---

24 Feb 2003 : Column 338W—continued

Classroom Replacement (Somerset)

Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assistance he plans to make available to Somerset county council to help with replacement of classrooms in 2003; [98282]

(2) what assistance is available in the county settlement for 2003 for classroom replacement. [98284]

Mr. Miliband: The Department currently allocates most capital funding for schools to local education authorities (LEAs) by needs-related formulae, and it is for authorities to assess and prioritise the capital needs of their school buildings through their asset management planning process, in consultation with local schools. Individual LEAs will therefore hold information on how much capital investment is being directed towards replacing classrooms in their area.

Central Government support for capital investment in school buildings in Somerset LEA totals £15 million (including Voluntary Aided schools) in 2002–03, rising to £19.2 million in 2003–04, with further allocations shortly to be announced. This forms part of the total capital investment for England of £3 billion in 2002–03, rising to over £3.8 billion in 2003–04.

24 Feb 2003 : Column 339W

Construction Industry Training Board

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to exclude plant hire organisations from the scope of the CITB levy. [97912]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: I have received a proposal from the Hire Association Europe Ltd (a trade association for the hire and rental sector) to exclude the hire and rental sector from the scope of the CITB. I am currently considering the proposal and will be consulting more widely before making a decision.

Education (Havering)

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on (a) class sizes and (b) teacher retention in the London borough of Havering. [94206]

Mr. Stephen Twigg: Over the last five years, average class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in Havering LEA have been very similar to the national average, as shown in the table. In September 2002, Havering achieved full compliance with infant class size legislation.

Retention of good quality teachers in Havering, as elsewhere, is a key priority and we are aware that some schools in some areas are still experiencing problems. However, the new National Agreement signed by the Department and its key partners will enable us to take forward our plans for remodelling the teaching profession. This in turn will address the key recruitment and retention issues of workload and bureaucracy. Taken together with our work on improving pupil behaviour and strengthening leadership within schools, we believe this will lead to a further increase in new teachers in London and elsewhere and encourage more existing teachers to remain in the profession.

Maintained primary schools

	Average class size(72)
Position in January each year	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Havering LEA	28.0	28.2	27.9	27.3	27.1
Outer London	27.6	27.5	27.4	27.1	27.0
London	27.2	27.3	27.3	27.0	26.9
England	27.7	27.4	27.1	26.7	26.3

Maintained secondary schools

	Average class size(72)
Position in January each year	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Havering LEA	21.7	22.7	22.1	22.3	21.8
Outer London	21.4	21.5	21.8	21.9	21.9
London	21.7	21.8	22.0	22.1	22.1
England	21.7	21.9	22.0	22.0	21.9

⁽⁷²⁾ Classes taught by one teacher.

E-mail Addresses

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what e-mail address members of the public may contact (a) him and (b) each of the Ministers in his Department; and for each e-mail address if he will state (i) the date it became active and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97450]

24 Feb 2003 : Column 340W

Mr. Stephen Twigg: The Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills can be contacted by members of the public by email at [e-mail]—this email address has been active since 24 April 1999. The number of emails received each month for the last 12 months are shown in the following table. Figures for individual mail boxes are not retained beyond a one year period.

Month	Number of emails
2002
March	121
April	144
May	116
June	118
July	181
August	88
September	2,897
October	294
November	209
December	164
2003
January	1,274

Examinations

Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 February, Official Report, column 87W, on examinations, what reasons he has researched as to why the costs were the same in 2001 and 2002; and how the costs relate to the number of pupils that took the tests in each year. [97850]

Mr. Miliband: The cost given in my earlier reply for printing, distributing and marking the Year 7 progress tests in 2001 was incorrect. The correct figure is £1.7 million, 300,000 more than the 2002 cost of £1.4 million. The additional 300,000 in 2001 was due to higher marking costs because of the greater number of pupils entered in that year, and initial set-up costs in the first year of progress tests for the external marking agency.

In 2001, 79,458 pupils took the English Year 7 progress test and 94,351 the mathematics Year 7 progress test. In 2002, 61,827 took the English, and 76,221 the mathematics Year 7 progress tests.

Health and Safety

Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department and its agencies have met the commitment arising from Action Point 13 of the June 2000 strategy statement on Revitalising Health and Safety to summarise health and safety performance and plans in annual reports from the year 2000–01 onwards. [89502]

Mr. Stephen Twigg: There was insufficient time for my Department to include a contribution on Health and Safety to the Department's annual report for 2000–01. We did include a contribution on performance and planning progress in 2001–02 and are currently preparing a more detailed entry for the 2002–03 report.

Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he has on the application to his Department and its agencies of the checklist, circulated by letter by Sir Richard Mottram,

24 Feb 2003 : Column 341W

referred to under Action Point 12 of the Revitalising Health and Safety strategy statement; and if he will make a statement. [89504]

Mr. Stephen Twigg: My Department's existing health and safety policy and procedures already incorporate many of the recommendations summarised in the ministerial checklist. The updated policy now under preparation will review existing provisions; update systems and approaches as necessary; establish new baselines against rigorous targets for reductions in work-related accidents and ill-health; and ensure that the Department can fully demonstrate compliance with these recommendations in addition to continuing to meet all of our statutory requirements.

Higher Education

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reduce the level of (a) regulatory requirements and (b) numbers of administrative staff in further education colleges; and if he will make a statement. [97923]

Margaret Hodge [holding answer 13 February 2003]: We are reducing and will continue to reduce the burden of unnecessary red tape on further education colleges. We have already announced plans to reduce the number of separate budget lines for the Learning and Skills Council from 45 to five, and to consolidate targeted funds for pay and staff training into colleges' core funding, and to introduce three year funding for colleges, from this year.

The Government and the Learning and Skills Council are committed to implementing in full the recommendations of the Bureaucracy Busting Task Force, chaired by Sir George Sweeney, which reported in November 2002. In particular, we will establish powerful scrutiny arrangements to keep in check demands on colleges, remove the requirement for all colleges to have an annual external audit of their Individual Learner Records, and work across government agencies to avoid repeat requests to colleges for the same information.

We are determined to go further. In particular, we are working with the Inspectorates to introduce more co-ordinated inspection arrangements, for example for colleges providing both FE and HE, and lighter touch inspection arrangements for better performing colleges. We will also assess, in 2003, the regulation of FE institutions through a review of the Instrument and Articles of Government.

FE institutions are independent corporations responsible for their own staffing and employment policies. As administrative burdens reduce, college managers will be free to make their own decisions about how they allocate resources within their own

institutions.

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates were used in establishing the costs of raising student bonds to cover a delay in repayment times, in drawing up the proposals in the policy document, The Future of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [98133]

24 Feb 2003 : Column 342W

Margaret Hodge: Raising bonds to cover a delay in repayment times of student loans is not part of the policy set out in the White Paper. We decided not to pursue bonds as an option because the gains from a Government issue of bonds were not clear, and the cost of borrowing by higher education institutions (to fund the lending involved in a bonds option) would inevitably have been higher than borrowing by Government. Forecasts of Government net debt are published bi-annually in the pre-budget report and the financial statement and budget report.

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates were made of the extra income tax an average graduate earning £400,000 more than the average non graduate would pay if they were (a) a standard rate tax payer and (b) a higher rate tax payer, in drawing up the proposals in the policy document, The Future of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [98134]

Margaret Hodge: We said in the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education, that those with higher education qualifications earn around 50 per cent. more than non-graduates. Since graduates earn more than non-graduates, they also pay more tax. The amount of extra income tax they would pay over a working life will depend on how personal allowances, tax rates and thresholds change over time.

In drawing up the proposals in the White Paper, no specific estimates were made of the extra income tax that graduates would pay over their working lives compared to non-graduates. The underpinning analysis was based on the principle of balancing the contribution from the taxpayer with the contribution from the student, bearing in mind the substantial benefit which is derived from having a degree.

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate of the funding gap in higher education his Department used in drawing up the proposals in the policy document, "The Future of Higher Education"; and if he will make a statement. [98145]

Margaret Hodge: Recent studies into the capital requirements of higher education institutions concluded that there was a need for some £8 billion of investment in infrastructure. The Secretary of State receives regular confidential advice from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and others on the financial needs of the sector against the background of the 36 per cent. real terms fall in spending per higher education student between 1989 and 1997. The announcements made in the White Paper "The future of higher education" and in the annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England show the Government are increasing spending on higher education in England by an average of over 6 per cent. a year above inflation in the three years to 2005–06.

---