Proceeding contribution from Nick Gibb (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 22 July 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Academies Bill [Lords].
Academies Bill [Lords]
In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change. I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 514 c684-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Admissions Costs Buildings Finance Education Facilities Local government Ministerial powers Property transfer Property Pupils Primary education Standards Special educational needs Secondary education Academies Building schools for the future programme Young People's Learning Agency Free schools
- Legislation
- Academies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:53:26 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659671
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659671
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659671