| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Deal (Young People)
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers participating in the New Deal for Young People have taken on from the scheme (a) 1 employee, (b) between 2 and 10 employees, (c) between 10 and 50 employees, (d) between 50 and 100 employees, (e) between 100 and 250 employees and (f) more than 250 employees. [79826]
Mr. Andrew Smith: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 11 November 1998, Official Report, column 236.
Mr. Willetts:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers participating in the New Deal for Young People who have not continued the employment of subsidised employees on the cessation of their subsidy, have subsequently taken on further subsidised employees. [79825]
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 718
Mr. Andrew Smith:
Material for employers, and guidance to staff of the Employment Service and its partners, on the operation of New Deal for Young People make it clear that it is not acceptable for employers to replace one New Deal employee and another for the purpose of perpetuating the subsidy. Jobcentre staff are advised to refer suspected cases to a central investigation unit: to date, none has been reported.
Mr. Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people left each New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds option for a sustained unsubsidised job for each month between January 1998 and January 1999. [81697]
Mr. Andrew Smith
[holding answer 22 April 1999]: The information set out in the following table shows how many people left each of the four Options available through New Deal for Young People for jobs, in each month from January 1998 to January 1999 and had not returned to claim Jobseekers Allowance within three months. In addition to these, 41,140 young people have left for sustained unsubsidised employment from other stages of New Deal, and an additional 11,420 have entered sustained subsidised employment.
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 717
| Employment option | FTET option | Voluntary sector option | Environment task force | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January 1998 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| February 1998 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| March 1998 | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| April 1998 | 9 | 5 | -- | -- |
| May 1998 | 11 | 12 | 1 | 5 |
| June 1998 | 10 | 15 | 5 | 1 |
| July 1998 | 31 | 36 | 13 | 11 |
| August 1998 | 65 | 44 | 13 | 9 |
| September 1998 | 83 | 91 | 30 | 25 |
| October 1998 | 150 | 236 | 77 | 63 |
| November 1998 | 137 | 210 | 69 | 48 |
| December 1998 | 176 | 129 | 61 | 60 |
| January 1999 | 246 | 232 | 116 | 95 |
| Total | 919 | 1,001 | 385 | 317 |
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 717
State Schools (Expenditure)
Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of GDP he expects to be spent on state schools across the UK in the years (a) 1998-99, (b) 1999-2000 and (c) 2000-01 as a result of the comprehensive spending review. [81899]
Ms Estelle Morris: We estimate that recurrent spending on state schools across the UK in 1998-99 will be approximately 2.9 per cent. of Gross Domestic Product. We are unable at this stage to offer a meaningful estimate of spending on state schools in 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
The extra £19 billion across the UK over the next three years provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review for the education sector overall will deliver the manifesto commitment to increase the share of GDP spent on education from 4.8 per cent. in 1996-97 to 5 per cent. by 2001-02.
FE College Principals (Retirement Packages)
Mr. Ben Chapman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the compliance with the FEFC guidance on retirement
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 718
financial arrangements for principals of tertiary colleges of the provision made for the recently retired Principal of Wirral Metropolitan College. [81210]
Mr. Mudie:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State notes that the provision made for the recently retired Principal of Wirral Metropolitan College complies with the guidance issued by the FEFC.
NHS Trusts
Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid by his Department to each of the health trusts in which MDHUs operate for the treatment of military personnel in each of the last three years. [80572]
Mr. Doug Henderson
[holding answer 13 April 1999]: The amounts, in £ million, paid to the three MDHU host NHS trusts for the treatment of military personnel in each of the last three years are shown in the following table. The sums shown are the net payment, taking into account
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 719
the abatement of charges for the contribution of military clinical staff serving in the MDHU to the treatment of Service patients.
| NHS Trust | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | (1)1998-99 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plymouth Hospital (Derriford) | 1.485 | 1.381 | 1.645 |
| Frimley Park Hospital | 2.757 | 3.328 | 3.652 |
| Peterborough Hospitals | 2.036 | 1.619 | 1.964 |
(1) The sums shown for 1998-99 are estimates, based on forecast patient numbers for the year made in the light of numbers treated between April and December 1998. The final sums will not be known until patient numbers for the full financial year are available and a contract reconciliation exercise has been carried out. This is likely to take until June.
RN Physiological Laboratory
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08, if he will list, by case, the experiments that have been performed on goats at the Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory in each of the last 12 months. [81633]
Mr. Doug Henderson: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 23 April 1999:
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 720
I have been asked to reply to your question about the former Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory (RNPL) which is now part of the Centre for Human Sciences (CHS) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
You asked for details, by case, of the experiments, involving goats that have been carried out in each of the last 12 months. All the work is aimed at reducing the risk of serious decompression illness in man following the evacuation of a sunken submarine. Prior to being used in an experiment, goats are familiarised with the experimental procedures and the vessels in which trials will take place. All experiments involve an exposure to raised pressure where the breathing gas is either air or an atmosphere that simulates a possible atmosphere that could be present on a disabled submarine, such as elevated carbon dioxide.
At the end of the exposure to raised pressure the goats are returned to normorbaric pressure, either through decompression to surface, simulating rescue from a distressed submarine (rescue type exposure), or through a simulated submarine escape at the compression and decompression rates to which men have been exposed (escape type exposure). Oxygen breathing is known to decrease the risk of decompression illness and limited oxygen breathing has been used in some initial studies to assess the magnitude of the potential benefit.
The goats are closely monitored for several hours after the experiment for signs of decompression illness. Concentration of various blood constituents may be monitored. A small number of animals have had minor surgery to reduce the trauma or stress involved in collecting an arterial blood sample. In addition the animals may be sedated to further reduce their discomfort. Some goats have also been sedated prior to magnetic resonance imaging of the brain in order to detect sub-clinical effects of repeat pressure exposures.
The details of the experiments over the last 12 months are as follows:
| Month | Number of goats | Experiment type |
|---|---|---|
| April 1999 | 0 | -- |
| March 1999 | 18 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| February 1999 | 18 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| January 1999 | 8 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| January 1999 | 9 | Rescue type exposure, decompression to surface |
| December 1998 | 4 | Escape type exposure, arterial blood samples taken |
| November 1998 | 16 | Escape type exposure |
| October 1998 | 26 | Escape type exposure |
| September 1998 | 12 | Oxygen breathing prior to surfacing; Escape type exposure |
| September 1998 | 5 | Rescue type exposure, decompression to surface |
| August 1998 | 12 | Oxygen breathing prior to surfacing; Escape type exposure |
| August 1998 | 5 | Rescue type exposure, straight decompression to surface |
| July 1998 | 0 | -- |
| June 1998 | 0 | -- |
| May 1998 | 0 | -- |
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08, how many goats have died in experiments at the Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory in each of the last 12 months. [81634]
In addition to these experiments, the following familiarisation and acquaint procedures were carried out:
June 1998: 6 Goats
August 1998: 7 Goats
March 1999: 9 Goats
I hope this is helpful.
Mr. Doug Henderson: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
| Year/month | Number of goats humanely killed at end of experiment |
|---|---|
| 1999 | |
| April | 0 |
| March | 0 |
| February | 0 |
| January | 9 |
| 1998 | |
| December | 2 |
| November | 4 |
| October | 0 |
| September | 2 |
| August | 1 |
| July | 0 |
| June | 0 |
| May | 0 |
23 Apr 1999 : Column: 721
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08, how many goats have been injured before undergoing experiments at the Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory in the last 12 months; and what anaesthetics are administered to goats before experiments take place. [81635]
Mr. Doug Henderson: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |