---

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been present throughout the debate and heard me advise other hon. Members on its scope. He is quite wide of that scope.

Mr. Nicholls: The only point that I was making was that the public will be concerned at the way in which money will be used by local authorities that are to disappear. It is relevant to make the point that the public will be concerned if they find that somebody can be made redundant one day and walk into a similar position--perhaps an even a better position--the following day with a successor authority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and I are concerned about that.

I wonder whether that problem had been anticipated by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and whether the way in which to stop it had been anticipated in regulation 4(d). As I understood my hon. Friend the Minister, no other regulations are to be laid. It is troubling--perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), will deal with the matter in his winding-up speech or write to me about it--that it was made perfectly clear that the package does not have any effect on the general operation of the law. Whatever rights and privileges exist in law at the moment remain.

At the law stands, if one is made redundant in an authority, there will not be anything wrong in taking another position the following day. Far be it from me to put difficulties in the way of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it may be no easy task to frame the regulations so that, when true redundancies arise because a council has gone under, a person can be stopped from walking into another position right away. That must be considered.

It is easy enough to say that the package is not quite right and that there should be a little more here or there, as did the hon. Member for Newbury, who will be able to

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1097

cut up his speech from Hansard and distribute different bits of it around his constituency to create a particular effect in a particular way. Even though the compensation package is fair and right, the public will take an entirely view of it if they find that, despite the efforts that have been made, it is possible for people to walk off with substantial redundancy payments and be re-employed almost at once. That would greatly discredit the regulations and should be considered, even if it cannot be dealt with entirely in this debate.

9.14 pm

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): The Minister referred to the fact that the debate is taking place onSt. Valentine's day. I should admit that I was so keen to be called that I took the trouble to send a Valentine to Madam Speaker. It might be helpful if I clarify that the terms of my billet doux were addressed to her rather than to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Any terms of affection come to an end there, however, because I must express my great sadness and disappointment at, and disagreement with, the mean-minded regulations and the chaotic mismanagement of the transition and change into which they place us.

I should, however, express gratitude to the Minister because, in his opening remarks, he attempted to explain the regulations in the context of the transitional timetable and arrangements that he has brought forward. I shall concentrate most of my remarks on the specific problems consequently facing authorities such as Nottingham.

Nottingham is one of the authorities that is in the programme but not in the timetable. In such a situation, the regulations only add to the problems of chaos, confusion and demoralisation with which we are having to deal.

The Minister said that he wanted the programme to give local authorities a sporting chance to be ready for elections in May. I thank the Minister and his Department for the way in which they have continued with the preparatory work in Nottingham even though a re-review was taking place, not of Nottingham but of adjoining districts.

Huge progress has been made in preparation for the transition. Many of the difficult discussions about the terms of transfer of staff, the specific structure of services and the location and relocation of jobs could be addressed within the timetable. But in that context, there has been huge disappointment--and now confusion--about the situation in which the authority has been left. Nottingham is in a programme but not in a timetable, and its discussions with its staff have been thrown into absolute confusion. We are talking about staff who would legitimately like to know whether they will have a post in the new authority, and, if so, whether it will be the same post or a different one.

The city authority is preparing to assume unitary status, but has no legal authority to do so, so it is having to incur a large tranche of transitional costs--often on short or fixed-term appointments--in an attempt to develop a basis upon which a smooth transition from employment in the county to employment in the city can take place. It now lacks a timetable within which that can be delivered. Moreover, the county authority has to deliver its own services and faces serious pressures on its budget.

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1098

The staff who may be affected by the transition do not know whether they will be caught up in a game of pass the parcel--whether they will be part of a group affected by their relocation out of the city to secure their employment, but where the services that they currently deliver in the city will be run down; or whether they will be recruited into permanent employment that relates to the city, in the hope that the city will take on those posts in a framework that the city cannot yet define; or whether they will be relocated into the city in the belief that the county will have played pass the parcel with the relocation and remuneration costs.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member is making a good case and is being helpful to the area that he represents. Does not the problem lie with Nottinghamshire county council, rather than Nottingham city council--which is due to become a unitary authority and, therefore, likely to take on rather than lay off staff? I presume that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's decision that Nottingham city council should become a unitary authority.

I support Warrington borough council and Halton borough council, both in Cheshire, becoming unitary authorities--something that is supported by most Labour Members and by my borough council, which also sought unitary status but, sadly, did not get it, despite the support of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) and me. Is it not a problem for county councils rather than city councils, which as unitary authorities will provide more, rather than fewer, jobs?

Mr. Simpson: It is not as simple as that. I have always been a supporter of a unitary Nottingham, but it is not clear whether the city, when it takes over from the county, will seek to deliver services exactly as they are currently structured. It has gone to considerable lengths to offer reassurances to staff, but it cannot offer guaranteed assurances because it does not have a timetable. The staff are caught in limbo because the city cannot guarantee the nature of jobs that will be on offer or even when they will be on offer.

The staff are quite properly saying to both authorities, "You have a responsibility to treat us properly. We do a decent day's work and we make a commitment to deliver good services. We do not know whether the services that we are asked to deliver now will be the ones the city will decide to deliver or that it will deliver them as they are currently delivered. No one can give us those assurances because the Government have failed to define a timetable in which the order will be laid and a transition date." Both local authorities have to step back from proper and responsible commitments that they would want to make in relation to their staff. It is almost impossible to see how these regulations will be applied in the context of authorities such as Nottingham without a timetable in which to work.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has completely missed the point?In Nottingham and Plymouth, the county runs social services and education. The jobs of the officers who currently deliver those services in Nottingham and Plymouth are threatened. Although the new unitary

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1099

authority is employing more people, the officers of the authority that is currently delivering many of the vital services are threatened by these proposals.

Mr. Simpson: That is exactly the case. Quite properly, the city authority is able to employ additional people only on temporary contracts. It wants to offer proper, open recruitment for the permanent jobs it is to provide. Nottingham cannot do that until it acquires the authority to do so. The county is having to look in a different direction and it is reducing its assumed commitments in relation to the city. These regulations fail to cover the circumstances affecting the staff who do the transition work.

In many ways, the problems will be compounded by the extended transitional period, because talented staff will look for an opportunity to move to a secure post, with a defined set of prospects to deliver new services--possibly in some of the new unitary authorities. The county will then find it almost impossible to recruit their replacements because of uncertainty about prospects. These regulations will mean that anyone who has only one year's service will not be covered by the terms of compensation and remuneration. Both authorities will be caught in a nightmare. It will be impossible for the county to recruit because it is refocusing, and it will be impossible for the city to recruit because it has no legitimate focus to do so. There will be a lot of staff in pursuit of secure employment elsewhere.

The staff in the two authorities are in utter confusion, as are the public in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. They find the position in which the Government have placed them incomprehensible. They cannot understand the delay and I suspect that the same would be true in Plymouth. In a local context, they can understand it less than many other authorities because, just beyond the doorstep, there is a programme of change already under way in Rutland, which has a population of 30,000. I must say with a certain amount of deference that Rutland probably has more windsurfers than workers, but in Nottingham, which has a population of 300,000 and a large number of staff in the two local authorities, it is impossible to carry out the cautious and responsible planning that both authorities seek to do.

---