| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Apr 2003 : Column 564W—continued
Sure Start
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the Sure Start programmes in Buckinghamshire, indicating the amount spent on each scheme. [106009]
Maria Eagle: There are two Sure Start local programmes operating in Buckinghamshire.
A mini Sure Start programme in Booker and Castlefield, High Wycombe, was approved in September 2002 with revenue funding of £114,500 for 2002–03. Funding for capital projects of around £64,500 has been approved to date including funding for equipment and professional fees. Plans to extend the mini Sure Start programme to a full (Round 6) Sure Start local programme are currently being considered by the Sure Start Unit. Subject to approval, the revenue funding likely to be offered is £417,500 for 2003–04, £709,750 for 2004–05, and £835,000 for 2005–06, with on-going funding for a total of up to 10 years.
A round-three programme in Milton Keynes was approved in August 2001. Revenue funding approved of £357,029 for 2001–02, £665,005 for 2002–03 and £715,000 for 2003–04. On-going funding will continue after this for a total of up to 10 years. Funding for capital projects of £42,000 has been approved to date for fees for a proposed building at Fuller Slade and Hodge Lea. The programme can apply for approval of capital funding up to £1 million.
Tuition Fees
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much he estimates will be raised for higher education from students' tuition fees, net of state support, in each of the financial years (a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06, (c) 2006–07 and (d) 2007–08. [107393]
Margaret Hodge: Net of state support, the estimate of UK and EU-domiciled students' contribution to tuition fees in institutions in England for 2004–05 is £457 million. The estimate for 2005–06 is £485 million. No estimates have been made of students' contributions for years following that. The actual level of income raised will depend on the decisions institutions make about the fees charged. Where students choose to defer
14 Apr 2003 : Column 565W
those contributions, the Government will advance the money to institutions and recover the funds from students after graduation.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence his Department has collated from (a) the United States (b) Australia, (c) Canada and (d) New Zealand on the impact of different tuition fees on access to university for students from different socio-economic backgrounds; and if he will place it in the Library. [108703]
Margaret Hodge: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 7 April 2003, Official Report, column 81W.
Union Flag
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will issue guidance to state-funded schools on flying the Union Flag on a daily basis. [108669]
Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is for schools and governing bodies to make decisions about the flying of the Union Flag. There are no plans to provide guidance to schools on this issue. Pupils may learn about the Union Flag through the National Curriculum, in particular in citizenship education which became statutory for 11 to 16-year-olds in September 2002. Pupils will have the opportunity to explore the unique qualities that are part of the shared identities of the countries of the United Kingdom.
Work Placements
Mr. McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the CBI's report on work placements, with particular reference to its findings that students found work placements grim, boring and unrelated to the curriculum. [107924]
Mr. Miliband [holding answer 8 April 2003]: There has been no recent report by the CBI on work experience placements, but we are aware of the CBI's views on the quality of these. Independent evaluations carried out for the Department point to the need for improvements of practice in some schools and businesses. We are taking steps to promote improvements in the context of our plans to make work-related learning a statutory requirement for all Key Stage 4 pupils from 2004–05, and to enable them all to have at least two weeks of high quality work experience.
DEFENCE
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Armed Forces pension scheme. [108923]
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence has been considering responses to the consultation paper on a new Armed Forces Pension Scheme which it published in March 2001. These included comments from Service personnel, from the ex- Service community and from the House of Commons Defence Committee. Our work on the review is also taking account of proposals in the
14 Apr 2003 : Column 566W
Government's two pensions Green Papers published in December 2002. I expect to receive shortly recommendations for the revision of the original proposals reflecting this further work, and to publish the Government's final decisions on the design of a new scheme before the summer recess.
Cluster Bombs
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RBL755 cluster bombs have been dropped on targets within Iraq. [108547]
Mr. Hoon: As of 9 April, United Kingdom Forces have dropped in the region of 66 RBL 755 cluster bombs in the Iraq conflict. These have been used against large troop concentrations, armour and artillery in the open.
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many L20 cluster shells have been fired by UK forces around Basra. [108548]
Mr. Hoon: As at 9 April 2003, United Kingdom Forces have fired in the region of 2,000 L20 Extended Range Bomblet Shells at Iraqi military targets around Basra.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the United States on banning cluster bombs. [108809]
Mr. Hoon: I have had no discussions with my United States counterpart on banning cluster bombs.
Defence Housing
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedure for the sale of his Department's housing by the Defence Housing Executive; whether the procedure is uniform to all the nations in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [108839]
- (2) what discounts (a) service personnel and (b) ex-service personnel are eligible for under the sales procedures of the Defence Housing Executive; what the minimum eligibility requirements are; and if he will make a statement. [108840]
Dr. Moonie: Most of the Service family housing in England and Wales was sold in 1996 to a private company, Annington Homes Ltd., under a sale and leaseback agreement. Under the agreement, houses which subsequently become surplus to Defence requirements are released to Annington's for disposal. The identification of surplus properties for release is a matter for the department, but the method of subsequent disposal or usage by Annington's is entirely a matter for the company, based on their commercial judgment.
The Ministry of Defence retains responsibility for the disposal of all family quarters in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a few outside the Annington sale and leaseback deal in England and Wales. When properties in this category become surplus to predicted long term requirement, they are sold in accordance with Treasury guidelines which stipulate that Departments should
14 Apr 2003 : Column 567W
obtain the best possible price for surplus publicly-owned assets. They are usually offered for sale on the open market at market price.
Defence Medical Services
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the Defence Medical Services was in each year from 1995–96. [103976]
Dr. Moonie: The costs of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) in the years 1995–96 to 2001–02, and the estimated cost for 2002–03, are shown in the following table:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1995–96 | 333.0 |
| 1996–97 | 257.7 |
| 1997–98 | 273.5 |
| 1998–99 | 291.5 |
| 1999–2000 | 320.2 |
| 2000–01 | 332.9 |
| 2001–02 | 348.9 |
| 2002–03 | 397.9 |
Notes:
1. Information for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 is reproduced from the House of Commons Defence Committee Seventh report "The Strategic Defence Review: Defence Medical Services" published on 27 October 1999. The final outturn for 1998–99 was the same as the estimated figure contained in the HCDC Report.
2. The figure for 1995–96 is the cost of the DMS estimated by Defence Cost Study 15(DCS 15). The figure contained in the DCS 15 report included primary care costs, estimated at £81.1 million. This has been removed here to allow accurate comparison with the figures for subsequent years.
3. Figures for 1996–97 to 2001–02 comprise the costs of the Surgeon General's Department and the four medical agencies (the Defence Secondary Care Agency, Defence Dental Agency, the Defence Medical Training Organisation, and the Medical Supplies Agency), the single Service Medical Directorates General, the Institute of Naval Medicine, the Centre for Aviation Medicine and British Forces Germany.
4. The estimated figure for 2002–03 comprises the costs of the Defence Medical Services Department (formerly the Surgeon General's Department) and the three medical Agencies (the Defence Secondary Care Agency, Defence Dental Agency, and the Defence Medical Training Organisation), the single Service Medical Directorates General, the Institute of Naval Medicine, the Centre for Aviation Medicine, British Forces Germany and the Medical Supplies Agency, which was transferred to the Defence Logistics Organisation in April 2002. Figures for Germany cover secondary care for Army and RAF personnel and primary care for Army personnel from 1996–97 to 2000–01 and both Army and remaining RAF personnel in 2001–02 and 2002–03.
5. Except where advised above, primary care costs cannot be provided without disproportionate effort as they are disaggregated and are embedded in individual units' budgets.
6. In financial year 2001–02, the Ministry of Defence changed accounting systems to include full Resource Accounts (which include costs of fixed assets etc, not reported previously). However, the figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 in the table have been adjusted to allow comparison with prior years.
7. Estimated costs for 2002–03 include additional expenditure relating to military action against Iraq.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |