| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Nov 2006 : Column 1120W—continued
Departmental Redundancies
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many redundancies there were in his Department in each year since 1997; what the cost of such redundancies was in each such year; how many temporary staff were employed in each such year; and how many staff were seconded by outside organisations to the Department in each such year. [95265]
Mrs. McGuire: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 bringing together the former Department of Social Security and the former Employment Service.
The number of staff full-time equivalent (FTE) staff leaving the Department on all types of early release schemes and under inefficiency dismissal with compensation in each complete financial year since its formation is in the following table. The costs of all these types of releases have been included in the figures below since the costs arising from the dismissals cases are not separately identifiable.
| Expenditure (£ million) | Number of staff (FTE) | |
| Notes: 1. The figures do not include the provisions made in the accounts for costs associated with staff approved for early release in 2006-07. 2. Costs include the ongoing costs in respect of early releases dating from 1997-98 in the Benefits Agency, part of the Department of Social Security. | ||
The number of temporary staff employed at 31 March in each year is shown in the following table. The figures are full-time equivalent.
| Number of temporary staff (FTE) | |
Information is not available on the numbers of people seconded by outside organisations to within the Department.
Deprivation Cycle
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Department’s “Opportunity for all” report 2006, column 6915-I, what the evidential basis is for the statement in the foreword on the cycle of deprivation in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [96112]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The evidential basis is set out in the Government’s annual report “Opportunity for all”, columns 6915-I and II. The indicators within “Opportunity for all” are wide-ranging and designed to monitor progress on poverty and social exclusion. This year’s report reveals that 40 of the 59 indicators have moved in the right direction since the baseline of 1997.
Discretionary Housing Payments
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has given to local authorities on the use of discretionary housing payments to sustain tenants in the privately rented housing sector. [99925]
Mr. Plaskitt: General guidance on the operation of the discretionary housing payment was issued to local authorities in March 2001.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the future of discretionary housing payments. [99926]
Mr. Plaskitt: Ministers have had no discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government on the future of discretionary housing payments. There are no plans to change these arrangements.
Employment Programme Centres
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding his Department provided for employment programme centres in each county in England and Wales in each year for which figures are available. [93894]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Gentleman with the information requested.
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking about the funding provided by Jobcentre Plus for employment programme centres in each county in England and Wales in each year for which figures are available. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
Jobcentre Plus does not collect or retain financial data at county level. However I am able to provide the amount of funding for programme centre provision in Great Britain in each of the following years:
| £ million | |
| (1 )budget for current year | |
The amount of funding for 2005-06 and the allocation for 2006-07 are available by region in the following table.
| Region | 2005-06 | 2006-07 |
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what criteria his Department uses to evaluate bids to provide employment programme centres; [93896]
(2) whether his Department has measures in place to ensure that large contractors are not favoured over smaller contractors when bidding to provide employment programme centres. [93897]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Gentleman with the information requested.
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions asking what criteria his Department uses to evaluate bids to provide employment programme centres and whether his Department has measures in place to ensure that large contractors are not favoured over smaller contractors when bidding to provide them. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
The evaluation criteria for the recent bids to run Programme Centres were, in priority order:
experience and performance;
knowledge of customer groups and their needs;
knowledge and experience of working with employers;
knowledge and experience of the district/region;
involvement and links with local organisations;
proposals for delivery;
organisation infrastructure, management and capacity;
human resource;
quality standards and evaluation;
implementation plan to delivery;
premises and facilities;
record keeping and administration;
marketing and referrals
Bids for all our contracts are evaluated by qualified procurement professionals strictly on their merits; there is no presumption in favour of large organisations over smaller ones.
Jobcentre Plus actively encourages an innovative and competitive marketplace and works with larger providers to ensure that they understand the need to achieve diversity in the service delivery for all of our provision, including Programme Centres. To ensure that optimum use is made of the specialist services offered by smaller providers we facilitate the interface between contractors and sub-contractors through a variety of means, including discussions with trade associations, and notices placed on the Jobcentre Plus website www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk (Partners page).
As part of the tender evaluation process, we ask bidders to tell us how they will fully meet the varied needs of all customers; it is generally unlikely that any one provider could adequately demonstrate their ability to meet all of these needs without some specialist support. We also ask providers to give details of all their sub-contractors in their tenders and we take into account the skills and experience of the sub-contractors during the tender assessment process.
I hope this is helpful.
Family/Household Incomes
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of children lived in families in each income decile in each year since 1975-76; and if he will make a statement. [93477]
Mr. Jim Murphy: Specific information regarding low income for Great Britain is available in “Households Below Average Income 1994-95-2004-05”. The survey from which estimates are provided started in 1994-95. There are no suitable data source for years prior to 1994-95.
Deciles are income values which divide households, when ranked by income, into ten equal-sized groups. No matter what the shape of the income distribution, or how well off or poor people are, there will always be 10 per cent. of the whole population in the bottom decile, just as there will always be 10 per cent. of the whole population in the top decile; and this will be the case in every year.
The low income threshold is 60 per cent. of median income (Before Housing Costs). This particular threshold is an internationally accepted measure and in Great Britain is almost always in the 2nd decile. Therefore children can be moved above the low income threshold, but still remain in the 2nd decile, and so
there will be no change in the figures showing decile distributions from year to year.
Estimates of the proportion of children living in families in each income decile in each year 1994-95 to 2004-05, are in the following tables. Figures are shown Before and After Housing Costs.
| Percentage of children by the income decile of their household—Great Britain, 1994-95 to 2004-05—Before Housing Costs | ||||||||||
| Decile | ||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |