§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which body established140W the resource baselines quoted by the chief executive of the Employment Service as a factor in the decision to make staffing reductions; [3613]
(2) what estimate she has made of the likely costs of (a) redundancies and (b) transfers occasioned by the reductions in activity in the headquarters of the Employment Service; [3612]
(3) who announced the decision to reduce activity at the Employment Service headquarters; and in what manner the announcement was made; [3608]
(4) what is (a) the timetable for and (b) the distribution of the staffing reductions at the headquarters of the Employment Service; and how many and what percentage of staff are to be lost at each divisional office; [3611]
(5) what is the staffing budget for the Employment Service in 1996–97, broken down according to grades; and what is the projected staffing budget for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [3609]
(6) what account was taken of public expenditure negotiations in respect of her Department as a whole in the decision to reduce staff activity at the Employment Service headquarters. [3607]
§ Mr. ForthResponsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 12 November 1996:
As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions on staffing reduction in the Employment Service Headquarters. For ease of reference I have grouped my replies by subject using the numbers that will appear in Hansard.
Determination of Employment Service resources and relationship with public expenditure negotiations (questions 3613 and 3607).
In common with other Departments and Agencies, the Employment Service's resource provision is determined by Government within the public expenditure framework. As part of that framework Departments and Agencies are required to absorb pay and price increases and to improve the efficiency with which they are run. It is one of my tasks to identify and develop efficiency measures to meet these requirements. Our current work to reduce the Headquarters overhead is one strand in a programme of continuing efficiency measures designed to do that.
Announcement of decision on ES Headquarters Review and timetable/distribution of reductions (questions 3608 and 3611).
The decision concerns Agency management rather than wider policy questions. To help us plan for the future effectively and to minimise uncertainty within ES I wrote to all my colleagues in ES's Head and Regional Offices (our "Headquarters") at the earliest opportunity. As part of that process we wrote to our trade unions and offered them a meeting to discuss the matter. This meeting took place on Monday 11 November.141WDetailed plans for implementing the changes are in development, but broadly I see the process as starting now and continuing through to March 2000. Reductions in posts will be spread across this period and I envisage that these could be in the order of 750 by March 1998.The exercise encompasses my Head Office (mainly Sheffield, but also London) and 9 Regional Offices. The reductions will be spread across these locations. However, as distribution of the reduction will depend on a series of decisions over a range of functions, it is too early to say exactly where they will fall but it seems likely that more will occur in the Regions than in Sheffield. We currently have some 1,400 permanent posts in Sheffield. I should emphasise that these plans are intended to exclude the great majority of ES people who work in Jobcentres delivering services to employers and our clients seeking work.
Cost of consequent redundancies and transfers, and staffing budgets for the Employment Service (questions 3612 and 3609).I intend to avoid redundancies if at all possible and they do not form part of our current plans. ES has a good record in managing fluctuations in staffing without recourse to compulsory redundancy and we will do everything in our power to manage these reductions in the same way. On transfers, I have said that if a member of staff is required to move they would be entitled to transfer expenses under normal rules. It is, though, too early to predict the numbers of transfers that will take place and therefore their cost. Transfer costs will, of course, be taken into account in reaching decisions on the implementation of the various changes.The current staffing budgets and forward plans for ES are:
1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 Running costs £910 million £800 million £798 million Staff years 36,536 32,867 32,586 These include both paybill and general administration expenditure.The staff numbers for the current year broken down into broad divisions are:
Grade Number Senior management (Grades 3-7) 292 Executive grades (SEO-EO) 13,993 Clerical (including temporary staff) 22,251 A breakdown of staff by grade is not available for future years. Unfortunately, the information for 1999–2000 is not yet available as the current public expenditure survey has yet to be concluded. The earlier information is published in the 1996 DfEE Departmental Report.I hope this is helpful.