| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 May 2006 : Column 1350W—continued
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many different adult education courses were offered in Bath in each year since 1997; how many adults in Bath registered for an adult education course in each year; and how much was spent by the Government on adult education provision in Bath in each year; [62944]
(2) if he will take steps to replace the adult education courses available to Bath residents which have been lost as a result of his Department’s re-allocation of funding priorities towards 16 to 19-year-olds. [62946]
Phil Hope: Our White Paper ‘Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances’ sets out a comprehensive programme of change that will transform our FE system and achieve its potential as a powerhouse of economic prosperity and social
mobility. Its central purpose is to equip both young people and adults with the skills for productive and rewarding employment in a modern economy. In England we will continue to spend between £2.8 billion and £2.9 billion a year of taxpayers’ money on support for adult learning. The broad volumes of publicly funded education and training will be maintained; however the balance will shift. We believe that it is right to focus help more on those who need it most,—thatis, those without the basic skills or a full level 2 qualification needed if individuals are to become effective and fulfilled members of the work force, their families and local communities.
This does mean that those outside our priority areas may have to pay more for their courses. It does not mean that courses which are valued by learners and providers should close because public funding is reduced. The experience of many colleges, for example the City college, Brighton and Hove, is that it is possible to increase fees and the number of enrolments at the same time as providing safeguards for those adults on benefits. I would look to providers in other areas, including Bath, to follow these examples.
In the White Paper ‘Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances’ we reaffirmed our commitment to safeguard funding for Personal and Community Development Learning with a budget of £210 million in 2006/07, including family learning, family literacy, language and numeracy and neighbourhood learning in deprived communities. In addition we set out our intention to reinvigorate this type of learning to improve its planning, its quality and to gear it more to the needs of local communities.
As to the specific questions of funding in each area, the Department allocates funds for the post-16 education and training sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) working through 47 local offices. As this is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council Mark Haysom, the council's chief executive, has written to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library
I write in response to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding adult Education.
Firstly, I provide a breakdown of the information you requested on adult education courses in Bath and North East Somerset (B&NES) and the reallocation of funding priorities towards 16 to 19 year olds.
Personal and Community Development Learning (PCDL) allocations in B&NES 2005/06 and 2006/07
Adult and Community Learning (ACL) funding to B&NES for 2005/6 was £378,715. This can be broken down as follows:
In 2006/07 the decision has been taken nationally to protect FLLN&WFL and NLDC activities by supporting them at 100%
of the cash value for 2005/06 and to reduce the total budget available to PCDL and first steps’ to approximately 90% of its 2005/06 cash value.
This approach has been applied to all providers receiving these funding streams throughout the South West region. It delivers the safeguards on these learning activities laid out in “Priorities for Success” (page 14, paragraph 50) and fully consumes the regional budget for these activities.
Total funding for B&NES in 2006/07 is currently set at £354,897 - please note that this figure is indicative at this stage.
Broken down into:
| Amount (£) | |
|
Funding for neighbourhood learning in deprived communities (NLDC) | |
For comparison the four Unitary Authorities within the West of England LSC area received the following:
| Total allocation (£) | |||
| Unitary authority | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2006/07 percentage of 2005/06 |
Further Education (FE) Allocations in B&NES
FE funding information is shown for B&NES and then separately identified for City of Bath College and Norton Radstock College.
We have provided the funding levels for the adult budget for 2004/5, 2005/6 and 2006/07 but please note that 2006/07 is indicative at this stage.
| 19+ allocation | |||
| 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 19+ indicative allocation | |
The main reasons for the decrease in 2006/07 are as follows:
a) Impact of “Priorities for Success” in that the LSC is no longer funding certain adult courses e.g. courses under nine hours and employer mandatory qualifications.
b) The amount of funding is decided upon a number of factors including historical levels of funding, the potential for providing priority provision i.e. Skills for Life and full level 2 qualifications, provider performance and of course affordability.
c) The amounts of funding do vary by Unitary Authority, but this is to be expected as factors outlined in paragraph b) above, also vary.
Secondly, you asked about the activity and funding allocated to adult education in Bath in each year since 1997.
Prior to the establishment of the LSC in 2001 funding for further education in England was provided by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC).
The FEFC allocated funding to a different cohort of providers using a different funding methodology to the LSC and therefore it is not possible for us to provide the information you require for adult education between 1997 and 2001.
The funding of adult and community learning was passed to the LSC in 2002/03. Prior to that the planning and funding of this activity was subsumed within local authorities. It is therefore also not possible to supply you with the data you request for between 1997 and 2001.
I attach therefore a breakdown of the information requested for the Bath and North East Somerset area from 2002/03 to 2006/07. The figures show the number of enrolments taken up, the number of distinct learners who accessed learning and the total funds earned. The figures for 2005/06 are an estimate based on current activity and the figures for 2006/07 are still under negotiation.
Adult learning in Bath and North East Somerset.
| FE funded | 2002/03 claimed | 2003/04 claimed | 2004/05 claimed | 2005/06 expected | 2006/07 Indicative |
| n/a = not available. |
| ACL/PCDL funded | 2002/03 claimed | 2003/04 claimed | 2004/05 claimed | 2005/06( 1) expected | 2006/07 indicative |
| n/a = not available. (1) Significant reorganization of ACL took place in this year. An additional £200,000 was granted to B and NES colleges to support costs incurred in this transition which is not shown. |
Child Protection
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made since the statement of 19 January in investigating the 13 cases of sex offenders in which information was not complete; and in what respect the data on two of these was inconsistent. [47064]
Alan Johnson: In my predecessor’s statement of1 March she made clear that each of the 13 cases had been considered further. In 10 of the 13 cases the individuals concerned had been assessed and, where necessary, additional information has been sought from the police. None of these 10 individuals is considered to pose a risk to children and no further action is now being taken.
In the remaining three cases Sir Roger Singleton advised considering the possible barring of the individuals concerned. On the basis of the most recent information Sir Roger Singleton has advised that in two of the cases there is no reason to proceed further, and the cases are closed. One case has been reopened and additional information will enable us to consider whether this individual should be barred. Police know the whereabouts of this individual and have assured us that the individual is not working with children or in our schools.
The inconsistent data related to reconciliation of information relating to offences in two cases held by Departmental Officials with Police information. Verification was not completed by the time of the Parliamentary Statement, but was subsequently completed.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people on List 99 have been given permission to teach in an establishment which does not admit female pupils. [47285]
Alan Johnson: List 99 does not give permission to teach. Employers should satisfy themselves that an individual is suitable and a List 99 check is one element of this process. Other checks should include Criminal Records Bureau checks and following up references from previous employers or training establishments where appropriate.
Returning to the question it is not possible to provide this information in the format requested. As my predecessor said in her statement of 19 January there are 210 people listed on List 99 as being partially barred. As set out in the statement of 19( )January an expert panel will review all cases involving a sexual offence or allegation which resulted in a decision not to include on List 99, or which resulted in a restrictionor partial bar. Sir Roger Singleton’s panel, the membership of which was announced in the statement of 1 March, will conduct a review of all cases resulting in a partial bar or restriction and will be reporting back in due course.
I should add that under previous legislation an individual identified as a risk to a particular age group or gender could have a restriction imposed preventing them from working with that particular group, but not with others outside of that group. However, under current legislation (introduced in October 2000) if an individual is perceived to be a risk to children they are barred on the grounds of unsuitably. Barring them on this ground prevents them from working in the education sector in any capacity and also disqualifies them from working with children in other sectors.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people on List 99 have been given permission to teach in schools but not to reside in a boarding school. [47286]
Alan Johnson: List 99 does not give permission to teach. Employers should satisfy themselves that an individual is suitable and a List 99 check is one element of this process. Other checks should include Criminal Records Bureau checks and following up references from previous employers or training establishments where appropriate.
Returning to the question it is not possible to provide this information in the format requested. As my predecessor said in her statement of 19 January there are 210 people listed on List 99 as being partially barred. As set out in the statement of 19 January an expert panel will review all cases involving a sexual offence or allegation which resulted in a decision not to include on List 99, or which resulted in a restrictionor partial bar. Sir Roger Singleton’s panel, the membership of which was announced in the statement of 1 March, will conduct a review of all cases resulting in a partial bar or restriction and will be reporting back in due course.
I should add that under previous legislation an individual identified as a risk to a particular age group or gender could have a restriction imposed preventing them from working with that particular group, but not with others outside of that group. However, under current legislation (introduced in October 2000) if an individual is perceived to be a risk to children they are barred on the grounds of unsuitability. Barring them on this ground prevents them from working in the education sector in any capacity and also disqualifies them from working with children in other sectors.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what exceptions people on List 99 have been allowed to teach children. [43929]
Alan Johnson: Under previous legislation an individual could have a restriction placed on them on grounds of health or misconduct. The nature of the restriction will vary according to individual circumstances. Under current legislation (introduced in October 2000) if an individual is perceived to be a risk to children they are barred on the grounds of unsuitably. Barring them on this ground prevents them from working in the education sector in any capacity and also disqualifies them from working with children in other sectors.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |