| Previous Section | Home Page |
Teacher and Pupil Numbers
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the numbers in each local education authority area and nationally of (a) provisional full-time equivalent teachers for (i) nursery, (ii) primary and(iii) secondary schools as at January 1995 and (v) the provisional pupil numbers in (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary schools as at January 1994. [23666]
Mr. Robin Squire: Information on pupils and the full-time equivalent of qualified teachers in maintained schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table. Information for January 1995 will not be available until the autumn.
Column 137
Pupils and Full-Time Equivalent of Qualified Teachers in Maintained schools in each local education authority area in England.
January 1994
Local Pupils FTE Qualified
Teachers
Education Nursery Primary Secondary Nursery Primary Secondary
Authority area |Part-time |Full-time |Part-time |Full-time |Full-time |FTE |FTE |FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation of London |0 |0 |20 |194 |0 |0.0 |13.6 |0.0
Camden |33 |40 |495 |10,433 |10,657 |3.0 |521.6 |696.7
Greenwich |342 |332 |2,298 |18,782 |13,980 |23.0 |948.9 |854.5
Hackney |108 |62 |1,398 |15,485 |7,445 |8.0 |812.7 |509.5
Hammersmith |303 |275 |600 |8,591 |5,885 |26.3 |471.2 |387.7
Islington |177 |153 |579 |15,078 |7,215 |13.2 |757.6 |469.7
Kensington and Chelsea |83 |169 |231 |6,210 |3,162 |15.0 |357.5 |253.8
Lambeth |262 |190 |1,439 |17,493 |6,306 |20.0 |953.8 |425.3
Lewisham |136 |97 |2,122 |18,692 |10,888 |9.0 |917.9 |671.1
Southwark |346 |199 |1,894 |20,626 |9,384 |21.6 |963.4 |551.2
Tower Hamlets |280 |432 |1,054 |20,678 |11,888 |38.1 |1,179.5 |837.2
Wandsworth |102 |114 |1,324 |16,113 |8,941 |9.5 |845.8 |606.8
Westminster |136 |53 |581 |8,645 |7,464 |12.0 |508.4 |482.0
Barking |0 |0 |1,815 |14,287 |9,756 |0.0 |687.1 |570.3
Barnet |532 |21 |2,109 |21,893 |18,790 |15.0 |1,091.3 |1,251.8
Bexley |0 |0 |1,425 |18,083 |14,525 |0.0 |801.1 |882.4
Brent |42 |181 |1,713 |20,691 |12,688 |15.0 |978.5 |799.7
Bromley |0 |0 |169 |22,261 |17,150 |0.0 |916.8 |1,059.2
Croydon |462 |0 |1,125 |25,891 |14,909 |13.5 |1,212.0 |881.3
Ealing |498 |16 |3,118 |22,477 |13,480 |16.3 |1,130.8 |829.2
Enfield |0 |0 |1,713 |22,110 |17,848 |0.0 |1,018.9 |1,076.1
Haringey |71 |168 |1,991 |17,786 |9,222 |14.5 |922.9 |662.4
Harrow |0 |0 |1,016 |18,332 |8,320 |0.0 |916.9 |531.6
Havering |0 |0 |1,471 |18,637 |14,892 |0.0 |837.5 |901.2
Hillingdon |120 |0 |3,125 |17,418 |14,115 |3.2 |858.9 |860.2
Hounslow |0 |0 |2,395 |17,200 |14,526 |0.0 |872.8 |894.8
Kingston upon Thames |157 |63 |1,463 |9,308 |7,787 |8.8 |427.3 |487.3
Merton |0 |0 |2,866 |12,788 |7,313 |0.0 |702.7 |453.7
Newham |851 |84 |3,527 |22,059 |14,067 |27.0 |981.0 |823.8
Redbridge |0 |0 |1,264 |18,443 |15,362 |0.0 |832.3 |927.4
Richmond upon Thames |62 |8 |1,790 |9,405 |7,622 |2.0 |500.1 |451.2
Sutton |241 |0 |1,609 |11,861 |11,359 |6.0 |518.2 |671.6
Waltham Forest |279 |41 |2,216 |17,948 |11,506 |9.1 |870.7 |722.0
Birmingham |1,460 |865 |6,318 |101,382 |64,728 |71.1 |4,495.3 |3,961.2
Coventry |176 |30 |1,946 |27,879 |19,013 |8.4 |1,272.2 |1,201.2
Dudley |60 |10 |2,764 |26,818 |18,124 |1.0 |1,252.7 |1,083.5
Sandwell |106 |111 |4,308 |27,983 |18,418 |9.0 |1,339.5 |1,158.5
Solihull |0 |0 |1,837 |18,283 |13,505 |0.0 |823.2 |823.3
Walsall |719 |88 |3,517 |25,009 |19,506 |16.8 |1,194.9 |1,233.9
Wolverhampton |826 |0 |2,978 |22,630 |16,001 |20.1 |1,130.4 |1,041.1
Knowsley |0 |0 |2,748 |16,252 |9,096 |0.0 |749.3 |537.2
Liverpool |362 |218 |5,416 |46,200 |30,556 |22.0 |2,093.1 |1,920.8
St. Helens |70 |5 |1,596 |16,039 |11,759 |2.0 |764.1 |771.1
Sefton |313 |3 |2,189 |25,210 |19,030 |8.0 |1,136.0 |1,159.9
Wirral |314 |12 |1,960 |29,672 |21,159 |8.5 |1,359.2 |1,299.3
Bolton |497 |27 |2,278 |25,360 |17,031 |15.0 |1,201.9 |1,059.6
Bury |105 |56 |1,224 |16,024 |10,332 |5.4 |712.1 |603.6
Manchester |160 |417 |2,842 |44,081 |21,693 |27.6 |2,040.1 |1,383.1
Oldham |0 |0 |1,519 |23,255 |16,331 |0.0 |1,049.9 |1,050.1
Rochdale |865 |50 |1,107 |20,551 |12,942 |22.5 |869.9 |767.6
Salford |517 |457 |852 |22,413 |11,639 |32.0 |964.9 |700.2
Stockport |845 |81 |1,050 |24,545 |16,019 |20.0 |1,061.1 |977.8
Tameside |344 |0 |2,198 |21,098 |13,372 |10.0 |891.2 |767.9
Trafford |0 |0 |2,257 |18,308 |11,947 |0.0 |795.8 |735.8
Wigan |189 |4 |2,012 |27,951 |19,523 |6.0 |1,267.2 |1,237.2
Barnsley |181 |0 |2,787 |18,715 |12,730 |4.0 |831.3 |743.6
Doncaster |0 |0 |3,435 |26,024 |21,868 |0.0 |1,178.8 |1,343.8
Rotherham |401 |1 |2,726 |22,228 |18,187 |10.0 |1,105.6 |1,148.9
Sheffield |722 |129 |5,058 |39,505 |26,981 |24.6 |1,873.4 |1,637.4
Bradford |320 |196 |5,840 |35,389 |46,297 |22.5 |1,802.5 |2,680.2
Calderdale |0 |0 |1,566 |18,315 |13,390 |0.0 |806.8 |822.1
Kirkless |569 |0 |3,849 |33,870 |24,875 |17.0 |1,618.3 |1,572.7
Leeds |92 |0 |8,526 |60,902 |43,627 |4.6 |2,782.0 |2,728.1
Wakefield |478 |0 |4,361 |26,347 |20,084 |13.0 |1,235.5 |1,232.1
Gateshead |57 |7 |1,770 |16,596 |11,751 |2.0 |810.8 |748.7
Newcastle upon Tyne |30 |594 |1,547 |20,894 |16,902 |25.4 |946.2 |1,023.6
North Tyneside |186 |38 |2,318 |14,297 |14,342 |6.3 |667.7 |844.9
South Tyneside |408 |18 |1,792 |14,231 |9,570 |11.0 |652.9 |563.3
Sunderland |995 |41 |2,318 |27,739 |19,436 |29.0 |1,310.2 |1,209.1
Isles of Scilly |0 |0 |14 |155 |122 |0.0 |11.5 |13.8
Avon |1,116 |784 |3,278 |77,422 |54,418 |68.1 |3,423.4 |3,352.3
Bedfordshire |1,160 |338 |4,275 |39,236 |44,711 |47.2 |1,880.1 |2,592.5
Berkshire |2,031 |134 |4,259 |58,196 |47,005 |63.2 |2,630.7 |2,935.8
Buckinghamshire |569 |0 |4,348 |58,017 |37,166 |12.5 |2,617.1 |2,216.8
Cambridgeshire |715 |18 |1,570 |57,557 |40,904 |19.3 |2,505.7 |2,398.2
Cheshire |814 |25 |4,686 |85,258 |63,583 |19.0 |3,665.4 |3,788.0
Cleveland |134 |0 |9,124 |55,978 |36,437 |4.0 |2,540.4 |2,144.3
Cornwall |96 |21 |3,270 |37,261 |28,977 |3.3 |1,669.5 |1,678.0
Cumbria |802 |1 |2,252 |40,588 |31,215 |18.0 |1,853.2 |1,947.5
Derbyshire |1,423 |146 |9,237 |76,181 |57,548 |43.8 |3,461.3 |3,670.5
Devon |259 |44 |2,450 |78,183 |58,826 |6.4 |3,461.3 |3,593.7
Dorset |0 |0 |4,570 |41,233 |41,286 |0.0 |1,859.7 |2,399.5
Durham |2,530 |47 |4,577 |51,757 |37,708 |63.1 |2,356.3 |2,271.6
East Sussex |300 |0 |3,960 |48,021 |34,349 |7.6 |2,244.8 |2,129.2
Essex |296 |0 |2,334 |121,663 |95,893 |8.0 |5,389.3 |5,594.0
Gloucestershire |0 |0 |15 |43,582 |33,389 |0.0 |1,940.6 |1,890.8
Hampshire |298 |2 |5,430 |131,883 |79,199 |8.8 |5,998.2 |4,827.8
Hereford and Worcester |0 |0 |1,188 |48,063 |47,472 |0.0 |2,189.1 |2,748.4
Hertfordshire |1,710 |53 |7,709 |77,116 |68,347 |43.2 |3,654.6 |4,352.8
Humberside |967 |186 |7,334 |78,075 |56,111 |30.5 |3,366.5 |3,212.1
Isle of Wight |0 |0 |175 |7,039 |10,498 |0.0 |320.1 |597.5
Kent |85 |0 |5,261 |123,973 |102,229 |2.1 |5,296.6 |6,127.3
Lancashire |3,448 |87 |4,294 |126,282 |84,257 |90.9 |5,592.1 |5,221.7
Leicestershire |50 |0 |4,253 |76,195 |59,963 |1.1 |3,488.2 |3,657.2
Lincolnshire |187 |57 |1,149 |48,695 |37,841 |7.3 |2,113.2 |2,391.4
Norfolk |390 |7 |2,277 |60,354 |41,078 |11.0 |2,804.4 |2,624.0
North Yorkshire |402 |1 |3,632 |55,608 |44,013 |9.0 |2,502.5 |2,757.9
Northamptonshire |612 |0 |2,309 |48,956 |44,910 |16.6 |2,213.7 |2,712.6
Northumberland |90 |38 |2,898 |18,794 |29,329 |3.0 |834.7 |1,622.4
Nottinghamshire |598 |11 |12,866 |80,018 |63,768 |18.2 |3,774.4 |4,027.5
Oxfordshire |1,137 |52 |2,071 |39,242 |35,127 |40.3 |1,870.9 |2,090.8
Shropshire |173 |0 |2,057 |33,934 |25,223 |4.0 |1,515.9 |1,571.5
Somerset |0 |0 |554 |35,899 |28,038 |0.0 |1,604.1 |1,692.6
Staffordshire |1,392 |736 |3,332 |90,182 |69,487 |50.2 |3,661.2 |3,971.3
Suffolk |97 |0 |3,031 |41,324 |48,024 |2.1 |1,981.3 |2,955.5
Surrey |334 |84 |2,913 |70,412 |45,405 |18.1 |3,292.3 |2,698.8
Warwickshire |758 |0 |1,335 |45,111 |25,087 |18.0 |2,067.5 |1,562.7
West Sussex |465 |18 |646 |52,512 |39,952 |14.0 |2,401.3 |2,420.6
Wiltshire |0 |0 |709 |47,496 |34,487 |0.0 |2,089.0 |2,064.5
|-------- |-------- |-------- |-------- |-------- |-------- |-------- |--------
England |43,428 |9,046 |296,406 |3,945,344 |2,933,598 |1,575.2 |180,557.7 |178,780.1
Playing Fields
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school playing fields there were in each year since 1979. [23667]
Mr. Robin Squire: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 23 January, Official Report , columns 37-8 .
Admission Appeals
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many admission appeals were made by parents failing to obtain a place for their child in the school of their choice in the latest available year in each local education area and nationally. [23668]
Mr. Robin Squire: The information requested is shown in the table.
Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their
children
to maintained (including Grant maintained) primary and
secondary schools in each local education authority area in
England.
Academic year 1992-93
Local Education |Total appeals lodged
Authority area
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation of London |1
Camden |378
Greenwich |393
Hackney |371
Hammersmith and Fulham |231
Islington |392
Kensington and Chelsea |58
Lambeth |380
Lewisham |784
Southwark |352
Tower Hamlets |596
Wandsworth |154
Westminster |227
Barking and Dagenham |174
Barnet |918
Bexley |434
Brent |145
Bromley |879
Croydon |831
Ealing |288
Enfield |710
Haringey |340
Harrow |372
Havering |388
Hillingdon |314
Hounslow |318
Kingston upon Thames |125
Merton |233
Newham |39
Redbridge |503
Richmond upon Thames |227
Sutton |572
Waltham Forest |511
Birmingham |1,957
Coventry |437
Dudley |193
Sandwell |161
Solihull |258
Walsall |39
Wolverhampton |75
Knowsley |34
Liverpool |897
St. Helens |134
Sefton |123
Wirral |438
Bolton |233
Bury |619
Manchester |1,263
Oldham |378
Rochdale |262
Salford |134
Stockport |92
Tameside |173
Trafford |237
Wigan |158
Barnsley |0
Doncaster |55
Rotherham |140
Sheffield |595
Bradford |1,457
Calderdale |138
Kirklees |221
Leeds |2,360
Wakefield |93
Gateshead |29
Newcastle upon Tyne |136
North Tyneside |16
South Tyneside |45
Sunderland |73
Isles of Scilly |0
Avon |1,115
Bedfordshire |92
Berkshire |625
Buckinghamshire<1> |580
Cambridge |315
Cheshire |147
Cleveland |80
Cornwall |51
Cumbria |99
Derbyshire |485
Devon |541
Dorset |340
Durham |392
East Sussex |298
Essex |440
Gloucestershire |279
Hampshire |148
Hereford and Worcester |273
Hertfordshire |1,071
Humberside |457
Isle of Wight |37
Kent<1> |975
Lancashire |2,400
Leicestershire |373
Lincolnshire |240
Norfolk |183
North Yorkshire |533
Northamptonshire |103
Northumberland |51
Nottinghamshire |322
Oxfordshire |374
Shropshire |360
Somerset |379
Staffordshire |190
Suffolk |150
Surrey |640
Warwickshire |160
West Sussex |187
Wiltshire |151
|--------
England |41,927
<1> LEAs which did not submit a complete return.
Physical Education
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each year since 1979 (a) the number and (b) the percentage of qualified physical education teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [23669]
Mr. Robin Squire: The information requested for secondary schools is available only for 1984, 1988 and 1992 from the secondary school staffing surveys. In those years the number of full-time teachers who were teaching physical education in maintained secondary schools in England and who had a post-A-level qualification in physical education was as follows:
|Number of PE |Number with a PE |Percentage with
Year |teachers ('000) |qualification ('000)|qualification
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |37.9 |21.6 |57
1988 |30.3 |18.4 |61
1992 |24.4 |16.5 |68
The total number of full-time teachers with a physical education qualification, including those not reaching PE, in each year was:
|All teachers with a
|PE qualification
Year |(thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |36.4
1988 |31.6
1992 |30.3
No figures are available centrally for the number of physical education teachers in primary schools.
Higher Education
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the appropriate age group has attained university entrance standards in each year since 1979. [23388]
Mr. Boswell: There is no formal minimum qualification for entrance to higher education; however, the normal requirement for young entrants is that the candidate possesses two or more A-levels, or the equivalent.
Figures for the proportions of students obtaining two or more A-levels are shown in the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education departmental report which is held in the Library. The figures are in annex B, table D (page 80): GCE A/AS level examinations, England 1979 80 to 1993 94.
DEFENCE
Land Mines
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received this year concerning the United Kingdom policy on land mines; and what proposals he has to change Government policy on this issue. [23941]
Mr. Freeman: My Department has received a number of
representations this year about land mines. We have no plans to change our policy on this issue.
Column 145
Low Flying
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trials or low-level flying exercises were undertaken by the RAF over the Sheffield city conurbation on Monday 1 May; for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [23640]
Mr. Soames: Military aircrews are instructed to avoid flying low over major towns and conurbations. We have no record of any specific authority having been given for a waiver of this regulation in respect of Sheffield on Monday 1 May. If the hon. Member is concerned about a particular incident he should provide details, including the times, the names and addresses of any witnesses and, if possible, the number of aircraft involved, to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence who will arrange for the matter to be investigated.
Mr. Perry Miller
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 9 May, Official Report, column 401, how many days' notice his former special adviser, Mr. Perry Miller, was required to give under his terms and conditions of employment following the decision to end his employment; and how many days Mr. Miller actually served following his notification that he wished to end his appointment. [24609]
Mr. Rifkind: Under his terms and conditions of employment, Mr. Perry Miller was required to give 35 days notice; he served 57 days following formal notification that he wished to end his employment.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extend his Department uses e-mail to transmit messages and information amongst his staff. [24611]
Mr. Freeman: E-mail is being used on various computer systems within the Department, the largest of which is the corporate headquarters office technology system CHOTS currently links 6,700 users at 14 sites by e-mail, including the Secretary of State for Defence's office, and 3,000 Ministry of Defence users in the main building alone. A significant proportion of MOD Departmental business is now conducted on the system.
CHOTS Computer
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of his Department's corporate head office technology systems computer; what was its original estimated cost at today's prices; when the computer system first began operation; when it will be fully installed; who manufactures the CHOTS system; how many people it serves; to what extent it is out of date; what communications he has had with his departmental staff concerning CHOTS and what were the results of these consultations; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the CHOTS; and if he will make a statement. [24616]
Mr. Freeman: The latest assessment of total cost at current prices, which includes installation and support of the system, MOD manpower costs and enabling works, amounts to £392 million over an agreed 10-year period.
Column 146
This compares with approved funding agreed in 1991 which uprated to current prices is £394 million.Operation of CHOTS began in October 1992 and by the end of April 1995 there were 6,700 users. Implementation was originally planned to complete in 1996 but the present plan contains four sites that will be implemented after 1996 because of internal restructuring within the MOD and the armed forces.
Hardware and software from a variety of sources is procured and installed by the prime contractor, ICL. CHOTS has been upgraded four times since the original technical design in 1989 but was not able to support MS Windows applications. A recent review involving a wide range of existing and potential CHOTS users established a clear need to operate a range of modern commercial software on the CHOTS workstation. As a result it was agreed that a further development be undertaken to meet this requirement.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which computer system is used by his Department's Procurement Executive; if the Procurement Executive is fitted with the corporate headquarters office technology system; how many people at the Procurement Executive use CHOTS; and if he will make a statement. [24617]
Mr. Freeman: At present the Procurement Executive utilises a number of computer systems appropriate to its needs. This includes CHOTS for those staff employed in areas in which CHOTS has been introduced. A total of approximately 1560 PE staff currently have access to CHOTS.
Bosnia
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 May, Official Report, column 401, how many British troops will be located in Bosnia after the withdrawal of British troops from Gorazde in September 1995; and how many British troops are currently stationed in Bosnia. [24608]
Mr. Soames: We intend to maintain a major contribution to UNPROFOR for as long as the force can continue to carry out its mandate at an acceptable level of risk, though it is too early to say how many British troops will be in Bosnia after September 1995. There are currently some 3,4000 British troops in the former Yugoslavia.
Departmental Paperwork
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence through what mechanisms his Department monitors the quantity of its internal paperwork. [24610]
Mr. Freeman: My Department has no formal mechanism to monitor the quantity of its internal paperwork, nor would it be easy to develop such a mechanism. None the less, the Department is keen to ensure that staff are encouraged to generate no more paperwork than is absolutely necessary to achieve departmental objectives.
As part of the Department's campaign to improve working practices, described in the essay on the "New Working Culture" on page 94 of SDE 1995, new guidelines are to be issued to staff on preparing and circulating written work. In due course, one measure of
Column 147
the effectiveness of this campaign should be a reduction in the amount of paper consumed.Tri-service Chaplaincy School
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed location of the tri-service chaplaincy school. [24912]
Mr. Soames: As part of "Front Line First" we announced our intention to establish a single tri-service chaplaincy school. Further work on this issue has led us to conclude that, subject to consultation, the school should be located at Amport house from 1 April 1996. A consultative document covering this proposal is being issued today. As part of the further work we are examining the future of Eltham palace and Queen Elizabeth barracks Guildford and, if no alternative defence uses are found for either site, we will seek to dispose of our interest in them.
Postal and Courier Service
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has begun the review of the Defence Postal and Courier Services agency. [24913]
Mr. Soames: A review of the agency status of Defence Postal and Courier Services is under way. As a Defence agency, the performance of the Defence Postal and Courier Services will be subjected to the prior options review set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review", CM 2430.
Comments and contributions from those with an interest in Defence Postal and Courier Services and its work will be welcomed and should be sent by 27 June to:
DPCS Review Team,
Log Sp Pol 2,
HQ, QMG,
Andover,
Hants,
SP11 8HT.
Hydrographic Office
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Hydrographic Office Defence agency's triennial review was completed; and what were its conclusions. [24914]
Mr. Soames: The Hydrographic Office's triennial review has now been completed and has confirmed that the Hydrographic Office should continue as a Defence agency. In addition, an evaluation study was carried out regarding the agency's performance over the first three years, which has concluded that;
(a) Both commercial and Government customers found that the Hydrographic Office's products were second to none, and its response time had considerably improved, whilst continuing to provide good value for money;
(b) Target setting procedures had been refined and developed which has resulted in robust and realistic targets, most of which have been met;
(c) Agency management had made full use of delegated powers and is actively working to extend them, particularly in the personnel field where it has instigated a pay and grading review.
Column 148
An executive summary of the evaluation study is being placed in the Library of the House.NATIONAL HERITAGE
National Lottery
Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received concerning the distribution of national lottery funds to Scottish voluntary organisations for the funding of sports and sports facilities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [23343]
Mr. Dorrell: I have received no such representations.
Commonwealth Games
Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many technical officials in England received grant aid towards travel expenses in respect of the Victoria, Canada, Commonwealth games in 1994. [23703]
Mr. Sproat: Twenty technical officials received grant aid towards travel expenses.
Welsh Fourth Channel
Mr. Garel-Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has now received the report of the inquiry into applications for funding under the business sponsorship incentive scheme in connection with payments made by the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority; and if he will make a statement. [24917]
Mr. Dorrell: I announced on 27 February Official Report , column 680 , that my Department had commissioned a report from a senior Treasury official, Mr. John Beastall, to review the circumstances of the applications for matching funding under the business sponsorship incentive scheme made by Pengwyn Pinc and certain other Welsh arts bodies. I have now received and considered Mr. Beastall's report. Copies have been placed in the Library.
The report takes account of reports received by the Department of National Heritage from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which runs the BSIS on the Department's behalf, and from the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority--S4C. It draws on an examination of the relevant records and a series of interviews with staff of S4C and the companies and organisations involved in the applications conducted, at S4C's request, by Grant Thornton, S4C's auditors. Mr. Beastall has interviewed certain S4C and ABSA staff himself. The report's main conclusions are:
In 1993 and 1994 S4C made sponsorship payments via intermediary companies to Welsh arts organisations totalling £53,500 in respect of which BSIS matching funding was claimed. These claims were an abuse of the BSIS because of S4C's position as publicly-funded body. All the intermediary companies were genuinely trading and wholly independent of S4C. Confirmation has been obtained that the relevant arts organisations received the S4C money in full. There is no evidence that any of the intermediary companies, their directors or S4C staff received any financial gain from the transactions. A thorough investigation has revealed no other instances of abuse of the BSIS through sponsorship funds originating from S4C.
Column 149
The recipient arts bodies, to the extent that they were aware of the ultimate source of the sponsorship funds, must share responsibility for the improper claims because they completed the BSIS application forms without disclosing the true source of the sponsorship funds and because their applications were not consistent with the BSIS objective of encouraging extra sponsorship from businesses. The intermediary companies must similarly share some responsibility.In two cases, where S4C staff were the prime movers in the setting up of artificial arrangements designed to secure additional public funding for recipient bodies which would not otherwise have been obtainable and which was clearly contrary to the rules and objectives of the BSIS, the main responsibility lies with S4C. S4C staff should in any event have consulted ABSA in all the cases about whether the proposed arrangements were acceptable.
In the Pengwyn Pinc case, ABSA should have checked with S4C whether the claims made by the company about likely future contracts from S4C were valid.
In order to ensure that there is no loss to public funds, S4C have agreed to pay to ABSA from their non-public sector funds a sum equivalent to the BSIS grants which were wrongly made, to the extent that these are not recoverable by ABSA. S4C should consider whether they can appropriately recover the relevant sum from the arts organisations concerned.
Disciplinary action has been taken against one member of S4C's staff. S4C is considering whether there is a case for disciplinary action against any other staff involved.
ABSA should have notified S4C in writing that S4C's sponsorship payments were no longer eligible for BSIS matching after S4C's change in status to a statutory corporation from 1 January 1993.
The new BSIS rule requiring full disclosure if a sponsor is acting as an indirect source of sponsorship from a third party should be amended so that applicants must state that they are not deriving their sponsorship funds from a third party.
In future ABSA should make rigorous checks in any case where there is doubt whether the sponsoring company is making the payment from its own funds. ABSA should also make it clear that in future any arts body or sponsoring company knowingly involved in arrangements designed to secure BSIS funds contrary to the rules or objectives of the BSIS will be disqualified from benefitting from the BSIS either permanently or for a substantial period.
The arrangement between ABSA and the trade association Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru Cyf--TAC--whereby TAC receives applications from arts organisations and proposes to member companies that they should sponsor particular arts events, should have been referred to ABSA headquarters before it was agreed. It is accepted by ABSA that this arrangement with TAC should now cease. Any future arrangement for BSIS matching of sponsorship by TAC members should require that sponsorship payments made by a company derive solely from that company's own funds and should take appropriate account of previous sponsorships.
In future ABSA should obtain an account or auditor's certificate that the BSIS grant has been spent as intended in all major cases and should establish a procedure for checking a sample of smaller cases. ABSA already have such arrangements in hand.
All future sponsorship payments made by S4C will be clearly identified as such. All sponsorship proposals will be approved by the authority on the recommendation of the chief executive.
S4C has agreed that when it makes sponsorship payments in future: (a) the payments should be made direct to the final recipient, not via any third party;
(b) the recipient should be explicitly told in writing that the sponsorship payment is not eligible for BSIS matching;
(c) S4C should inform ABSA in confidence of any arts sponsorship payments it makes.
S4C should require a subsequent account or auditor's certificate that sponsorship funding has been spent appropriately. This procedure is now in effect.
Column 150
S4C's relationship with TAC should be clearly at arm's length. This does not preclude the continuation of the arrangement whereby S4C, on TAC's behalf, deducts a percentage of programme fees due to TAC members and transmits it to TAC for the purpose of funding such activities as training and sponsorship. S4C has agreed that any future contributions by S4C towards TAC's administrative costs should be covered by a contract specifying the services to S4C for which the payment is made.It has been S4C's policy that fees paid to TAC members should not be higher than the market rate. There needs to be a continuing effective check that this remains the case.
The role of S4C staff who are members of the ABSA Wales Committee should be defined and agreed between S4C and ABSA.
S4C has introduced arrangements to prevent possible conflicts of interest arising in cases where members of the Authority or S4C staff are involved in the work of other companies or organisations. The chief executive as accounting officer is responsible for ensuring that appropriate standards of financial propriety are maintained within S4C and has already taken action to this end. However to assist him in this a senior member of management below chief executive level should have the clear responsibility of promoting appropriate standards of financial propriety throughout the organisation and of acting as the acknowledged source of advice when any issues of propriety arise.
DNH should check whether there is any risk of the improper use of public funds in any other cases where the department provides funds on a matching basis.
I am grateful to Mr. Beastall for carrying out this thorough review and for making practical recommendations to ensure the proper use of public money. In a number of instances, the bodies concerned have already taken the necessary steps to implement these conclusions. My officials will monitor carefully the action taken by the bodies concerned in response to the report's recommendations.
Public Library Review
Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the ASLIB consultancy study commissioned as part of the public library review. [24915]
Mr. Dorrell: The ASLIB consultancy was commissioned by my predecessor to produce a report as part of a major review of the public library service in England and Wales. I am today authorising the publication of the report and seeking public reactions to its contents, and depositing copies in the Libraries of the House. This is a time of major change for the public library service. The review aims to provide fundamental examination of its future, and ASLIB has produced a very full report as part of that process. In doing so, it has examined the public library service currently provided by local authorities in England and Wales and the context within which they operate; and it has consulted widely.
Public libraries are important to all sectors of the community. Each year more than 24 million adults in England and Wales use them. The ASLIB report draws attention to those services which the public values particularly highly, and demonstrates that libraries play a crucial role in the economy of the United Kingdom.
The report addresses a number of recommendations to the Government. We shall of course consider them carefully; but I can make it clear now that:
Column 151
I have no intention of introducing charges for the present free core of the public library service;I will be taking forward the proposals that Government should produce guidance notes for local authorities to define more clearly the range of core services which libraries should provide. In doing so, however, I am conscious of the desirability of leaving decisions about how best to provide such services for local authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances.
I am not inclined to establish a new independent library inspectorate; and
I do not intend to change the present legislation governing public library services.
Most of the recommendations in the report are addressed to local authorities, and I am seeking their views. However, I can make it clear now that I support in principle an approach under which local authorities:
state explicitly what kind of library service they want to buy, however that service is delivered; and
explore innovative ways of providing that service, including new technology and diverse sources of finance.
The separate study that I have commissioned of the scope for contracting out public library services will make a valuable contribution to this debate.
Following consultation with local authorities and other interests, I expect to make a further statement on the outcome of the review later this year.
Telephones
Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many mobile telephones being used by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23431]
Mr. Dorrell [holding answer 9 May 1995]: My Department has never been a victim of mobile telephone cloning.
Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23445]
Mr. Dorrell [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Vaz) on 20 May 1994, Official Report columns 601-2 . In 1994 95 the costs were £12,600 running costs and £6,800 capital.
| Next Section
| Home Page |