| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Departmental Policies (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Glasgow, Pollok constituency, the effect on Glasgow, Pollok of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [160825]
Mr. Wills: Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Glasgow, Pollock constituency. The Scotland Office will be able to provide details of education policies.
Modern Apprenticeships
Information on Modern Apprenticeships for all English constituencies was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 30 March 2001.
New Deal for Young People
In the Glasgow, Pollock constituency, 1,265 young people have joined the New Deal to end February 2001. 565 have found jobs, 385 of which are sustained.
Labour market statistics
The working age employment rate in Glasgow in winter 2000-01 was 63.9 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.5 per cent. The rate in winter 1996-97 was 55.3 per cent.
The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 17.1 per cent. in March 1997 to 12.1 per cent. in March 2001 in the Glasgow Pollok constituency.
Employment Zones
The Glasgow Employment Zone commenced operation in April 2000. Up to the end of March 2001, 850 participants have found work through the Zone. Of the April 2000 intake of 116 participants, 49 (42.2 per cent.) were found employment, and from the May 2000 intake of 128 participants, 55 (43 per cent.) were found jobs.
Correspondence
Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to answer the letter to him dated 3 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. I. Hanif. [160925]
Mr. Wills: My right hon. Friend replied to the letter of 3 April on 9 May.
Walsall (Funding)
Mr. Bruce George: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been made available to the borough of Walsall by his Department since June 1997. [160994]
11 May 2001 : Column: 411W
Ms Estelle Morris: I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent on 16 February from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, setting out the total funding for Walsall local education authority for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02.
There have been some adjustments made to the capital allocations in 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Following are the updated figures for Walsall local education authority between the years 1997-98 and 2001-02.
| SSA | Grants | Capital | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997-98 | 108.9 | 4.7 | 2.2 |
| 1998-99 | 118.2 | 1.5 | 3.6 |
| 1999-2000 | 124.6 | 4.9 | 8.3 |
| 2000-01 | 130.3 | 11.2 | 8.9 |
| 2001-02 | 134.7 | 10.8 | (18)5.9 |
(18) So far issued
Between 1992-93 and 1997-98, average recurrent funding per pupil fell nationally by £120 in real terms from £2,830 to £2,710. Since then, it has risen by an average of £540 in real terms, to £3,250 this year. By 2003-04, it will have increased by around £750 in real terms since 1997-98.
11 May 2001 : Column: 412W
Remploy
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets Remploy has been set in its 2001-02 Annual Performance Agreement. [161103]
Ms Hodge: I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, written to the Chairman of Remploy approving the 2001-02 Annual Performance Agreement between the Department and the company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 2001. It has been negotiated by the Chief Executive of the Employment Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The targets are:
- the average number of progressions of disabled people will increase to 1,800, including a minimum of 700 to mainstream employment;
- Remploy Ltd. will maintain a total unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £9,250;
- the company will achieve gross margin of £57 million;
- non-productive time (excluding time spent on formal training) will be a maximum of 25 per cent.
- the company will not exceed its external financing limit of £99.16 million.
11 May 2001 : Column: 411W
| Proposed target 2001-02 | Target 2000-01 | Forecast outturn 2000-01 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressions | |||
| Total | (19)1,800 | (20)700 | (21)700 |
| of which minimum: | |||
| Factory to Interwork | 400 | -- | -- |
| Interwork to Placement | 400 | -- | -- |
| All sources to mainstream | 700 | -- | -- |
| Total unit cost | £9,250 | £9,600 | £9,526 |
| External financing limit | (22)£99.16 million | (22)£99.16 million | £99.16 million |
| Gross margin(23) | £57 million | (23)£53.3 million | (23)£50.9 million |
| Non-Productive Time (excludes times spent on formal training) | 25% | (24)-- | 31% |
(19) The individual targets are 300 short of the overall target. This will enable Remploy to have some flexibility within the total APA.
(20) Includes internal progressions and those to mainstream ( unsupported) employment.
(21) Of which 480 to mainstream.
(22) Includes a £5 million loan facility.
(23) This target was negotiated as part of the milestones agreed for release of the additional £5 million modernisation money this year, therefore covers the period January-March 2001 only.
(24) Not an APA target currently.
11 May 2001 : Column: 411W
DEFENCE
Ocean War Graves
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of trespass by divers, collectors and archaeologists on the site of (a) HMS Repulse and (b) HMS Prince of Wales and the associated war graves; and what action he is taking to stop such activities. [146063]
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 23 January 2001]: We are aware of several reported diving expeditions that have taken place in the vicinity of both HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse.
Our High Commission in Singapore and Malaysia where possible will continue to monitor the situation locally.
11 May 2001 : Column: 412W
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 February 2001, Official Report, 132W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn).
Job Evaluation
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason sailors in all ranks are not permitted to view their job evaluation results under the evaluation of the system put forward under Pay 2000; and if he will make a statement. [153978]
Mr. Spellar: The Job Evaluation (JE) system used in the armed forces evaluates the post, not the individual postholder. In view of the total number of service personnel, it is not possible to evaluate posts individually. In practice, a representative sample of jobs is evaluated and the results applied to like jobs undertaken at the same rank. While copies of the full job descriptions generated as part of the evaluation process are made widely
11 May 2001 : Column: 413W
available, the final evaluation scores are not released. This is common practice in the wider evaluation industry and is consistently followed throughout the armed forces regardless of rank or Service. The evaluation system and its use are periodically scrutinised by independent consultants on behalf of the Office of Manpower Economics and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the job evaluation results of the Officer Corps will be published; and if he will make a statement. [153982]
Mr. Spellar: To date, few Officer posts have been evaluated using the current evaluation system. Priority has been given to evaluating non-commissioned personnel to underpin the introduction of the new pay system, Pay 2000. However, a comprehensive programme of Officer evaluation will begin this year and the first tranche of results will be provided to the Armed Forces Pay Review body in September. While copies of the full job descriptions generated by the evaluation process are made widely available, the final scores are not published. This is common practice within the wider evaluation industry.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent statement by the Second Sea Lord about the job evaluation system for officers; and if he will make a statement. [153980]
Mr. Spellar: During the course of a discussion with a group of Royal Navy Senior Ratings at HMS Dryad on 28 February 2001, the Second Sea Lord explained that officers below one star rank (Commodore Royal Navy and Brigadier Royal Marines) have not yet been job evaluated. He stated that this was in part due to the career patterns of officers, which can complicate the evaluation process. In addition, the priority has been to complete sufficient job evaluation for non-commissioned personnel to support the introduction of the new pay system, Pay 2000. Prior to its adoption in 1997, the present Job Evaluation system was extensively tested over a wide variety of posts, including over 400 officer posts.
It was demonstrated to be a sufficiently robust system for evaluating jobs at all ranks, including officers. Most senior officer posts at two star rank and above have now been evaluated, and a comprehensive programme to evaluate the remaining officer ranks is about to begin. The aim is to complete the first tranche by September 2001 in accordance with the stated requirements of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Royal Naval personnel of all ranks are permitted to see their Job Evaluations; and if he will make a statement. [158581]
Mr. Spellar: The Job Evaluation (JE) system used in the armed forces evaluates the post, not the individual postholder. In view of the numbers of posts involved, it is not possible to evaluate them individually. In practice, a representative sample of jobs is evaluated and the results applied to like jobs undertaken at the same rank. The single services are extensively involved in the evaluation process. In the Royal Navy, the Director of Naval Manning nominates the individuals whose posts will be evaluated. RN warrant officers conduct the corresponding interviews. A tri-service team of three evaluation judges at RN Captain rank and equivalent then score the jobs.
11 May 2001 : Column: 414W
It is not normal practice within the wider JE industry to release the results for individual posts. This is also the case in the armed forces, regardless of rank or service. Individual results are normally combined with others in the sample population to arrive at scores for a whole trade. On its own, therefore, the result for an individual post is open to misinterpretation. The process used to evaluate the jobs of service personnel is subject to periodic scrutiny by independent consultants acting on behalf of the Office of Manpower Economics and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |