§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Department of National Heritage in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Secretary of State for National heritage to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) of 25 January, Official Report, column 195; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The figure given in the answer of 25 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage was for the number of spells of absence and not the number of days lost. The number of days lost is as given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member of Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, column 756, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Chessington computer centre in 1993 and the figure given in his answer to the hon. Member of Eastleigh of 26 January, Official Report, column 756; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based on workings days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 26 January was calculated including weekends and public holidays, as explained in the letter from the chief executive.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Lord Advocate's Department in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 31 January, Official Report, column 651; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon workings days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 31 January by the Secretary of State for Scotland was calculated including weekends and public holidays.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Intervention Board in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Eastleigh on 3 February, 425W Official Report, columns 923–24; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February was for 1993. The figure given in the answer of 3 February by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was for 1994 as requested.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28 what factors underlie the disparity between the figures given for sickness absence at the Government property lawyers in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 27 January, Official Report, columns 409; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon working days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 27 January by the Attorney-General was calculated including weekends and public holidays.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figures given for sickness absence at the Serious Fraud Office in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 27 January, Official Report, column 409; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon full-time equivalent staff years, excluding casual workers. The figure given in the answer of 27 January by the Attorney-General is based upon total staff, including casual workers. The remaining difference is accounted for by differing is accounted for by differing techniques for counting sickness absence, which extends over more than one year.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Public Record Office in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Lord Chancellor to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 25 January, Official Report, column 389; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February was expressed as days lost per staff year. The figure given in the answer of 25 January by the Lord Chancellor used a lost time rate calculation which, when recalculated using the previous method, produces an analogous figure.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the 426W Central Office of Information in 1993 and the figure given in his answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh on 2 February, Official Report, column 754; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon working days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 2 February was calculated including weekends and public holidays, as I explained in that answer.
§ Mr. ChidgeyTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member of Eastleigh of 16 February,Official Report, column 782, what factors underlie his statement that the figure given for sickness absence at the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 1993, given in the answer from the Attorney-General of 27 January, Official Report, column 409, also includes factors not attributable to sickness.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes[holding answer 24 February 1995]: The factors not attributed to sickness absence given in my answer of 16 February to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) include maternity leave, special leave and secondment outside the Department.