Clause 39
Local Transport Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 39, page 35, line 22, leave out from first ‘is’ to end.
Let me say at the outset that this is a probing amendment and I think that the Minister will see fairly quickly where my argument is going. The clause is important because one of the great concerns about quality contracts is to ensure that staff will be treated fairly during and after the crossover period to the provision of services under a quality contract. The Minister knows that the clause provides that such a change shall be treated as a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The clause has evolved during the Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny and during its passage through the other place. The Lords had a very interesting debate on the matter, and the Minister will remember that the Government tabled amendments both on Report and on Third Reading in the other place.
As I understand it, one of the main issues arising from the original wording of the clause was that protection might only be available to employees taken on by a new employer that had won a quality contract. It would not provide protection for those in existing schemes and existing services transferred to a new operator. I think that amendment was moved by Lord Bassam, and it was right and proper.
On Report, it was also proposed that the incumbent operator be required to provide information to the local traffic authority about its current work force, which could be used as a basis for tendering. The successful tenderer would be obliged to employ that work force, provided they were willing or it was looking for new employees. I do not see anything wrong with that either.
Third Reading added a further element, which was to make it an offence for an operator to provide information that is false or misleading in a material way, if the person providing the information knows that it is false or is reckless as to whether it is. Again, I have no problem with the intent of that Government amendment. It makes sure that there is adequate protection.
What I am trying to find out through amendment No. 224 was not answered by Lord Bassam in another place on behalf of the Government, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer. It relates to the word “reckless”. In addition to providing false information, an operator will be breaking the law if it is “reckless” about whether that information is false. Will the Minister clarify the precise meaning of “reckless” with reference to this behaviour, how the definition of “reckless” behaviour will be set out in guidance, and who will set out that guidance? It was on that point, when asked directly, that her colleague in another place could not answer.