You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Public Bill Committee Debates > Public Bill Committee

Memorandum submitted by FASNA (AS 25)

 

FASNA welcomes the vision of 'national consistency and local flexibility' with regard to the SSSNB. In our view, local should mean employer level whether that is the Foundation or VA school or the Local Authority for community and VC schools.

 

We consider that clauses 214 to 222 relating to the powers of the Secretary of State to influence and determine the deliberations of the SSSNB are important in securing a route for this local flexibility as FASNA will have a minority vote in the SSSNB.

 

In particular:

Clause 214 - we support

· The power in 214(3)(b) to specify a date by which the SSSNB must respond

· The power in 214(7) to withdraw or vary any matter referred to the SSSNB

 

Clause 215 - we support this clause as ensuring a clear focus for the SSSNB

· The requirement in 215(3) that if the SSSNB wishes to submit an agreement about a matter not in its remit the SSSNB must first obtain the consent of the Secretary of State

 

Clause 216 - we strongly support

· The option set out at 216(2)(b) of 'requiring persons specified in the recommendation to have regard to the agreement'

 

Clause 217 - we support

· The option in 217(2)(b) for the Secretary of State to refer a matter back to the SSSNB

 

Clause 220 - we strongly support as ensuring a route to local flexibility

· The option set out in 220(5) where the Secretary of State may determine that it is not practicable to implement the agreement

 

Clause 221 - we strongly support

· The option set out in 221(2) (b) where the Secretary of State may if it appears urgent make a provision in relation to a matter not the subject of an agreement by the SSSNB

 

FASNA notes that:

· The number of support staff directly employed by the Foundation or VA school or by the LA will reduce with the roll out of the Building Schools for the Future programme incorporating PFI arrangements as these staff will be transferred to the PFI bidder and not be subject to the agreements of the SSSNB.

· Schools in a later BSF wave than neighbouring schools could find it difficult to compete effectively in the employment market if the PFI contract offers enhanced pay or improved conditions.

 

This underlines the need for local flexibility.

 

March 2009