| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: It would be impossible not to accept some logic in what the Minister says about the authorities that were recommended for unitary status by the Cooksey commission--they are the products of the re-review. The same, however, certainly does not apply to Nottingham, Plymouth and Torbay, because the Secretary of State has made clear his decision that they are to go ahead. But they were held up while other parts of the relevant counties
were reconsidered, and the propositions for reconsideration of the other parts of these counties have not been endorsed by the commission. As Nottingham, Plymouth and Torbay have been on hold all this time,it would surely be reasonable to go ahead with them.It would not be difficult, and I can guarantee that we would help to get them through.
Mr. Curry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's continuing intention to treat these matters, as far as possible, in a bipartisan fashion. That is only sensible. But he will know that the commission re-reviewed some new areas in places where certain arrangements had already been agreed for the creation of new unitary status. Some of the recommendations that I have received in the past few weeks have come from areas which the Cooksey commission declined to recommend for unitary status, asking me to send them back for a third time around the course. That is what has prevented us from closing out the matter and going ahead. Consultation is bound to leave options open.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): Let us leave aside for a moment areas apparently decided on and agreed by the Government some time ago--including Berkshire, which has had difficulties with judicial review, and so on. It has at least been through the draft order process once, though. The Minister seems to be saying that timetabling difficulties are the sole reason for his withholding the orders dealing with the Cooksey-type recommendations. Surely he should have realised that a long time ago.He has left the authorities in ignorance of whether they are going to go ahead with May elections until the last possible moment. The Minister could have known about any timetabling difficulties last year.
Mr. Curry: When we set up the Cooksey commission it was not clear when it would make its recommendations. Had it asked for more time to consider, it would have been logical to allow it more time. When local authorities have discussed the matter with me, I have made it clear that we intend to facilitate an effective transfer of power during the reorganisation. Of course everyone wants to know what is going to happen, but we want to ensure an effective transfer of responsibilities.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister's opening remarks have been helpful, but now we should get down to the regulations.
Mr. Curry: I anticipated your desire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was about to move to the precise subject matter of today's debate.
As the House will be aware, we intend reorganisation to bring benefits, and both sides of the House agree that reorganisation means big changes, not least for local authority staff. Some of the savings that will come from reorganisation necessarily result from changes in the staffing structure. It may be helpful to outline the three main changes to arrangements for staff that flow from reorganisation.
The first change is the redundancy compensation scheme which was debated in the House more than a year ago and which has been in place for more than a year. So that piece of the jigsaw is already in place. Secondly, there are the staff transfer orders. They will provide automatic transfer
for front-line service staff, to ensure that there is no disruption to essential local services over the reorganisation period. The Welsh Office and my Department have worked closely with the authorities over recent months to prepare the staff transfer orders. The orders governing staff in Avon, Cleveland, Humberside and North Yorkshire have now all been agreed with all the relevant authorities, and will be laid, as planned, at the end of this month, in time for the reorganisation on 1 April.
The third element of the package is the scheme for compensating staff who take a lower paid job as a result of the reorganisation--the subject of tonight's debate. The regulations are the result of two extensive consultation exercises in England and Wales. There were obviously a large number of comments. We have considered them carefully, and they are reflected in the final scheme which I am about to describe.
Mr. Thomason:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the regulations do not make progress today, the future of authority staff will be uncertain and that it is in their interest to have the matter determined promptly?
Mr. Curry:
My hon. Friend is right. If the regulations were not passed, the detriment scheme would not exist.I have no doubt that the Government would wish to look again at the detriment arrangements, but it would take many weeks, given the consultation that we have to go through. Undoubtedly, that would mean that the uncertainty would be prolonged, as he suggested
Ms Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South):
Could the Minister explain why people in Avon are being offered a less generous detriment scheme than has been offered in any previous local government reorganisation and less generous than those currently in place for civil servants? Why are they being asked to take the penalty of the cost of reorganisation?
Mr. Curry:
I am delighted that the hon. Lady is so impatient to hear what I will say. I intend to address directly the scheme before us.
Ms Primarolo:
So why is it a less generous scheme?
Mr. Curry:
I do not accept the premise of that remark.
The purpose of compensation for financial detriment is to encourage staff who wish to continue their careers in local government to stay rather than take redundancy.We recognise that there is a great deal of expertise in local government which new councils will not wish to lose. Employees are not prevented from taking redundancy if it arises but if they wish to stay in local government, despite a drop in pay, we need to provide a bridging mechanism. The regulations provide the bridging mechanism. By avoiding the need for redundancy payments and encouraging councils to retain existing employees in new jobs, the scheme should benefit staff, employers and the taxpayer.
The regulations do not give anything away. They do not change in any way the normal protection afforded to staff by employment law. Terms and conditions can be changed only with an employee's agreement. The
detriment compensation scheme is there to give employer and employee additional options in making the transition from old to new staffing structures.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
It is of course the case that the transfer of undertakings regulations to which the Minister alludes do not cover pensions. What specific provision is being made to build in proper protection for future service in the pension funds of those people that the Minister recognises as valuable to local government?
Mr. Curry:
I am disappointed that there is so little faith among Opposition Members in my willingness to cover comprehensively the matters that arise from the regulations. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I intend to deal with pensions.
Detriment compensation is mandatory. That was requested by many consultees, including the local authority associations and the unions. It is available widely to staff affected by reorganisation and can arise in a number of ways. The shadow unitary authority, having decided on its staffing structure, will offer appointments to staff from an outgoing or transferring authority on the basis of the new salary structure. That may mean a reduction for some staff. Many staff will transfer by staff transfer orders or under TUPE and carry on doing the same job with no change in terms and conditions. However, in the subsequent restructuring that the authority may undertake to sort out the varying terms and conditions of the staff that it has inherited, such staff may be offered a change of terms and conditions.
Finally, staff who stay in continuing authorities may similarly be offered changed terms and conditions as a result of restructuring. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will recall the occasion on which he and I fell into some terminological inexactitudes in an earlier debate over what constituted a continuing authority. The hon. Member for Bristol, South(Ms Primarolo) will recall that as well. A continuing authority is a unitary authority built on an existing district which acquires additional functions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |