Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the legal basis is for schools (a) to obtain and (b) to hold records of pupils fingerprints (i) with and (ii) without prior parental consent. 
Jim Knight: Schools and local authorities are responsible for deciding their own policies relating to information about children which they wish to hold and use, subject to the relevant law on data protection, confidentiality, freedom of information and human rights. It is for each school to decide whether or not to collect pupils biometric data. A school may wish to obtain and hold such data for different reasons, so there may be different legal basis from one circumstance to another. However in obtaining and holding biometric data, the school is likely to rely on the broad powers contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Education Act 2002 which gives the governing body of a school the power to
do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with the conduct of the school.
Pupils fingerprints should be handled in the same way as other personal data about pupils and are subject to the Data Protection Act 1998. Under the Data Protection Act consent is not the only condition for the collection and use of data and will not necessarily require schools to seek consent from parents about the use of biometric data, though it is for the school to ensure it is acting in compliance with the Act. However under the terms of the Act schools should provide notification of their use of data to individuals involved.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many information technology projects within the responsibility of his Department, its agencies and their predecessors have been cancelled since 1997; what the total cost was of each project at cancellation; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Dhanda: 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.
(1) The Departments Individual Learning Account (ILA) Programme, which was ICT enabled, was withdrawn in 2002 following allegations of fraud and abuse. Expenditure on the scheme totalled £268.8 million; the majority of this amount being payments to learning providers. Analysis of the scheme is given in
the report: The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2003), Individual Learning Accounts, Tenth Report of Session 2002-03 (Ref: HC 544), TSO, London.
(2) A project comprising two contracts to upgrade the Departments payroll and human resources systems was abandoned when, after extensive delays during the development, it became apparent that the IT related costs would escalate, and better value for money would be achieved by finding an alternative software solution. Significant compensatory payments were secured as part of a negotiated settlement on one contract but are subject to confidentiality agreements. The costs incurred on the second contract totalled £348,682; these details were reported in the Notes to the Department for Education and Skills Resource Accounts for 2003-04 (Ref: HC 227), TSO, London January 2005.
(3) The Government allocated £62 million to the HEFCE for the UK e-University (UKeU). Project over the period 2001-04 with the aim of establishing the e-University as a single vehicle for the delivery of UK universities HE programmes over the internet. UKeU launched its first programmes in 2003, attracting just 900 students against a target of 5,600. On 25 February 2004, the HEFCE Board decided that in future HEFCE funding should support the development of e-learning in universities and collegesin effect the HEFCE terminated UKeU. £50 million out of the Governments allocation of £62 million had been spent on the project. An analysis of the project is given in the report: The House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee (2005), UK e-University, Third Report of Session 2004-05 (Ref: HC 205), TSO, London.
although the proportion of individuals learning to play an instrument is relatively small, demand for tuition is very high.
A report to the QCA in 2002 indicated that about 40 per cent. of children not already playing an instrument wanted to learn. Encouraging pupil demand is not therefore a problem but we do want to improve access. The Government accept the value of learning to play and have pledged to ensure that over time every child at Key Stage 2 who wants to should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. £30 million of additional funding is being made available over this year and next specifically to support instrumental and vocal tuition for Key Stage 2 pupils.
However, improving access in schools to instrumental and vocal tuition for whole classes and year groups at Key Stage 2, which began with Wider Opportunities pilots, has already had an impact in primary school provision. The Survey of Local Education Authorities Music Services in 2005 found that 13 per cent. of Key Stage 2 pupils were learning to play an instrument in schoola significant improvement on 2002 when the figure was 7 per cent.
We are now providing additional resources to ensure many more primary school children can benefit from learning to play an instrument. An extra £26 million has been allocated for primary schools across this financial year and next to support music tuition at Key Stage 2, £2 million has been provided to fund a scheme for the purchase or repair of musical instruments; and £2 million to devise and deliver a programme of CPD to support those involved in working with pupils in primary schools.
Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people successfully completing a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education went on to attain Qualified Teacher Status within one year in each of the last three years, broken down by subject. 
Jim Knight: The percentages of trainee teachers completing a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) in each of the academic years, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 and attaining Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) within one year, by subject specialism, are shown in the following table:
|Table( 1) : Percentage of trainee teachers completing PGCE and attaining QTS within one year of completion by academic year
|(1) SourceGeneral Teaching Council for England (GTCE).
(2) Data for 2005/06 are provisional and reflect the number of trainees who have achieved QTS as at 1 January 2007. The number achieving QTS will be updated during the course of the year.
(3) Other includes classics, dance, economics, media, performing arts, social studies, general studies, social sciences, teacher training and humanities. It also includes a small number of cases where subject specification is not known.
(4) Vocational subjects include applied ICT, applied science, applied business, engineering, manufacturing, and health and social care. The data for the academic year 2003/04 are not shown because of low number of cases.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many respite care home placements were available to disabled children in (a)
Aylesbury Vale and (b) England in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2005; 
Mr. Dhanda: Information on the number of respite care home placements available to disabled children is not collected centrally. The Department collects information on the number of children looked after under an agreed series of short term breaks (respite care) by type of placement. This information is shown in table 1. Information is not collected at district level so figures for Buckinghamshire have been included.
The number of foster placements that were made during 2000 and 2005 by English local authorities and those made by Buckinghamshire county council are shown in table 3. Information on the location of these foster placements and the number of foster placements in Aylesbury Vale is not collected centrally.
|Table 1: Children looked after during the year under at least one agreed series of short term placements by type of placement( 1, 2, 3)
|(1) All children looked after under one or more agreed series of short term placements at any time during the year ending 31 March.
(2) Placement relates to childs latest episode of care during the year.
(3) Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials.
(4) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 one-third sample survey.
(5) Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return which in 2004-05 covered all looked after children.
(6) Includes secure units, homes, hostels and residential schools
(7) Includes lodgings and other residential settings
|Table 2 : Children looked after in the year ending 31 March 2006( 1, 2 ) by ethnic originEngland
|Numbers and percentages
|1. Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.
2. Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return