| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Employment Service (Pay Dispute)
Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to resolve the pay dispute in the Employment Service; and if she will make a statement. [14044]
Mr. Forth: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Nicholas Harvey, dated 7 February 1996:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the current trade dispute within the Employment Service; responsibility for pay bargaining was delegated to the Agency in January 1994.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13639]
Mr. Forth:
The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for European Community legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13708]
Mr. Forth:
Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the booklet, "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of official guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that likely burdens on business highlighted by UK compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the
7 Feb 1996 : Column: 214
UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library.
Mr. Blunkett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was (a) the number of schools which submitted bids for named projects, (b) the number of schools which had bids carried forward from 1995-96, (c) the number of individual projects for which bids were considered, (d) the total value of projects for which bids are considered, (e) the number of schools which have had an allocation for a project to be started in 1996-97, (f) the number of individual projects which have been approved for start in 1996-97 and (g) the total value of projects to be started in 1996-97 in respect of capital grant for grant-maintained schools in 1996-97. [13967]
Mrs. Gillan:
This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.
Mr. Blunkett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance was given to grant-maintained schools on submitting bids for capital grant in 1996-97. [13943]
Mrs. Gillan:
This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.
Mr. Blunkett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those grant-maintained schools where capital grant is being allocated in 1996-97 to meet basic need giving, in each case, the number of additional places being made available. [13962]
Mrs. Gillan:
This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.
Mr. Blunkett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the grant-maintained schools which (a) submitted bids or (b) had bids carried forward from 1995-96 for named projects to be funded from capital grant in 1996-97; and, in each case, what was the nature and value of the bid and of any allocation made. [13964]
Mrs. Gillan:
This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.
Mr. Blunkett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those grant-maintained schools which have applied for a significant change of character under section 96 of the Education Act 1993, stating in each case (a) the nature of the change, (b) whether it has been approved and (c) the capital cost associated with the change. [13984]
Mrs. Gillan:
The following table lists the grant-maintained schools which have applied for a significant change of character under section 96 of the Education Act 1993, the nature of the change and the
7 Feb 1996 : Column: 215
Secretary of State's decision. Section 96 of the Education Act 1993 came into force on 1 April 1994 on which date capital costs at grant-maintained schools became the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member giving the capital costs associated with the changes at the schools.
The Agency is in dispute with the Civil & Public Services Association (CPSA) over the 1995 pay award to those of our employees in grades represented by that union. These ES people have been paid increases, with effect from April 1995, of between 2.8% and 5.5%, depending upon their individual performance in the year ending March 1995. The majority of them received pay rises of more than 3.7%. We have made clear from the outset our view that these pay awards are fair, and are set at a level that is all the Agency can afford.
The pay awards were in addition to a 2.3% increase, also paid in April, for this group of employees as a consequence of CPSA agreement to a new pay structure for the grades in question.
The Employment Service remains committed to finding an early resolution to the dispute to enable us to resume our normal level of service to the jobseekers who use the 50 offices currently affected by strike action. Whilst we cannot and will not improve the 1995 pay award, we have offered to make specific provision during the 1996 pay negotiations to address particular issues which have been raised by the CPSA. It is for the union to decide whether to take the opportunity presented by the offer to end the dispute.
I hope that this is helpful.
(9) These proposals also involved a change in the age range of the school.
7 Feb 1996 : Column: 217
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |