---

Assisted Places Scheme

Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will extend the assisted places scheme to schools catering exclusively for children with special educational needs. [28350]

Mrs. Gillan: We have no present plans to do so, but are keeping the matter under review.

Statemented Pupils

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority (a) the total number and (b) the percentage of pupils who are currently statmented. [28523]

Mrs. Gillan: The latest available information is shown in the table:

Pupils with a statement of special educational needs in schools by local education authority areaEnglandJanuary 1995

	Pupils with a statement of SEN	Percentage(4)
Corporation of London	0	0.0
Camden	837	2.9
Greenwich	1,369	3.6
Hackney	877	2.9
Hammersmith and Fulham	662	3.3
Islington	827	3.3
Kensington and Chelsea	242	1.2
Lambeth	848	3.0
Lewisham	1,050	2.9
Southwark	929	2.4
Tower Hamlets	1,089	3.0
Wandsworth	1,220	3.6
Westminster	373	1.6
Barking and Dagenham	559	2.0
Barnet	915	1.8
Bexley	858	2.3
Brent	736	1.9
Bromley	1,221	2.6
Croydon	864	1.6
Ealing	755	1.6
Enfield	666	1.5
Haringey	627	1.9
Harrow	643	2.0
Havering	810	2.2
Hillingdon	1,135	2.9
Hounslow	1,012	2.8
Kingston upon Thames	507	2.2
Merton	551	2.0
Newham	990	2.3
Redbridge	676	1.7
Richmond upon Thames	497	1.9
Sutton	694	2.5
Waltham Forest	986	2.8
Birmingham	4,327	2.3
Coventry	1,084	2.0
Dudley	923	1.9
Sandwell	814	1.5
Solihull	746	1.9
Walsall	1,294	2.6
Wolverhampton	1,095	2.4
Knowsley	910	3.0
Liverpool	2,512	2.9
St. Helens	1,430	4.6
Sefton	1,468	2.8
Wirral	1,570	2.7
Bolton	1,054	2.1
Bury	1,042	3.3
Manchester	1,523	2.0
Oldham	607	1.4
Rochdale	876	2.4
Salford	723	1.8
Stockport	1,536	3.1
Tameside	1,034	2.7
Trafford	742	2.0
Wigan	1,933	3.8
Barnsley	996	2.8
Doncaster	1,931	3.6
Rotherham	1,374	3.0
Sheffield	1,761	2.3
Bradford	1,639	1.7
Calderdale	679	1.9
Kirklees	2,113	3.2
Leeds	3,510	2.9
Wakefield	1,244	2.2
Gateshead	588	1.8
Newcastle upon Tyne	1,259	2.7
North Tyneside	1,035	3.1
South Tyneside	656	2.4
Sunderland	1,561	3.0
Isles of Scilly	4	1.4
Avon	4,341	2.8
Bedfordshire	2,425	2.5
Berkshire	3,591	2.7
Buckinghamshire	3,336	3.0
Cambridge	2,718	2.5
Cheshire	5,140	3.1
Cleveland	2,524	2.4
Cornwall	2,908	4.0
Cumbria	3,205	4.0
Derbyshire	5,251	3.4
Devon	5,338	3.4
Dorset	2,470	2.5
Durham	2,942	2.9
East Sussex	3,534	3.4
Essex	5,492	2.3
Gloucestershire	2,282	2.6
Hampshire	7,739	3.2
Hereford and Worcester	2,608	2.3
Hertfordshire	4,599	2.6
Humberside	3,222	2.2
Isle of Wight	487	2.5
Kent	7,256	2.8
Lancashire	7,815	3.3
Leicestershire	3,683	2.4
Lincolnshire	3,048	3.2
Norfolk	3,759	3.3
North Yorkshire	2,616	2.3
Northamptonshire	2,316	2.2
Northumberland	1,155	2.2
Nottinghamshire	1,932	1.1
Oxfordshire	1,875	2.0
Shropshire	2,449	3.5
Somerset	1,947	2.6
Staffordshire	4,543	2.6
Suffolk	3,049	2.9
Surrey	5,074	3.1
Warwickshire	1,771	2.2
West Sussex	2,598	2.4
Wiltshire	2,624	2.9
England	211,307	2.6

(4) Pupils with a statement of special education needs expressed as a percentage of the school population.

13 May 1996 : Column: 334

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the number and percentage of currently statemented pupils statemented at (a) key stage 1 and (b) key stage 2. [28525]

Mrs. Gillan: The information requested is not collected centrally.

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the amount per special educational needs pupils spent on special needs education in 1995-96. [28524]

Mrs. Gillan: The data collected centrally identify expenditure on statemented pupils and on special schools, but do not identify separately expenditure on other forms of provision for special educational needs.

Mr. Havey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by local education authority the percentage of currently statemented pupils who are statemented for (a) physical disability and (b) severe learning difficulties. [28526]

Mrs. Gillan: The information requested is not collected centrally.

Teacher Training

Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was (a) the target for 1996 and (b) the actual intake for primary teacher training in 1995. [28587]

Mr. Robin Squire: The primary target for England for 1996-97 is 11,500. The actual intake to primary teacher training in 1995-96 was 13,601.

13 May 1996 : Column: 335

Statutory Instruments

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amended orders she proposes to lay arising from the recommendations contained in the 15th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (HC 34-xv, HL 60 of Session 1995-96); and what is her timetable for laying these orders. [28628]

Mr. Robin Squire [holding answer 10 May 1996]: The 15th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments refers to two sets of regulations made by the Department, the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/353, and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/235.

In the case of SI 1996/353, the Committee, after calling for two memorandums from the Department, determined not to draw the special attention of both Houses to the regulations. In the case of SI 1996/235, the Committee drew the special attention of both Houses to the regulations on the ground that they included two provisions which referred to provisions in another instrument rather than setting the provisions out in full. Since the instrument is unambiguous and contains no error, it does not call for amendment. The Department therefore does not propose to lay any amending regulations arising from this report but will bear in mind the Joint Committee's views on drafting in future.

Expulsion

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she has issued on the grounds which are justifiable for the expulsion of a child from school; and if she will make a statement. [28977]

Mr. Robin Squire: Guidance was issued by the Department in May 1994 to heads, governing bodies and local education authorities on the proper use of exclusion. It indicated that exclusion should be used sparingly--as a last resort--in response to serious breaches of school policy or law.

Competitiveness and Deregulation Policy

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the implications of her competitiveness and deregulation policy for job prospects in the United Kingdom in relation to those in other EU countries. [27678]

Mr. Forth: International evidence shows that keeping regulation to a necessary minimum allows employers to create a diverse pattern of jobs, giving workers greater choice in when and how to work. This leads to more people in employment. The latest available figures indicate that, in 1994, the UK had a higher proportion of its population of working age in employment than any other major EU member state.

Interview Expenses

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment has been made by her Department of the impact of lengthening the qualifying period for the payment of

13 May 1996 : Column: 336

expenses for attending job interviews; and what assessment has been made of the benefits of the scheme; [29003]

(2) how much her Department has spent in each of the last three years in meeting the expenses incurred by unemployed people in attending job interviews; and how much her Department expects to save as a result of recent changes in the unemployment qualifying period for the payments of travelling expenses for attending job interviews. [29004]

Mr. Forth: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked for him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 May 1996:

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions to her about the payment of expenses for attending job interviews. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
The ES provides financial assistance to unemployed people attending job interviews beyond their normal daily travelling distance through the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).
The performance of TIS is assessed on a regular basis to provide information which will improve the effectiveness of the scheme in helping unemployed people back into work. Management information is collected quarterly to monitor the operation of the programme and latest figures show that in 1995-96 the scheme helped 46,810 people with travel costs.
A full evaluation of TIS has also been carried out. This examined, in more detail, various aspects of the operation and impact of the programme. The evaluation was not designed to assess the impact of lengthening the qualifying period for payment. However, the report does contain some information about the impact of TIS on people with different unemployment durations. If you would like to see the full detail of this study, copies can be obtained through the House of Commons library.
Over the last three financial years the cost of meeting the expenses incurred by unemployed clients to attend job interviews have been.
1993-94 £1.79 million enabling 50,373 interviews
1994-95 £1.8 million enabling 51,140 interviews
1995-96 £1.7 million enabling 46,810 interviews
As the figures show, the demand for TIS has fallen over the last 12 months. However, we will not be able to compare savings made through the introduction of the 13 week measures until we have collected statistics at the end of June and compared them with the corresponding quarter last year. I will write to you again in August when that comparison has been carried out.
I hope this is helpful.

---