---

11 Nov 2003 : Column 227W—continued

Teaching Unions (Bilateral Meetings)

Mr. Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last held a bilateral meeting with the (a) National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, (b) Secondary Heads Association, (c) National Union of Teachers, (d) National Association of Head Teachers, (e) Professional Association of Teachers and (f) Association of Teachers and Lecturers. [137173]

Mr. Miliband: My right hon. Friend holds a variety of meetings with the teacher associations.

Truancy

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of secondary school truancy was in (a) the constituency of Romford and (b) each other London borough in 2002/03. [136472]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: The percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence in secondary schools in Romford was 0.9 per cent. in 2002/03. This shows no change from the 2001/02 level.

Truancy in London secondary schools fell to 1.3 per cent. in 2002/03 from 1.5 per cent. in 2001/02. This is equivalent to a reduction of some 700 truants. Information for all London boroughs, including the levels of truancy in 2001/02, is shown in the table.

11 Nov 2003 : Column 228W

Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence in maintained secondary schools in London, 2001/02 and 2002/03

	2002/03	2001/02
Barking and Dagenham	1.9	2.0
Barnet	1.0	0.9
Bexley	0.7	1.2
Brent	0.8	0.7
Bromley	1.1	1.1
Camden	1.6	1.4
Croydon	1.1	0.7
Ealing	0.9	1.0
Enfield	1.9	1.9
Greenwich	2.4	2.5
Hackney	2.1	2.6
Hammersmith and Fulham	1.8	1.8
Haringey	2.2	2.4
Harrow	0.5	0.7
Havering	0.6	0.6
Hillingdon	1.6	1.5
Hounslow	1.0	1.1
Islington	1.5	1.7
Kensington and Chelsea	1.7	1.9
Kingston-upon-Thames	0.5	0.6
Lambeth	0.6	1.0
Lewisham	2.2	2.7
Merton	1.3	1.2
Newham	1.6	2.1
Redbridge	0.7	0.7
Richmond-upon-Thames	2.1	2.5
Southwark	1.8	1.7
Sutton	0.7	0.9
Tower Hamlets	2.0	2.4
Waltham Forest	1.4	1.7
Wandsworth	1.6	1.3
Westminster, City of	1.6	1.8
London	1.3	1.5

Tuition Fees

Mr. Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the cost of plans for remission of tuition and top-up fees for universities in financial years (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [137165]

Alan Johnson: The cost to the Government of the public contribution to existing tuition fee remission arrangements for home and EU undergraduate students at institutions in England is estimated at:

Financial year	£ million
2003–04	456
2004–05	467
2005–06	479

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) in what circumstances the ability of universities to charge top-up fees will be withdrawn; and by what process; [137240]

(2) how he proposes to address the funding consequences of universities which have their ability to charge top-up fees withdrawn. [137556]

Alan Johnson: We expect most access agreements to work satisfactorily. Where OFFA has concerns about an agreement, it will raise these formally with the institution. If these concerns are not addressed, OFFA will ask the institution what further actions it proposes.

11 Nov 2003 : Column 229W

If OFFA remains unsatisfied, the sanctions available will include withholding approval for an institution to charge variable fees, when the access agreement comes up for renewal or, where urgent action is needed, informing the institution that it intends to impose a financial penalty. The institution will bear the financial consequences of any breaches.

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the introduction of his proposed variable tuition fees regime on each university in England and Wales in respect of (a) social access, (b) the mix of courses offered, (c) employment patterns and (d) the balance of teaching and research undertaken; [137296]

(2) what assessment he has made of the potential impact of variable tuition fees on (a) science courses and (b) arts courses. [137300]

Alan Johnson: It will be for higher education institutions themselves to decide what level of fees they set for each of their courses from 2006/07 onwards, subject to a maximum fee of £3,000. I would expect them to consider a range of factors in doing so, including the likely impact of their decisions. The Office for Fair Access must approve an access agreement, including arrangements for bursaries and outreach, before an institution can charge higher fees. It will also monitor the agreements and, if necessary, take proportionate sanctions in the unlikely event of a serious breach. Since decisions on fee levels have yet to be taken, it is not feasible to assess their impact, either on individual universities or subjects. However, the additional income from variable fees will boost universities' power to develop high-quality, greater and more flexible provision and to widen access to higher education.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of university courses that are likely to charge the maximum fee after 2006/07. [137651]

Alan Johnson: It will be for higher education institutions themselves to decide what level of fees they set for each of their courses from 2006/07 onwards, subject to a maximum fee of £3,000 and approval of their access agreements by the Office of Fair Access.

University Funding

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate the Government have made of the impact each £100 million raised for universities would have if raised by additions to (a) basic rate income tax, (b) basic rate national insurance payable by individuals and businesses, (c) income tax paid by higher rate taxpayers only and (d) national insurance paid by individuals and businesses in respect of higher rate taxpayers only. [137297]

Dawn Primarolo: I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to table T1.6 "Direct effects of illustrative tax changes" on the Inland Revenue website. http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax expenditures/g t06 1.htm

11 Nov 2003 : Column 230W

National insurance contributions are levied on a different basis from that for income tax. They are based on earnings, rather than taxable income, and the relevant earnings limits are different to those for income tax. Table T1.6 illustrates the effects of varying certain rates of national insurance contributions.

Working Tax Credit

Judy Mallaber: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of the child care element of the working tax credit in (a) Derbyshire and (b) Amber Valley. [136778]

Dawn Primarolo: I have been asked to reply.

The number of families in each region, local authority and constituency receiving help with child care costs through tax credits at November 2002, and the average weekly amount of help, are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical Analysis".

The equivalent figures for each region at October 2003 are shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Quarterly Statistics".

These publications can be found on the Inland Revenue web site, under www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm.

The number of families in east Midlands receiving such help grew by nearly 60 per cent. between these two dates.

However, the figures for October 2003 are based on a sample of cases. The sample is too small to yield reliable estimates of the number of families in each local authority and constituency receiving help with child care costs at that date. Such figures based on an analysis of all working tax credit awards will be published next year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Anti-social Behaviour

Mr. Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comparative studies his Department has (a) undertaken and (b) commissioned on an international scale in connection with anti-social behaviour with particular reference to (i) its causation, (ii) its rate of occurrence, (iii) its prevention and (iv) the rehabilitation of perpetrators. [136694]

Ms Blears: The Home Department has not undertaken or commissioned specific comparative research on the causes of anti-social behaviour, its prevention, rate of occurrence, or rehabilitation of perpetrators. However, it takes part in the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), which provides two relevant indicators: car vandalism, and feelings of unsafety on the streets. The ICVS is a fully standardised survey that has been conducted most recently in 2000. It provided comparable data for 17 industrialised countries. Results are in "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Countries", by Kesteren J V, Mayhew P and Nieuwbeerta P, The Hague: Ministry of Justice (2000). A copy is in the Library.

11 Nov 2003 : Column 231W

The 2000 ICVS showed that 11 per cent. of vehicle owners in England and Wales were victims of car vandalism, compared to an average rate of victimisation of 7.8 per cent. for all 17 countries participating in the survey. England and Wales had the third highest rate of victimisation of car vandalism of the 17 countries. On feelings of safety after dark, the 2000 ICVS showed that 27 per cent. of those in England and Wales felt 'a bit or very unsafe', compared to the average of 23 per cent.

A module is to be included in the Home Office Crime and Justice Survey in 2004 on gang membership. The data collected will be comparable with results from surveys in other European countries, although these are independently conducted.

---