| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Teachers' Pay
Mr. Cann: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made on reforming teachers' pay. [109246]
Ms Estelle Morris: The Green Paper "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" (Cm 4161) published in December 1998 outlined our proposals for reform of the teaching profession. Following extensive consultation with representatives of teachers and teachers' employers on the proposals, the Department for Education and Employment submitted detailed evidence on pay reform to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) last September. This evidence contained revised proposals on the pay structure and responded to issues raised through the consultation process.
The STRB's Ninth Report was published on 1 February. The report is a major endorsement for the Government's reforms, and the Government have accepted the recommendations with only minor modifications. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament. The Secretary of State has initiated consultation with key stakeholders including teacher unions and employers on the STRB's recommendations. The consultation ends on 7 March.
Mr. Jim Cunningham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the National Union of Teachers representations on the Government's proposals on performance-related pay. [109570]
Ms Estelle Morris:
The Government's proposals for teachers' pay reform were initially outlined in the Green Paper, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" (Cm 4164). We have discussed our proposals extensively with all teacher unions and other key stakeholders. The NUT's evidence to the independent pay body, the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB), was considered alongside that of other statutory consultees when the STRB drew up their recommendations, which were published on 1 February 2000. Ministers and officials will continue to meet unions and other consultees as part of the consultation on the STRB recommendations. The consultation ends on 7 March.
15 Feb 2000 : Column: 477W
Mr. Simon Hughes:
To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions charges have been brought against managers of charity premises under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and if he will make a statement. [109890]
The Solicitor-General:
The Crown Prosecution Service measures its performance and case-loads by the number of defendants, the type of proceedings and the outcome of cases. It does not keep a central record of specific charges brought by the police. That information is held on individual case files and could be recovered only by examining every case file in each CPS office. The cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive.
Mr. Garnier:
To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff employed by the Law Officers' Departments are currently on gardening leave. [110342]
The Solicitor-General:
None. I take "gardening leave" to mean paid absence from work that is not annual leave, sickness absence, suspension or any category of special leave as defined in my Departments' personnel management manuals.
Flying Hours
Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours flying, other than during operations, (a) the Army Air Corps and (b) the Fleet Air Arm have flown in each of the last five years. [108656]
Mr. Spellar: For statistical purposes, the number of flying hours is collated by financial year (FY). Figures for the last five complete years and for the current year are as set out. The figures for the current FY are up to and including the end of October 1999.
| Financial year | Total Army Air Corps hours (5) | Total Fleet Air Arm hours (5) |
|---|---|---|
| 1994-95 | 66,035 | 17,958 |
| 1995-96 | 62,564 | 18,596 |
| 1996-97 | 62,601 | 16,509 |
| 1997-98 | 64,354 | 17,958 |
| 1998-99 | 67,465 | 15,835 |
| 1999-2000(6) | 37,568 | 11,136 |
(5) Excluding operations
(6) To October 1999
Antonov 124-100
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Antonov 124-100 has the capacity to lift two main battle tanks simultaneously. [103103]
Dr. Moonie
[holding answer 20 December 1999]: On the basis of information publicly available, we are not aware that the Antonov 124-100, nor any of the other aircraft under consideration to fulfil our Short Term Strategic Airlift requirement, are currently capable of
15 Feb 2000 : Column: 478W
carrying safely two Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks. We have not, however, sought detailed information on this point since we have no such requirement.
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence underlies his conclusion that RAF Chinook ZD 576 was travelling too low and too fast towards the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. [108750]
Mr. Spellar:
In reaching their conclusions concerning the height and speed of the aircraft just prior to the accident the RAF Board of Inquiry considered data extracted from navigation equipment on the aircraft, the AAIB technical report and information and analysis provided by Boeing Helicopters and the Defence Research Agency, Bedford. Evidence from witness statements was also taken into account.
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the problems being experienced with the new Bowman Communication System; and what assessment he has made of their impact on the effectiveness and safety of the United Kingdom's armed forces. [109037]
Dr. Moonie:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, on 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 468W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).
Mr. Keetch:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reasons for delay to the original in service date of the BOWMAN digital battlefield communications system; and if he will make a statement. [109965]
Dr. Moonie
[holding answer 14 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from John F. Howe to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 15 February 2000:
15 Feb 2000 : Column: 479W
Mr. Alan Campbell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [110524]
Mr. Duncan Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the annual armed forces pay review will be announced; and if he will make a statement. [109050]
Mr. Hoon:
The 2000 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for the work they have put into them.
In the Comprehensive Spending Review the Government made it clear that public sector pay settlements would need to be fair and affordable and support budgeted public service improvements. In making their recommendations the AFPRB have taken into account a number of considerations, including the recruitment, retention and motivation of the armed forces and have recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3.3 per cent. for all ranks, with the exception of Privates, Lance Corporals, Captains and Lieutenants who should receive 3.8 per cent. An increase of 1 per cent. in X Factor is also recommended. The X Factor which has not been reviewed for five years, is paid as an addition to basic pay and reflects the differences between conditions of service experienced by members of the armed forces over a full career and conditions in civilian life, which cannot be taken directly into account in assessing pay comparability. The graduate starting salary is set at £18,126 p.a. There are also some increases in Additional Pay (e.g. Flying Pay, Submarine Pay and Hydrographic Pay) and in Longer Separated Service Allowance/Bonus.
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the reasons for delay to the in service date of the BOWMAN communication system. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
As part of our normal process, we assess the reasons for any programme slippage. Accumulated slippage from BOWMAN's original in service date of December 1995 can be attributed to a combination of technical difficulties, MOD budgetary constraints, the need to reconsider the BOWMAN procurement strategy following changes in industry, a redefinition of the in service date to reflect the completion of field trials and a further redefinition of the programme in order to reduce cost growth and risk.
On 21 December 1999, the then US of S, in a Parliamentary answer to Linda Gilroy MP, provided a progress report, which noted the difficulties being experienced by ARCHER Communications Systems Ltd. Subject to continued good progress by ARCHER on their improvement programme, our aim would be to seek approval to proceed later this year following which we would expect to place an implementation (manufacture) contract by the end of the year. Prior to this we cannot set a revised in service date but would expect it to be in late 2003 or early 2004.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |