House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Apr 1991

Mr. Cousins : The Minister's answer is both curious and disappointing. It is curious because it substantially concedes the case that we are trying to make. In view of his remarks in a previous debate this afternoon, the Minister could not seek to deny the value of the regional offices. Nor did he seek to do so in his reply. It is clear in his mind that those regional offices deal with large numbers of inquiries and provide an extremely important counselling service. They undertake effective missionary work regarding the promotion and encouragement of exports, particularly among small and medium-sized industries, along precisely the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) described. The Minister does not in any way dispute our arguments about the value of that network of regional offices.

The Minister's speech was curious because he said that we did not need to take any measures to retain the network of regional offices in the arrangements following privatisation. If the offices are as valuable as the Minister concedes, they must be worth preserving. There would be nothing extraordinary or unusual for the seller to ensure that the purchaser undertook to retain a network of continuing activity for a reasonable period. That does not constitute meddling or excessive regulation. It is slightly curious for a Minister from a Department that gave us the Financial Services Act 1986 to deliver lectures about the nature of excessive regulation.

It may be far easier to make a provision in the sale to continue regional offices than to attempt to intervene later by administrative regulation or Government involvement to patch together what could have been saved at the outset by a simple inclusion of this point in the terms of the sale.

Column 90

If we think that the network of regional offices is valuable, now is the easy moment to preserve and develop it. To return after the disposal of these activities to a private company and attempt to reimpose, rebuild, comment on, criticise, develop and worry about counselling services that may have disappeared so that the only service is somebody sitting beside a fax machine in London will be to act too late. Then the matter will be complicated and will require regulation and unnecessary Government intervention in the work of a private agency. We are now engaged in the process of disposal and this is the simple and right moment to ensure that the network of regional offices survives.

Amendment negatived.

Ms. Quin : I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 28, at end insert--

(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no scheme shall be made under this section without proper and timeous consultations with the relevant trade and exporting organisations and the accredited representatives of the employees' trade unions.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 21, in page 5, line 31, at end insert--

( ) A scheme under this section shall contain a provision that there shall be a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreed purchase, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employees' trade unions.'.

No. 10 in page 6, line 7, clause 9, at end add--

(3) A scheme under Section 8 of this Act shall contain a provision that there shall be a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreement between the transferor and the transferee, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employees' trade unions.'.

Ms. Quin : The amendments deal with the important issue of consultation with the work force who will be affected by the establishment of the privatised ISG and the conditions under which those consultations should take place.

Amendment No. 6 refers to

"proper and timeous consultations with the relevant trade and exporting organisations and the accredited representatives of the employees' trade unions."

Although we believe that consultations with the work force at Cardiff are important, we have also referred in the amendment to the importance of consultations with the relevant exporting organisations. The way in which the Government have proceeded with the Bill has not led to such satisfactory consultations.

Amendment No. 21 refers to

"a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreed purchase, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and employees' trade unions."

That is the minimum that should be required. Despite the so-called process of consultation, we are not convinced that there has been any meaningful consultation to allow the views of the work force to be heard. We do not believe that their ideas have been noted and accepted.

Such consultation would be normal in most parts of the European Community. Given that one of the reasons the Government feel the Bill is necessary is as a response to possible changes in export credit in Europe, it would be a good idea if the Government followed the European

Column 91

practice for consultation with the work force in Cardiff. We know, however, that the Government are opposed to the European social charter and that they do not like the idea of being obliged to consult employees, or to take their views into account. Presumably that explains their attitude to the privatisation of ECGD. Amendment No. 10 also refers to

"a period of not less than three months for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions".

We believe that the discussions between the Government, the trade unions and the employees who will be affected must be wide-ranging to cover all the various terms and conditions that will obtain at transfer.

Some of those terms and conditions will be the subject of later amendments and I know that the issue is also likely to be considered in another place when the Bill is subject to further discussion. However, we make no apology for referring to consultation and agreement now, as they are of vital concern to the employees who will be affected by the transfer.

Mr. Sainsbury : Since the outset of discussions leading to the proposal for privatisation, ECGD has been careful to involve and consult interested parties, and that includes the staff, their trade unions and the relevant exporting associations. I am surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) that there have been no such full and comprehensive consultations with the trade unions and individual members of staff. That suggestion is contrary to the facts.

Before the decision to privatise was taken, Mr. Kemp received comments from all interested parties during his review, as did the inter-departmental working group of officials set up to study the options in the Kemp report. Those interested parties included trade unions. Major exporters and exporting organisations submitted their views to the Select Committee for Trade and Industry when it examined the future of ECGD. Numerous written representations have been taken into account. The trade unions also submitted evidence to the Select Committee through the Council of Civil Service Unions.

Since the intention to privatise ISG was announced on 18 December 1989, the trade unions have been kept informed of developments and have had numerous opportunities for making their views known to ECGD's management at meetings of the department's Whitley committee and its sub-committees, including a special sub-committee relating to privatisation issues, which meets monthly.

The hon. Lady will be aware that there have already been an exhaustive number of meetings. From time to time, there have also been meetings of the management and the chairmen of various sub-committees dealing with particular aspects of the privatisation. The topics covered in those meetings include personnel records and preliminary staff projections for the new company as well as for the proposed organisation of ECGD post- privatisation. I assure the hon. Lady that ECGD's trade unions will continue to be fully consulted as required by TUPE--Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

All the invited bidders have already met the ECGD trade unions or have arranged to do so. The bidders will be able, if they wish, to have further discussions with the

Column 92

unions before they submit their bids. The preferred purchaser, when identified, will have the opportunity to have further discussions with the trade unions about the terms and conditions offered. I cannot, of course, commit the preferred purchaser to any particular approach to those discussions, but the opportunity for them will exist. There should be sufficient opportunity for such discussions before the package of terms and conditions on offer is formally presented to all staff. When that has been done, the staff will be given at least a month to express their individual preferences. I believe that is an adequate time scale and there is no need to specify a different or longer one in the Bill.

It would be unreasonable to include in statute a requirement that the parties involved should reach an agreement on terms and conditions within a set period, whether that meant three minutes, three weeks or three months.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of full and proper consultation, and that is exactly what has already taken place. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and, insofar as they suggest that there should be a period of not less than three months for consultation starting from the date of the announcement of the agreement, they would be unhelpful and would lead to uncertainty and difficulty not only for the staff, but exporters. I had hoped that it remained the hon. Lady's view that we should provide good assistance to exporters rather than make their job more difficult.

Mr. Michael : It is not adequate to quote in support of consultation with staff consultation and comment on policy to a Select Committee in response to the Kemp report. That is no substitute for proper consultation on the current details of the way in which the privatisation will affect staff.

To date there has been no meaningful consultation with ECGD trade unions by the management departments. That is illustrated by the fact that it was necessary to take the case to the central arbitration committee to force the management to release a report prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte on the terms and conditions and pension right arrangements that are likely to apply to existing ECGD staff who agree to transfer to the newly privatised company.

Mr. Sainsbury : I remind the hon. Gentleman that when that point was made previously I had to point out that the staff had sought the release of that document before it had been prepared. It would have been extremely difficult for Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to hand over a report that had not been completed.

Mr. Michael : The Minister repeats what he said in Committee, but the staff have also repeated their statement since the Minister made that statement. They have repeated that it was necessary for them to take such action to obtain the details of the terms and conditions and pension arrangements that were likely to apply to existing staff. It is surely right that the staff should be given information as early as possible and be fully consulted about it.

The management's intention is as follows : once the purchaser of ISG has been selected, a package of employment terms and conditions will be presented to staff, who will then have one month in which to consider it and to decide whether to join the privatised company or

Column 93

to remain in the civil service. That does not allow enough time for expert advice to be obtained on employment terms or for meaningful consultation to take place--the more so given the current backlog of items on which consultation and negotiation are needed.

8.30 pm

The Minister has said that he agrees with the Opposition on the need for consultation. Sad to say, such words come easily, but staff are still not to be given adequate consideration during the process of privatisation. If the Minister agrees with us so readily, why does he not accept the amendments? If he is so willing to accept the principles behind them, why does he not accept them in full? The Minister has promised full and adequate consultation with staff at every stage from now on. I ask him to ensure that that happens in practice.

Mr. Sainsbury : The hon. Gentleman asks why I do not accept the amendments. Amendment No. 6 states that

"no scheme shall be made under this section without proper and timeous consultation".

Who is to determine what "proper" means? A good reason for not accepting the amendments is that they are far too vague. Apart from the wide-ranging and continuing consultation with the trade unions to which I have already referred, 700 counselling interviews with members of staff have been held.

Mr. Michael : On the second point, the Minister knows about the unsatisfactory answers given by the Department and by the Minister responsible for the civil service. On the first point, the last refuge of a Minister who has lost the argument is to suggest a difficulty in an amendment that would be impossible to resolve in law. The test of what is reasonable is well established in English law, and there would be no problem about testing these points in that way. I seem to remember that in Committee the Minister defended the word "reasonable".

Mr. Sainsbury : The amendment contains the word "proper", not "reasonable".

Mr. Michael : The Minister is quibbling. He is seeking a test of what is reasonable, and if the amendment, including the principles with which he says he agrees, were incorporated in law, the test of what is reasonable would suffice to determine whether a particular course of action was satisfactory. Either the Minister should accept the amendments, therefore, or, given the quality of advice that he has at his disposal, his colleagues in another place should return with fresh amendments to give effect to the principles with which he says he agrees.

We are disappointed with the Minister's response and we shall keep these matters under close scrutiny. How the Minister pursues the undertaking that he has given in this short debate will also be a matter of scrutiny and debate in another place. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

Transferred Staff

Ms. Quin : I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 39, after 1981', insert

and the EC Directive 77/187 (The Acquired Rights Directive)'.

Column 94

The amendment contains a reference to European Community directive 77/187--the acquired rights directive. We tabled the amendment because we understand that there may well be a discrepancy between the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the directive, under which the TUPE regulations were introduced in the United Kingdom.

I refer the House to article 6 of the acquired rights directive : "The transferor and the transferee shall be required to inform the representatives of their respective employees affected by a transfer within the meaning of article 1(1) of the following : the reasons for the transfer ; the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the employees ; measures envisaged in relation to the employees.

The transferor must give such information to the representatives of his employees in good time before the transfer is carried out If the transferor or the transferee envisages measures in relation to his employees, he shall consult his representatives in good time on such measures with a view to seeking agreement."

The TUPE regulations only require the employer to inform recognised representatives long enough before a relevant transfer to enable consultation to take place, and they make no reference to seeking agreement.

If the acquired rights directive is not fully honoured on this occasion, would employees in these circumstances have some sort of legal resource? To avoid any move of that sort, it would perhaps be sensible explicitly to invoke the acquired rights directive to cover the transfer of the ISG to a private buyer. By including a reference to the directive, which we have signed, a greater obligation to consult meaningfully with trade union representatives over the transfer would be imposed--an imposition that would include not only consultation but a commitment to seeking agreement between employees and Government over the proposals. That would be an important commitment, especially to the employees at Cardiff. By assuring them that their views are being fully taken into account they would know that the consultation is not just a cosmetic exercise that will not result in any changes.

Mr. Sainsbury : I can assure the hon. Lady that the consultation is far from a cosmetic exercise. It is a full and comprehensive consultation-- I have already mentioned 700 individual

interviews--involving both trade unions and members of staff. The amendment is not appropriate. The acquired rights directive requires member states to enact provisions in their own law to give effect to the policy described in the directive. Under Community law directives are binding in effect, but the choice of form and method of achieving that effect is left to member states. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981--we happily refer to them as TUPE--were the enactment of the directive in United Kingdom law. To apply the directive to the same transactions as those to which TUPE apply would be unnecessary and confusing for anyone trying to determine what his or her position in law was. It would apply two statutory provisions different in drafting style and expression and one of them, the acquired rights directive, was not framed with United Kingdom concepts of law in mind. It was not designed directly to operate in the context of the United Kingdom's legal system. The result would be increased uncertainty and possible doubt about the law.

Having chosen to implement the acquired rights directive by means of TUPE, it is doubtful whether it

Column 95

would be in accordance with Community law to try to implement it again in relation to a specific transaction to which TUPE would also apply. If we did that, we could be accused of avoiding the choice of a formal method, which is required under Community law. The amendment would injure the interests of ECGD staff by creating confusion about their rights. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to stick to TUPE, which enacts in United Kingdom law the requirements of the acquired rights directive.

Mr. Morgan : The Minister tried to dodge the entire issue by claiming that TUPE is the British style enactment of the acquired rights directive. He must be able to demonstrate that the 1981 TUPE version of the 1977 acquired rights directive is relevant to 1991. In their 11 or 12 years in office, the Government have tried to cut this country away from the entire general drift of industrial relations provisions for consultation on major changes in employment by large firms. They have tried to cut Britain adrift from Community legislation on employment and from the social charter.

There is an interesting and relevant item in The Independent this morning relating to the Government's problems on this issue. It shows that in 1991 this issue is still a burning topic. It is not enough to say, as the Minister has said, that TUPE incorporates the necessary legislation. If that is true, why was it necessary for the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the chairman of the Conservative party, to write on the topic to Wilfrid Martens, the chairman of the Christian Democrat Federation? The Independent seems to have acquired a copy of the letter which relates to the application by the British Conservative group in the European Parliament to become members of the Christian Democrat group. A typical Christian Democrat would have accepted our amendment straight away because it incorporates the latest and most up-to-date thinking about what employees deserve by way of consultation rights. The Government will not accept the amendment because of the current battle for the soul of the Conservative party.

In his letter, the right hon. Member for Bath said that Britain supported

" a social dimension to the social market'".

Many Conservative Ministers, including the two who are in the Chamber, would find that deeply offensive and contrary to their fundamental beliefs. The letter speaks of a social dimension, "that takes into full account the criteria agreed at the Madrid European Council in June 1989."

It refers to the principle of job creation and recognises the principle of subsidiarity. I cite that letter in the context of the struggle for the soul of the Conservative party. Under the acquired rights directive or any legislation dealing with rights acquired or given to employees in any kind of transfer from the public to the private sector or, as is more common, during a takeover within the private sector, do the employees of a large enterprise have any right to be consulted?

8.45 pm

Most Conservative Members who are present in the Chamber think that such employees should not have any rights at all, but they are obliged to give them some under European directives because the Government need to

Column 96

ensure that they can hang on to the people that they need to make a success of the transfer. The Minister said that British law in 1981 covered the 1977 acquired rights directive, but we need to know his interpretation for 1991 and beyond. Given what has happened in the past 10 years, is that the last word on acquired rights?

More time should be given and we should make more use of formal trade union negotiating machinery. Will everything be done without reference to the formal negotiating rights of the Whitley council and the civil service trade unions? The Government like to bypass the trade union negotiating machinery so that they can pick people off one by one using special offers. They want to be able to make transfers to the private sector with as little consultation and trade union bargaining machinery as possible. We want from the Minister a bit of honesty about what the Government are playing at in seeking to effect a transfer with the minimum of acquired rights. People in Britain should have maximum acquired rights in the same way as people in other European countries.

Ms. Quin : I should like to reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

The Minister rightly said that European directives provide a framework for national legislation which is enacted in detail. However, there can be legal challenges if it is felt that a country has not satisfactorily implemented a directive. There have been legal challenges on many directives, such as the directive seeking to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workplace and the equal treatment directive. It has been claimed that the United Kingdom has not properly implemented directives. Surely it would be possible under the acquired rights directive to have such a challenge. The Minister said that, basically, we are debating two different statutory provisions--the acquired rights directive and the TUPE regulations. Is not it the case that, when the subject area is the same, the EC directive can override national legislation? In any legal dispute, the European directive has precedence over national regulations. Therefore, the two matters are not quite as separate as the Minister gave us to understand.

Mr. Sainsbury : As I think I said, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations date from 1981. It would be possible to challenge whether they effectively implement the acquired rights directive, but they have been in place for 10 years and no such challenge has been made. I have not heard anyone suggest that they fail in any way satisfactorily to implement in United Kingdom law the acquired rights directive. It would be confusing to try to include the acquired rights directive as well as TUPE, which is the method of implementing that directive in United Kingdom law. TUPE takes account of our legal concepts but the acquired rights directive does not.

Ms. Quin : The Minister has admitted that a legal challenge is possible. In any dispute between the TUPE regulations and the acquired rights directive the directive will be dominant. His reply confirms our wisdom in tabling the amendment. The issue is complicated and there are many different aspects to consider. Rather than pressing the amendment to a vote--I imagine that it will be examined in the other place--I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Column 97

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

Vehicle companies

Mr. Sainsbury : I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to and' in line 43 and insert

or any person acting on behalf of the Crown has a legal interest in them'.

This is one of those celebrated technical amendments which, I am happy to say, we have not come across quite so often in the Bill as we sometimes do in other legislation.

Clause 10(4)(a) is designed to ensure that any shares in a vehicle company which are contracted to be sold to the purchaser of the Insurance Services Group before those shares are created and issued are treated as a Crown holding for the purposes of subsection (4) of clause 10. That requires all the shares in a vehicle company to be held by the Crown as a condition of the Secretary of State acquiring any shares in it or making loans to it. If the shares are contracted to be sold before they are issued, there is concern that the purchaser might be treated as the beneficial owner of the shares and they would not, therefore, qualify as a Crown holding.

The amendment redrafts the subsection to cover the normal practice whereby shares, which are sold or transferred soon after issue, are often issued and registered in the name of a nominee for the vendor, usually his solicitor or accountant, before they are transferred to the purchaser. The amendment ensures that a temporary holding of shares in a vehicle company by one of the Secretary of State's advisers, following the practice that I have described, will rank as a Crown holding for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Michael : I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 6, line 46, at end insert

(6) A vehicle company under this clause shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area. For the avoidance of doubt, this subsection shall apply to the initial and to any subsequent transfer.'.

The amendment seeks to ensure that a vehicle company shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area. It also states that, to avoid doubt, the subsection should apply to the initial and any subsequent transfer.

I hoped--I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) shares my hope--that all four Cardiff Members would be here to argue that that source of major employment should remain in the Cardiff area. I recall that in Committee we discussed the importance of Cardiff to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, although not on this amendment-- the reasons for that will be clear in a moment. In responding to that debate, the Minister--who unfortunately is not with us now--made several comments which were helpful to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and me. He said :

"I see no reason why the new company should wish to move from Cardiff where it has operated more successfully during the past 10 years than at any other period in its history."

That is a correct reference to the encouragement that the department was given on its arrival in Cardiff and throughout the period since then. The Minister went on to say :

Column 98

"None of the organisations that has expressed an interest in owning the company and bidding for it has suggested moving from Cardiff." However, he also said that

"the ultimate location of the privatised company must remain a decision for the management and owners of that company."

That is not the case. There is no "must" about it. It is the Government's choice to leave that liberty in a way that they do not seem, from today's debate, interested in doing, with the employees of the department. It is perfectly proper for the Government to accept the amendment and to ensure that the employment of those people stays within the Cardiff area.

When the Minister summed up his remarks in that debate, he warmed to his theme. He almost waxed eloquent, saying :

"What are known as campus offices on the edge of town--they are spread out and provide good parking facilities--are often attractive. They may be just beyond the city boundary, yet be the most convenient place to which to attract staff. It would be inappropriate to include the amendment because it would be binding for ever."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee H, 6 March 1991 ; c. 346-47.]

Our amendment in Committee sought to limit the location of the headquarters of the privatised company within the boundaries of the city of Cardiff. In putting forward our amendment today, we have helped the Minister to accept our amendment. Clearly, he understood the principle upon which we based our argument in Committee. The amendment states :

"A vehicle company under this clause shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area."

There is no difficulty with that in English law--I use that phrase advisedly as I believe that we are not allowed to speak of Welsh or British law--because the test of what is reasonable comes in. For instance, it would not be within the Cardiff area were the headquarters to be relocated in Glasgow. It would be in the spirit of the amendment were the company to be relocated a short distance outside the boundary of Cardiff in south-east Wales, from which employees are now drawn.

The arrival of the Insurance Services Group and the employees of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff was not an accident. It was a choice to bring such employment to the area, as we in Cardiff suffered the effects of high unemployment and of the closure of some of our heavy industries. The gradual build-up in which some of us participated--my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was involved in economic development and I was very much involved in those spheres in local government-- encouraged the development of financial services and modern forms of employment within the Cardiff area. It would be a sad day were that employment to drift away from Cardiff.

The amendment seeks to make the Government recognise the validity of the Minister's words in Committee. They should recognise that it is reasonable for employees to be reassured that their jobs will remain in Cardiff, to recognise that it is reasonable for private companies bidding for ISG to be on a level playing field, knowing that the headquarters will be required to stay in Cardiff, and to have the matter dealt with once and for all.

Having taken to heart the Minister's comments in Committee, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who, during the Committee proceedings, seemed to have taken a vow of Trappist silence, will respond with enthusiasm and will accept the amendment. That would be in the interests of

Column 99

the service that will be provided, the stability of staff and the security of the future of the privatised company. We do not seek to move the ISG into the private sector, but, if it must go there, we want it to be stable so that it continues to provide the service to exporters in which the Government seem to have less interest than ourselves.

Mr. Morgan : I shall merely add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said. He mentioned the principle that we are required to comply with English law. If we were writing the legislation in compliance with the principles of Welsh law, the amendment would read :

"A vehicle company under this clause shall be garaged within the Cardiff area for the sake of the lower insurance rates."

However, we cannot do that, but must stick to the turgid language to ensure that the legislation provides, and continues to provide, 700 jobs in the Cardiff district.

9 pm

Ministers have said 50 times if they have said it once that the Bill deals with the retention in the business, but under different owners, of the 700 people who live in Cardiff and the immediate surrounding commuting district who have provided high-class service to exporters since the business was transferred to Cardiff from London in 1977, leaving the project group in London. Originally, there were some doubts among people who said that there would be loss of face-to-face contact and talked of the greenness of the local labour force when they were hired rather than staff being transferred from London on civil service terms. It was questioned whether local people would have the experience of the financial services industry and the specialised forms of insurance. People asked whether they would pick up the skills. They did pick them up and have continued to provide a high-class service.

As there is easier recruitment in the south Wales district, everyone is more than satisfied with the results. The employees are satisfied because they have, effectively, had a higher standard of living through lower house prices. The exporters are happy because there has been greater commitment to the job--perhaps because there is less choice of employment and people pitch in that little bit extra and yield that extra commitment to the job because they know it really counts in south Wales, whereas such jobs in the London district might be ten a penny, given the proximity of the City. Those people deserve not to be messed about--one could say, not to be messed about for a second time in less than 15 years--simply because the Government want to effect a transfer of ownership out of the public sector into the private sector, so is effectively putting jobs and careers on the auction block without guarantees about what will happen afterwards. That is particularly true since we now learn that one of the bidders on the list of the half a dozen presented to us in that peculiar hole-and-corner fashion in the closing days in Committee has dropped out. Now, three of the bidders are foreign and two are British.

Therefore, there is now more than a fifty-fifty chance that employers may well finish up working for a non-British private sector company. That naturally increases their fears that a company based in Belgium, Amsterdam or Trieste may want a base in London, where much of the private insurance is located. Such foreign

Next Section

Home Page