|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Departments Asset Register records assets with a value over £2,500. Items of art below £2,500 may or may not have been purchased but could not be identified from the Departmental Resource Accounting System.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Department has for reviewing the levels of funding allocated to further education in (a) Coventry and (b) England. 
Bill Rammell: On 21 October, I made an announcement, setting out the Government's strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for the coming period. My main purpose for doing so was to ensure the 2006/07 funding allocations process began with a clear and concise message on the principles that will underpin funding over the next two years.
In addition, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published Priorities for Success"a document that sets out the funding strategy for the next two years in more detail. This document is available on the LSC's website.
Although more funding will be going into the sector, we will focus funding even more strongly on key priorities of raising participation and achievement 1419 and driving down the skills deficit in the adult work force. This will mean that less provision outside these priority areas can be supported at previous levels, and that there has to be a new balance of responsibilities between government, employers and learners to achieve this.
The Chancellor announced in the 2004 spending review settlement for education and skills in April 2004, that there will be over £1 billion of additional investment in the learning and skills sector by 200708. We will not know what this will mean for regional and local budgets until allocations are made by the National LSC Office, following receipt of the grant letter from my Department.
3 Nov 2005 : Column 1312W
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the working age population in (a) Ribble Valley and (b) Lancashire hold a qualification (i) at degree level and (ii) above degree level. 
Bill Rammell: The following table shows analysis of the qualification levels of the working age population in the Ribble Valley and Lancashire at degree level (level 4) and above degree level (level 5). This is presented alongside England average data for comparison. Data comes from the Local Labour Force Survey for 200405.
|Qualification level||Ribble Valley||Lancashire||England|
|Above degree level (level 5)||4.2||3.8||5.3|
|Degree level (level 4)||29.4||21.6||20.8|
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each IT project her Department has undertaken since May 1997 which has incurred a total expenditure of £5 million or more (a) the name of the project, (b) its intended purpose, (c) the principal contractors involved and the payments made to each, (d) the original estimate of the cost of the project, (e) the actual outturn of expenditure on the project, (f) the intended date on which the project was to be fully implemented, (g) the actual date on which it was fully implemented or cancelled, (h) modifications which have been made to the project since it was first commissioned, (i) contractors on the project whose contracts have been cancelled, (j) replacement or additional contractors on the project, (k) the most reliable estimate of public expenditure saved as a result of implementing the project and (l) the most reliable estimates of improved performance of departmental functions as a result of implementing the project. 
Maria Eagle: The information as requested is not readily available centrally within the Department for Education and Skills. To respond fully would involve an extensive internal and external information collection exercise which would exceed the recommended disproportionate cost threshold.
To be helpful, current departmental records show that the following nine live ICT-enabled programmes and projects each exceed or will exceed a total expenditure of £5 million. Also included in the list are details of the Department's individual learning account (ILA) programme which has previously been subject to
3 Nov 2005 : Column 1313W
scrutiny by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts Committee 1 , and UK e-university project which has previously been subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee 2 . The list is not exhaustive. Expenditure does not include DfES staff and associated costs.
3 Nov 2005 : Column 1314W
|Project name||Intended purpose||Cost or estimated cost|
|Individual learning accounts (ILAs)||To widen participation in learning and to help overcome financial barriers faced by individuals (especially those with -accounts particular learning or skill needs). (Introduced in England in September 2000, the ILA scheme was successful in attracting over one million people back into learning. However, in November 2001, the Government withdrew it following allegations of fraud and abuse.)||Total expenditure is likely to exceed £290 million against a budget of £199 million. (The scale of fraud and abuse is estimated at £97 million, including £67 million fraud.)|
|UK e-university||To provide internet-based UK higher education to an expanding global market.||£50 million|
|IS index project||To deliver a solution to facilitate contact between practitioners from different services and agencies which will, in turn, enable them to share information appropriately and securely for the benefit of children, young people and families.||Estimated one-off implementation costs £225 million over three-five years. Ongoing annual operational costs estimated at £64 million per annum thereafter.|
|Strategic technologies and value for schools programme||To reduce risk and create a more coherent approach to ICT procurement and provision in schools.||£431 million capital £140 million revenue, plus programme costs approx £12 million over three-year (£10.5 million Becta, £1.5 million DfES)|
|Student support modernisation programme||To modernise student support arrangements for England and Wales||Estimated £15 million.|
|Project name||Intended purpose||Cost or estimated cost|
|Key Stage 3 ICT assessment programme||To develop and implement an onscreen test of pupils' ICT capability at the end of Key Stage 3, and ensure schools' readiness to administer the test.||£29 million.|
|Change for children programme||To enable children and young people to receive the universal services they are entitled to and any additional services they need at the earliest opportunity.||Estimate: £250300 million development/implementation costs, £60 million P/A running costs.|
|SLC academic year 06/07 delivery programme||New IT system to modernise Student Loans Company" business processes and enhance delivery of student finance to customers.||£14.635 million.|
|Teacher development agency customer communication service programme||Provision of a service to convert eligible enquirers into applicants for initial teacher training.||£9 million.|
|Electronic data and records management system (EDRMS)||DfES (Internal) electronic records management system.||Up to £5.93 million.|
|Bichard bvetting and barring scheme||To design a vetting and barring scheme that meets the requirements of recommendation 19 of the Bichard Inquiry at an appropriate cost, with implementation in 2007.To reduce the incidence of harm to children and vulnerable adults by those who work with them by identifying and removing those known to be unsuitable from the workforce.||£18.1 million for implementation (2005/06 to|
2007/08). Long-term funding arrangements for operation of the scheme to be agreed with OGDs.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many IT projects have been developed for her Department since 2001; and whether she has agreed to make public (a) in full and (b) in part the Gateway Reviews for these projects. 
Maria Eagle: The information as requested is not readily available centrally within the Department for Education and Skills. To respond to the question fully would involve an extensive internal and external information collection exercise which would exceed the recommended disproportionate cost threshold. However, to be helpful, current departmental records confirm that in excess of 72 DfES-led IT projects have gone through the Office for Government Commerce Gateway Review process since 2001.
With regard to the release of Gateway Review Reports, as these are conducted on a confidential basis for the Senior Responsible Owner of the project concerned the information contained within the reports is not proactively or routinely released. However, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000, requests for the release of information contained in Gateway Review reports are considered on a case-by-case basis. To date, the Department has received no such FOIA requests.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|