| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 Mar 2004 : Column 889W—continued
Child Removals
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills further to the Appeal Court judgment in the R v. Cannings case, what specific action he has initiated to review the cases of children removed from their parents in the family courts which have involved expert witness testimony from (a) Professor Sir Roy Meadow and (b) others on the expert witness list for (i) their expertise in Munchausen's syndrome by proxy and (ii) causing child death by shaking. [152136]
Margaret Hodge: I made a statement to the House on 23 February 2004, following the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against the conviction of Angela Cannings. In this statement I announced the action that I have asked local authorities with social services responsibilities to take.
First, for them to consider those cases which are affected by the Attorney-General's Review. In those cases, councils should stand ready to act in the light of the outcome of that review.
Secondly, within the next four weeks, for councils to identify and make their best efforts to review current cases. These are cases where they have commenced care proceedings in relation to a child and where the court has not yet made a final care order. In these cases councils should consider with their lawyers the implications, for those proceedings, of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Cannings case.
Thirdly, within the next 12 weeks social services should, together with their lawyers, identify those cases where a final care order was made in the past, which involved harm to the child or a sibling, and where the making of the care order depended, exclusively or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between medical experts about the cause of the harm. In such cases, councils should again consider, with their lawyers, whether there are now doubts about the reliability of the expert medical evidence. If that is so and, in the light of the child's current circumstances and current best interests, they should then consider whether to apply to the court for the care order to be discharged, or whether to support any application that may be made by the parents or the child. Councils, when reviewing cases, will also need to take into account any fresh case law judgments from the appeal court that may be relevant.
2 Mar 2004 : Column 890W
Where applications to the court are made, whether by the local authority, the parents or the child it will be for the court to decide, in all cases, if the care order should be discharged.
My statement set out a route forward for the period ahead within the limits of my ability to act. With this review and with the current and forthcoming judgments in both care proceedings and appeal cases in the courts we will ensure that we are acting in the best way possible to protect the interests of children both today and in the future.
Children Act
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish his final response to the Children Act Sub-Committee Report, "Making Contact Work"; and what the reasons are for the delay in publishing the response. [156674]
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The Children Act Sub-Committee published its report "Making Contact Work" in February 2002. The then Lord Chancellor's Department published its interim response in August 2002. Following the Machinery of Government changes last year, I now have lead responsibility for child contact issues.
I have, together with my hon. Friends in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, been working carefully to consider how the family justice system and related children's services can better meet the needs of all children and their parents following relationship breakdown. We want to ensure that better outcomes are achieved for children by, where possible, helping parents agree contact arrangements without the intervention of the courts. We have also consulted widely with stakeholders and drawn on their expertise. I expect to publish the Government's response in March.
Children's Fund
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) by what amount the Children's Fund was over-committed in financial year 2003–04; [155634]
- (2) how much he estimates the Children's Fund will be over-committed in (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06; [155635]
(3) how much money has been saved by reductions to the (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 allocations to the Children's Fund. [155636]
Margaret Hodge: The Children's Fund was over-committed by £14.6 million in 2003–04 on an allocation of £150 million. It had a projected over-commitment of the same amount for 2004–05 and 2005–06.
We have not made cuts to the Children's Fund in 2004–05 and 2005–06, indeed I expect to have spent more than the £450 million set aside for the Children's Fund by the end of 2005–06. Following discussions with the Children's Fund advisory forum of key stakeholders in the programme, we have agreed revised allocations to partnerships for 2004–05, together with a package of flexibilities that will ensure that the programme lives within its financial limits while honouring its commitments. We will be having a comprehensive dialogue about 2005–06 with partnerships and key
2 Mar 2004 : Column 891W
partners in the programme over the next few weeks, with final decisions to be taken in autumn 2004 informed by that dialogue and the outcome of the Spending Review.
Class Sizes
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size in English primary schools is; what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing a maximum average class size of 25; and if he will make a statement. [156699]
Mr. Stephen Twigg: The average class size in English primary schools at January 2003 was 26.3. This relates to one teacher classes only.
The Department has not made any estimate of the cost of introducing a maximum average class size of 25.
Connexions
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the Connexions service towards meeting its target of reducing by one tenth the number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training by one tenth by November 2004. [154781]
Margaret Hodge: The Connexions Service is making good progress towards the target of reducing the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training. In November 2003, Connexions Partnerships estimated that the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training had fallen by 8 per cent. in established phase 1 and 2 Partnership areas, and 3 per cent. overall taking the new phase 3 areas into account, during the past year.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training there were in each month since the Connexions service was established. [154782]
Margaret Hodge: The number of 16 to 18-year-olds known not to be in education, employment or training in each month since the Connexions Service was established is shown in the following table. The year-on-year increases in numbers recorded as being not in education employment or training change because of the phased roll out of Connexions Partnerships in 2002–03. The national data increases as each Partnership becomes operational. In November 2003, Connexions Partnerships estimated that the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training had fallen by 3 per cent. overall during the previous year.
Notes:
1. Connexions Partnerships were rolled out over two years, with the first 15 Partnerships going live in 2001; 13 becoming operational between April and June 2002 and 16 between September and November 2002. The three remaining Partnerships became operational in 2003.
2. Data for April 2001 to March 2002 is for 16 to 19-year-olds. Data for 16–18 year olds was not available.
3. The number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training increases in September each year as summer school leavers enter the labour market for the first time.
2 Mar 2004 : Column 892W
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his Department's policy to assess the impact of the Connexions service upon previously existing services for young people. [154783]
Margaret Hodge: The impact of Connexions on previously existing services has been tested through a survey of 'stakeholders'—individuals and representatives of partner organisations on the Connexions Partnership Boards and Local Management Committees (e.g. local authorities, the police, health and social services, voluntary and community organisations and employers).
The survey of local partners in January 2003 found that a large majority (83 per cent.) believed that the objectives of Connexions were consistent with those of their own organisation and over 60 per cent. agreed that Connexions helped their organisation meet its own targets and objectives. Nearly eight out of 10 local partners thought that joint working between agencies providing services to young people in their areas was effective compared with 40 per cent. prior to the establishment of Connexions Partnerships.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Connexions clients there are, broken down by (a) social class and (b) ethnic origin. [154793]
Margaret Hodge: Information on the social class of Connexions clients is not collected by Connexions Partnerships.
Information on the ethnic origin of Connexions clients of compulsory education age (i.e. those in school years 8–11) is not collected by Connexions Partnerships. Information on the ethnic origin of those Connexions clients who have completed school year 11 in 2003 or earlier is collected by Partnerships and is shown in the following table.
2 Mar 2004 : Column 893W
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of marketing the Connexions service has been in each year since its establishment. [154808]
Margaret Hodge: Since the establishment of the Connexions service in April 2001, the breakdown of spend on marketing and advertising for each year of its existence is as follows:
| (28)Marketing and advertising | |
|---|---|
| 2001–02 | 889,073 |
| 2002–03 | (29)3,266,489 |
| 2003–04 (total committed to beginning February) | (30)3,241,000 |
(28) i.e. radio, cinema, TV advertising, campaign extension, Connexions publications, conferences)
(29) Includes £226,850 for Connexions Direct
(30) Includes £60,317 for Connexions Direct
This breakdown is for central budgets only. Data is collected centrally on the broad areas of Partnerships' expenditure but not at a level detailed enough to enable identification of how much has been spent on marketing and advertising.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff are employed by the Connexions service, broken down by (a) job title and (b) area partnership. [154809]
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 12 February 2004]: The following table shows the total number of staff employed by each Connexions Partnership in December 2003. Information on the number of staff employed by each Connexions Partnership by job title is not available.
Figures are expressed as "full-time equivalent" posts.
Source:
NEXUS Data at December 2003.
2 Mar 2004 : Column 894W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |