| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.46 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I shall try to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), especially about the trade union, because it needs to make up its mind what it has agreed and what it has not. I shall return to that point later.
My hon. Friend knows the background to the introduction of the new office structure for the Valuation Office. He mentioned staff turnover, and I hope that he will accept my word, as a friend as well as a Minister, when I say that I cannot discuss the specific points that he made about staff. He mentioned the chief executive of the Valuation Office and her decision to resign last week. I can assure him that her resignation is not connected to the Newvos project.
My hon. Friend also referred to the project director and his intention to leave, which is an unconnected personal decision. I understand the point he makes about the apparent turnover of staff, but I assure him that that is not connected with this issue.
Mr. Pike:
I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and I accept 100 per cent. what she says and the spirit in which it was intended. Nevertheless, the changes provide an opportunity for a rethink--although I accept that that change is totally unrelated and has been made for personal reasons.
Dawn Primarolo:
My hon. Friend is highlighting what may be the concerns of others, and I hope that my comments will help to calm things down during a difficult time for many members of staff.
I will not go over the background to the reorganisation, as my hon. Friend has--in exchanges of letters over the years--explained the origins of the proposals and their purpose. However, in terms of the Burnley case, he does not accept the purpose, which is to improve the quality and level of service, to make it more flexible, to respond to changing work loads and technologies and to ensure that the agency is well placed and has a firm footing for the future.
I turn to the question of the trade unions and the rethink for which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has asked. On my appointment, I met the management of the Valuation Office agency and asked them to reassess the plans on Newvos. I also met the trade unions and heard their comments. I clearly explained to the trade unions the problems with regard to the inherited budgets for the running costs of Departments--of which they were aware--and our manifesto commitment.
I asked the unions and the management to go away, reconsider the proposals and come back with an agreed set of proposals, which they did. A number of offices that were due for closure--regrettably, Burnley was not one of them--were removed from the closure programme, and the number of groups in the structure of the Valuation Office was increased. I concentrated particularly--as my hon. Friend, the management and the unions urged me--on making sure that the Valuation Office was building on its efficiency and had a firm and secure base for its staff. At no point have the unions indicated to me that they are unhappy with the negotiated settlement--in fact, I have been led to believe that the opposite is the case.
I wish to refer to Mr. Peter Upton, who retired from the agency but delayed his retirement because the chief executive was off ill. This was a time of change for the agency and we are grateful for the hard work that Mr. Upton undertook. He wrote to every single employee of the Valuation Office to explain the package that had been agreed. The package was not only about removing some of the offices that were due for closure after the reassessment; it indicated the process that would need to be in place to support staff and to ensure that the change was managed properly so staff did not feel insecure or uncertain about their future.
We all accept that change is difficult, particularly for those who are experiencing it. If my hon. Friend has not seen the letter from Mr. Upton, I will send a copy to him. I hope that he will forgive me for sending him another letter.
There are currently 33 staff in post at the Burnley office, five of whom are part time. All staff have received the location transfer preference form. From the preferences known so far, most of the staff have indicated that they are prepared to transfer to Preston. One has requested a transfer to Halifax, and three to Manchester. Only three have suggested that they could not move to Preston, one of whom has said he would like to be considered for early retirement. I hope that my hon. Friend sees nothing untoward in that request, which I am sure fits in with the member of staff's current life style. It has nothing to do with our forcing him out of the agency. Two others have not specified an alternative, and discussions will have to take place to ensure that their cases are handled properly.
There is enough room in the Preston office to take the staff from Burnley. As my hon. Friend knows, the lease at Burnley is up for renewal. I do not have the exact date
to hand, but the lease was due to expire close to the time of the closure programme. There will be minimal redundancies following the move, and the question of the rent at Preston has been dealt with.
Mr. Pike:
I have been told by people not only from the Burnley office but from the Preston office that there is not enough room to fit in the 30-odd staff.
Dawn Primarolo:
This matter will not be resolved between my hon. Friend and me, because my information is that there is enough space. I will write to him, and his point is on the record. I shall seek clarification.
On the question of travelling costs, the staff are mobile. I do not know where they all live, as opposed to where they work. If that information is available, my hon. Friend Burnley will receive an explanation. The decision on the Burnley office was based on questions of accessibility and future development in terms of changing work patterns of the Valuation Office. In addition, the recently opened M65 motorway, which links Burnley with Blackburn in east Lancashire to both the M6 and the M61, will significantly improve communication links.
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked closely at the issue and we have considered the decisions made since the election. The questions of efficiency, the service to the local area and the costs have been satisfied by the proposals which have been agreed within the budgets that the three groups for which I am the responsible Minister--revenue, customs and the Valuation Office--have to continue to meet.
Having talked to the unions, my understanding is that they accept the agreement, and they entered the discussion on how best to deal with the proposals. They were not press ganged into it. They did so in order to reach agreement--otherwise, they would still be arguing. I accept that some local offices may not agree, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would send me a copy of the letter he has from the PTC. So that we can make plans, some clarification may be required about whether it holds constant views.
I regret to say that I do not think there is a case for reopening the decision on the Burnley closure, which will take effect in spring 1999. I accept, and I have impressed on the management of the Valuation Office, that it is crucial to support the staff so that they feel secure and we have better services at the end of the process. I undertake to respond to any questions to which my hon. Friend feels he has not received an adequate answer. It was right for him to bring the debate to the House today, and I hope at least that I have explained what we have done.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
1. Mr. Fabricant:
What representations he has received on his proposals for a food standards agency. [19600]
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark):
As chairman of the relevant ministerial committee, I have received representations from a wide range of bodies, from consumer organisations to food manufacturers. There is clear agreement on the need for reform and strong support for the establishment of a food standards agency.
Mr. Fabricant:
Following the debacle over the beef-on-the-bone crisis, in which confusion has been piled on confusion, and given that the Government have been unable to enforce the ban, what difference will a food standards agency make?
Dr. Clark:
It ill becomes of member of the Conservative party, which presided over food scare after food scare, including salmonella, BSE and E. coli, to lecture the House on the work of a food standards agency. If we had had such an agency, the loss of confidence that the British people have experienced in our very fine food industry might well have been averted.
Mr. Barnes:
Was not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food considered under the previous Government to be in hock to the producers at the expense of consumer interests? Is not the food standards agency an arrangement whereby the rights of consumers can be fully considered? What is the likely relationship between my right hon. Friend's Department and MAFF? Will there be a division of authority, or will there be co-ordination?
Dr. Clark:
When the food standards agency is established, through the House, we will transfer ministerial responsibility for it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Health, but we envisage the agency as an autonomous body, able to get the very best scientific advice and to act in a completely independent manner to try to restore public confidence in the quality of the food that the British people eat.
Mr. Tyler:
Has the Minister seen the series of important articles in The Guardian over recent days, about the food revolution, and specifically about genetically modified foodstuffs and organisms? Can he give me a double assurance: first, that the new food standards agency will have as part of its remit consideration of those extremely important issues, as all hon. Members, and the public generally, are concerned about the extent to which we have mechanisms to ensure the long-term safety of such genetic engineering; and, secondly, that before we
Dr. Clark:
I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on both questions. The committee that I chair realised that it would be some time before we had a food standards agency in place and we were determined to ensure in the interim that we had a sensible arrangement to try to deal with food issues. We have brought together under one chain of command the food scientists and the food experts from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so an holistic view is, indeed, being taken on such issues. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that issues such as novel foods will fall within the remit of the food standards agency.
Mr. Hanson:
Does the Minister agree that had we had a food standards agency, the BSE problem would not have arisen in the way that it did? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a public inquiry into the BSE crisis would be helpful under the forthcoming freedom of information Act?
Dr. Clark:
I believe that if we had had a freedom of information Act, the House and other experts might have been able to have access to information that might have allowed us to avert the terrible BSE disaster. I hope that, in the near future, we will be in a position to announce an inquiry into the BSE affair.
Mr. Maclennan:
Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the food standards agency should take the sort of decisions that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took in banning beef on the bone, or would it be an advisory body, leaving the public to form their own conclusions about the facts put before them?
Dr. Clark:
Ministers have to follow the best scientific advice they are given. Their first priority is the protection of the consumer. The food standards agency would be an independent body. It would have access to the finest scientific and other advice. It would make recommendations to the House because, clearly, only the House has the power to legislate should that be needed. It would be a brave Minister who went against the advice of such an august body.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |