§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the Central Science Laboratory staff at(a) Torry, (b) Slough, (c) Harpenden and (d) Worplesdon, the total number of (i) mobile and (ii) non-mobile staff, (1) made compulsory redundant, (2) redeployed to MAFF or MAFF agencies, (3) who were found employment elsewhere and (4) who took early retirement. [41668]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested concerning those Central Science Laboratory (CSL) staff not transferring to York from the Torry, Slough, Harpenden and Worplesdon sites is as follows:
Staff Torry Slough Harpenden Worplesdon Redundant Mobile 0 0 0 0 Non-mobile 24 34 30 9 Redeployed in MAFF Mobile 0 3 2 2 Non-mobile 1 8 1 2 Resignations Mobile 116 3 8 0 Non-mobile 114 4 3 1 Age/early retirement Mobile 10 23 8 7 Non-mobile 3 20 4 1 1 These staff transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory. Part-time staff in mobile grades are not subject to mobility requirements and are therefore treated as non-mobiles.
Without reference to individual personnel files, which would incur disproportionate cost, it is not possible to distinguish those staff who resigned to take up employment elsewhere from those who resigned in the normal course of events.
The age profile of the staff complement at Slough, Harpenden and Worplesdon reflects a major expansion in the early 1950s. A significant number of staff were 277W approaching retirement age at the time that the various sites were due to close and this is reflected in the number of age and early retirements.
Whilst the information provided is accurate, a certain amount of caution must be exercised in the interpretation as each individual member of staff's case is different and was dealt with by CSL on a confidential basis.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 248, how many
CSL sites Scientists Non scientists Mobiles Non mobiles CSL Slough 71 27 90 8 CSL Harpenden 60 6 63 3 CSL Worplesdon 17 0 16 1 CSL Torry 7 3 8 2 CSL Norwich 5 1 4 2 CSL elsewhere 22 1 20 3 Not previously employed by CSL 128 86 87 127
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed by the Central Science Laboratory at Torry in January 1995; and how many of those individuals were still employed by the CSL at York in January 1998 broken down(a) into (i) scientists and (ii) non-scientists and (b) into (1) mobile and (2) non-mobile grades. [41669]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested on the Central Science Laboratory staff previously employed at Tony and those who continue to be employed at CSL York is as follows:
January 1995 January 1998 Total staff 108 10 of which: Scientists 67 7 Non-scientists 41 3 Mobiles 45 8 Non-mobiles 63 2 On closure of the Torry laboratory, funding for work of particular relevance to Scotland was transferred to the Scottish Office and work programmes and associated staff were transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will make available to the University of East Anglia the necessary financial information about the operation of the Norwich Laboratory of the Central Science Laboratory to enable it to prepare properly costed proposals for a management buy-out of the laboratory. [42081]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: No.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the job titles of the 30 non fee-earning scientists employed by the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich, indicating which two are based at Norwich. [42082]
278W(a) scientific staff, (b) non-scientific staff, (c) mobile grade staff and (d) non-mobile grade staff employed by the Central Science Laboratory at York in January 1998 were employed in January 1995 by (i) CSL Slough, (ii) CSL Harpenden, (iii) CSL Worplesdon, (iv) CSL Tony, (v) CSL Norwich, (vi) CSL elsewhere and (vii) not the CSL. [41664]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested concerning those Central Science Laboratory staff employed in January 1998 at York that were based at various CSL sites or not employed by CSL in January 1995, is as follows:
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: Job titles for the various non-fee earning scientists based at the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich are as follows:
Chief ExecutiveResearch Director (Agriculture and Environment)Research Director (Food)Commercial DirectorHead of Conservation Environment Protection GroupHead of Infestation Risk Evaluation GroupHead of Pest Management Strategies GroupHead of Plant Health GroupHead of Pesticides GroupHead of Microbiology GroupHead of Information Services GroupTraining OfficerHealth and Safety OfficerSystems AdministrationData LoggingBusiness Development Team (6 posts)Information Centre (2 posts)Group Scientific Support (4 posts)Quality Assurance Unit (3 posts).The Research Director (Food) and one member of the Business Development Team are based at Norwich.
In addition, of those non fee-earning scientists based at York, 11 have responsibilities for the provision of support or management at the Norwich laboratory.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what conclusions his Department has reached following the recommendations in its memorandum of February 1997 about the possible scope for placing other additional work at Sand Hutton, York; [42079]
279W(2) what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendation in its memorandum of February 1997 that additional MAFF-funded work which could be moved to Sand Hutton, York, should be identified; and if he will list such work which could be moved. [42078]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: A number of options for placing additional work at the Central Science Laboratory's York site have been considered, including work currently done elsewhere in MAFF. No other MAFF work, with the exception of the work currently carried out at CSL's Norwich site, has been identified which could be transferred to York economically and without creating problems for other parts of the Department. As regards non-MAFF work, a Commercial Director has been appointed to the CSL Board to develop and establish new business.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 301, if he will set out the steps which his Department or the Central Science Laboratory would take to resettle Norwich-based non-mobile staff by (a) relocation and (b) securing employment elsewhere in the event that a decision is made to close the Norwich laboratory. [42109]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: In the event of a decision to close the Norwich laboratory, non-mobile staff would normally be given the opportunity to relocate to York. Every effort would be made to assist those non-mobile staff unable to relocate to identify and secure suitable employment elsewhere in the public sector, for example in other Government departments and local authorities, or in the private sector.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of whether there would be unoccupied laboratory and office space if the Norwich Laboratory of the Central Science Laboratory was relocated to York. [42080]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 596.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, on what date his Department decided not to proceed with the tendering exercise to identify consultants to advise on how best to achieve a secure financial future for the Central Science Laboratory; and by whom the decision was made. [42110]
§ Mr. Rooker[holding answer 14 May 1998]: The Prior Options review of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) concluded that there was no obvious solution to securing a sound financial future for the Agency. The key was to introduce additional revenue. A number of actions were put in hand, including a tendering exercise to identify consultants to advise on the issue and the creation of a new post at Board level to develop new business. When officials reviewed progress in May 1997, they concluded that, since the principal requirement was to increase the utilisation of the Sand Hutton site, the most appropriate course was to proceed with the appointment of a Commercial Director but not with the appointment of external consultants.
280W
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 301, for what reasons 16 of the non-mobile staff at the Norwich laboratory of the CSL are not entitled to redundancy payments in the event that the Norwich laboratory is closed. [42371]
§ Mr. RookerThe staff in question are not entitled to redundancy payments as they are employed by the Central Science Laboratory on Fixed Term contracts, and it is envisaged that they would complete these contracts in the event that the Norwich site were to be closed.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, what the financial implications are for his Department of the High Table versus Horst case, in the event that mobile staff of the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich refused to relocate to York. [42373]
§ Mr. RookerFurther to my reply given on 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, I can confirm that the High Table versus Horst case holds no financial implications for the Department or the Central Science Laboratory.