Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals contained in the Construction Industry Training Board's Vision 2020 on the number of people employed by that Board.
Answered by Anne Milton
We published a review of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) last autumn which makes a number of recommendations to improve the performance of the CITB, and it is now embarking on a reform programme, which has the support of the industry. Central to this reform is a refocusing of CITB that will see it concentrate on its core mission of working with industry to ensure improved access to high quality construction training provision in order to meet the industry’s skills needs in both the short and long term.
We understand that delivery of these reforms will be significant challenge, and CITB will need to consider what changes to their operational model are appropriate. It is important that due consultation takes place regarding sites and people affected by these decisions and we know that CITB are consulting with their employees, employee representatives, and local authorities and MPs on the changes required to deliver their stretching reforms.
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals in the Construction Industry Training Board's report Vision 2020 – The Future CITB moves forward on the (a) quality and (b) availability of training for the construction industry.
Answered by Anne Milton
We published a review of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) last autumn which makes a number of recommendations to improve the performance of the CITB, and it is now embarking on a reform programme, which has the support of the industry. Central to this reform is a refocusing of CITB that will see it concentrate on its core mission of working with industry to ensure improved access to high quality construction training provision in order to meet the industry’s skills needs in both the short and long term.
We understand that delivery of these reforms will be significant challenge, and CITB will need to consider what changes to their operational model are appropriate. It is important that due consultation takes place regarding sites and people affected by these decisions and we know that CITB are consulting with their employees, employee representatives, and local authorities and MPs on the changes required to deliver their stretching reforms.
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will review the statutory guidance for local authorities on post-16 transport to education and training in order to take account of the increase in the education participation age to 18.
Answered by David Laws
The post-16 transport guidance for local authorities was reviewed following the introduction of legislation to raise the participation age in 2013 and an updated version was published in February this year.
The statutory responsibility for transport to education and training for 16- to 19-year-olds continues to rest with local authorities, enabling them to make decisions which best match local needs and circumstances. Local authorities are expected to make reasonable decisions based on the needs of their population, the local transport infrastructure, and the resources they have available. The Government has no plans at present to extend the statutory requirement beyond this.
Most 16- to 19-year-olds have access to a discount or concession on local travel, from their local transport provider, their local authority, or from their education or training provider. The £180 million Bursary Fund is also available to support young people with the costs associated with attending education or training, and transport is the biggest single area of expenditure for which this fund is used.
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which (a) university technical colleges and (b) free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds she expects to open in September 2015.
Answered by Edward Timpson
The Department for Education publishes on our website the names of all free schools (including for 16- to 19-year-olds), university technical colleges (UTCs) and studio schools in the pre-opening phase currently planned to open in 2015 and beyond.
Free schools (searchable by phase) currently planned to open in 2015 and beyond can be found here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-schools-open-schools-and-successful-applications and the names of UTCs in pre-opening can be found here:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/utcs-and-studio-schools-open-schools-and-applications-received
We do not publish opening dates because these are kept under review throughout the pre-opening phase and could change.
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many officials in her Department who received the (a) exceeded, (b) met and (c) must improve performance mark under the Civil Service Employment Policy Performance Management System (i) had a disability, (ii) worked full-time and (iii) worked part-time in 2013-14.
Answered by Nick Gibb
The information requested is based on a declaration rate of 55% and is set out in the table below. The figures provided on protected characteristics are subject to rounding due to their restricted nature and so total figures may differ slightly
Table 1: 2013-14 Performance management outturn figures for the Department for Education (actual numbers)
Protected characteristics | Exceeded | Achieved | Must Improve | |
Hours worked | Part-time | 75 | 325 | 25 |
Full-time | 660 | 1,805 | 280 | |
Gender | Male | 300 | 875 | 155 |
Female | 440 | 1,270 | 155 | |
Age | 18 – 24 | 45 | 80 | 15 |
25 – 49 | 545 | 1,500 | 180 | |
50+ | 150 | 560 | 115 | |
Ethnicity | White | 470 | 1,265 | 150 |
BME | 65 | 265 | 60 | |
Not declared | 205 | 610 | 100 | |
Disability status | Declared disability | 30 | 140 | 35 |
No declared disability | 385 | 980 | 115 | |
Not declared | 325 | 1,025 | 155 |
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many officials in her Department completed the Civil Service Employment Policy Performance Management System in 2013-14; how many and what proportion of those officials received the (a) exceeded, (b) met and (c) must improve performance mark; and how many and what proportion (i) did and (ii) did not qualify for a bonus under that process.
Answered by Nick Gibb
3,188 staff received a rating at the end of the 2013/14 performance management year.
Only staff who were identified as exceeded were eligible to receive a non-consolidated performance award. The table below shows the proportions and numbers of staff who received the three ratings.
Exceeded (eligible for a non-consolidated performance award) | Achieved | Must Improve | |
Number of staff who received the rating
| 738 | 2,142 | 308 |
Percentage of staff who received the rating
| 23% | 67% | 10% |
Asked by: John Healey (Labour - Wentworth and Dearne)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many officials in her Department of each (a) gender, (b) ethnicity and (c) age received the Civil Service Employment Policy Performance Management System's (i) exceeded, (ii) met and (iii) must improve performance mark in 2013-14.
Answered by Nick Gibb
The information requested is based on a declaration rate of 55% and is set out in the table below. The figures provided on protected characteristics are subject to rounding due to their restricted nature and so total figures may differ slightly
Table 1: 2013-14 Performance management outturn figures for the Department for Education (actual numbers)
Protected characteristics | Exceeded | Achieved | Must Improve | |
Hours worked | Part-time | 75 | 325 | 25 |
Full-time | 660 | 1,805 | 280 | |
Gender | Male | 300 | 875 | 155 |
Female | 440 | 1,270 | 155 | |
Age | 18 – 24 | 45 | 80 | 15 |
25 – 49 | 545 | 1,500 | 180 | |
50+ | 150 | 560 | 115 | |
Ethnicity | White | 470 | 1,265 | 150 |
BME | 65 | 265 | 60 | |
Not declared | 205 | 610 | 100 | |
Disability status | Declared disability | 30 | 140 | 35 |
No declared disability | 385 | 980 | 115 | |
Not declared | 325 | 1,025 | 155 |