My hon. Friend gives a good example, to which I had intended to refer. He is right that there would be the same severe implications in this country. It was asked earlier what would happen if Northern Rock had been sold by way of a private share sale, to the Virgin bidder, for example. That did not happen, of course, but if this Bill had been enacted it would have significantly delayed the sale, leading to extra uncertainty—and certainly also to more worry for the staff concerned, rather than less. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said earlier, in his usual forthright manner, we are not here to support the rights of workers whose work is going to end.
These obligations would be unworkable in a competitive, globalised marketplace that relies on rapid decision making. Moves to exercise such constraints on the UK labour market would inevitably stifle the UK mergers and acquisitions industry, risk damaging London as a worldwide financial centre, and drive investment capital away from British shores into the hands of rival economies.
These measures are also unnecessary in the context of employee protection. Employment legislation already requires information and consultation with employee representatives, including trade unions, at least 30 days in advance if 20 or more job losses are envisaged.
The CBI has said that it does not support the Bill, which it believes would be damaging to private equity firms and, potentially, to many other businesses, compromising broader economic success and job creation. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), who has perhaps now gone to the Library to do his research, queried the CBI's view that the provisions would create uncertainty. They would do so because the sale process would be impeded and delayed, thereby creating uncertainty over the outcome and more concern for staff. To reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, let us not have any quibbling about the fact that the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association—the BVCA—has strongly opposed the Bill.
Clause 5 allows for an injunction to be taken out to prevent a share sale if trade unions are not consulted. That does not exist even in TUPE, and it would be a disastrous measure for the UK's mergers and acquisitions market. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East said that he wanted to strip out such extras, but I have to tell him that to do so would take him back to the existing law. That leads us to ask why we need the Bill. The timeline of any mergers and acquisitions deal would certainly be delayed while trade unions were elected and consulted, and much uncertainty would enter the process as a result.
Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 7 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Private Equity (Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c2068-9;472 c2066-7 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:06:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453255
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453255
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_453255