§ Sir Donald ThompsonTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are in place in the Intervention Board executive agency for recruitment; on what basis these are drawn; how many staff have been appointed at each level during 1995 –96; if he will indicate the proportion of(a) women, (b) members of ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people successful at each level; and what exceptions were made to the recruitment rules to allow appointments to be made. [8177]
§ Mr. BaldryI can confirm that there are systems in place in the Intervention Board to ensure that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, in accordance with the recruitment code laid down by the civil service commissioners, and that these systems are subject to internal check.
During the 1995–96 financial year, the Intervention Board conducted three recruitment campaigns to appoint staff at administrative assistant, administrative officer, and higher executive officer (auditor) levels. These exercises were conducted on the basis of fair and open recruitment and selections were made on merit in each case. The following statistical information on the competitions may help to put the exercise into context:
Administrative assistant competition There were 37 applicants of which: Applicants Interviewees Successful candidates Gender Male 21 (57 per cent.) 20 (67 per cent.) 16 (69 per cent.) Female 16 (43 per cent.) 10 (33 per cent.) 7 (31 per cent.) Totals 37 (100 per cent.) 30 (100 per cent.) 23 (100 per cent.) Ethnic origin White 31 (84 per cent.) 25 (83 per cent.) 19 (83 per cent.) Black 1 (3 per cent.) 1 (3 per cent.) 1 (4 per cent.) Asian 2 (5 per cent.) 2 (7 per cent.) 2 (9 per cent.) Unknown 3 (8 per cent.) 2 (7 per cent.) 1 (4 per cent.) Totals 37 (100 per cent.) 30 (100 per cent.) 23 (100 per cent.) There were no disabled applicants for this competition.
Also, from the successful candidates, eventually only eight accepted appointments of which one was a part-time appointment. Of these six were male and two female, and of this group, seven classified themselves as white and one as black.
725W
Administrative officer competition There were 69 applicants including one disabled, of which: Applicants Interviewees Successful candidates Gender Male 37 (54 per cent.) 24 (62 per cent.) 20 (61 per cent.) Female 32 (46 per cent.) 15 (38 per cent.) 11 (39 per cent.) Totals 69 (100 per cent.) 39 (100 per cent.) 31 (100 per cent.) Ethnic origin White 56(82 per cent.) 33(84 per cent.) 26(84 per cent.) Black 1 (1 per cent.) 1 (3 per cent.) 1 (3 per cent.) Asian 11 (16 per cent.) 4 (10 per cent.) 3 (10 per cent.) Unknown 1 (1 per cent.) 1 (3 per cent.) 1 (3 per cent.) Totals 69 (100 per cent.) 39 (100 per cent.) 31 (100 per cent.) Of the successful candidates, 11 accepted appointments. Included among these was the disabled candidate. Also, of the 11, eight were male and three female, and all classified themselves as white.
Higher executive officer (auditor) competition There were 19 applicants of which: Applicants Interviewees Successful candidates Gender Male 16 (84 per cent.) 3 (60 per cent.) 0 (0 per cent.) Female 3 (16 per cent.) 2 (40 per cent.)2 2 (100 per cent.) Totals 19 (100 per cent.) 5 (100 per cent.) 2 (100 per cent.) Ethnic Origin White 14 (74 per cent.) 5 (100 per cent.) 2 (84 per cent.) Black 3 (16 per cent.) — — Asian 1 (5 per cent.) — — Unknown 1 (5 per cent.) — — Totals 19 (100 per cent.) 5 (100 per cent.) 2 (100 per cent.) One application was received from a disabled individual for this competition. This applicant did not meet the minimum qualification criteria and, therefore, was not invited for interview. The two successful candidates were subsequently appointed, both were female, and both classed themselves as white.
Finally, I can confirm that no exceptions to the recruitment rules were made during the period to allow appointments to be made.