition of those councils.

The text of my reply, setting out our policy, is as follows: Thank you for your letter of 21 March enclosing a copy of the Commission's latest Circular on post-abolition ring-fence arrangements. Whilst I would hope that the successor authorities keep up their good work of recent weeks and make timely job offers to the new staff they decide they need, I do recognise that there may unfortunately be GLC and MCC employees left redundant at abolition who will still be seeking to find new jobs elsewhere in local government. I therefore welcome the enhanced opportunities which your decision will give these people to resume careers interrupted through no fault of their own. I think that you and your colleagues on the Commission need have no fears that the power in section 55(3) of the Local Government Act 1985 will work against this objective. As you know, this empowers—but does not require—the Secretary of State to direct a successor authority to pay to the appropriate body a sum equal to the redundancy payment and compensation paid to a former GLC/MCC employee left redundant at abolition and subsequently recruited by the authority. It was, however, never Ministers' intention to use this power simply because GLC/MCC staff who had been made redundant were subsequently re-engaged after an interval of time by a successor authority, and, indeed, section 55(4) ensures that this could not happen. In deciding whether to issue such a direction, the Secretary of State has to consider whether or not the authority concerned could reasonably have made a timely offer of the job. Obviously this would be a matter of judgement in each case, and I cannot prejudge what view the Secretary of State might take. But it would be our general policy not to direct recovery in cases where we were satisfied that an authority had made good efforts to recruit the people concerned. And we would, in general, only direct recovery when we had good reason to conclude that the authority had not made sufficient efforts to comply with its duties under sections 55(1) and (2). It does seem that, in general, the successor authorities have made considerable progress in discharging the duties laid on them by section 55(1) and (2)—to make early decisions on the extra staff they need, and to make timely job offers to GLC/MCC employees they wish to recruit. Accordingly, I would expect there to be very few cases in which the question of issuing a direction under section 55(3) might arise. I hope this reassures you and your colleagues about the intended effect of this provision".