|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the process is for deciding the date of publication of statistics prepared by or relating to the Department; and who is involved in that process. 
final responsibility for the content, format and timing of release of National Statistics
rests with the Head of Profession for Statistics in each department. In reaching their decisions, Heads of Profession take into consideration the detailed procedural guidance given in the National Statistics Protocol on Release Practices.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions in the last five years the publication date of statistics produced by her Department has been changed; what the (a) subject of the statistics, (b) (i) the original and (ii) final date of publication and (c) reason for the delay was in each case; and who took the decision to delay the publication in each case. 
Mr. Lammy: In accordance with the National Statistics Code of Practice (2002), the Head of Profession for Statistics in DCMS has sole responsibility for determining, pre-announcing and, if necessary, altering the dates of publication of National Statistics and other relevant statistics produced by the Department.
Any decision to change a pre-announced publication date will be based on a range of professional considerations such as the completeness of the
underlying data, their fitness for purpose, the need for consistency and coherence, the need to promote widespread access and informed debate, or any earlier accidental or wrongful release. In reaching their decision, the Head of Profession will also take into consideration the detailed procedural guidance given in the National Statistics Protocol on Release Practices. The Code and its 12 supporting Protocols are available in the Library of the House, and can also be accessed using the following address:
Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the economic impact of the number of foreign tourists visiting the UK during the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woodward: During the calendar year 2005 (the last full year for which consolidated figures are available from the Office for National Statisticss International Passenger Survey), 30 million inbound visitors to the UK spent £14.2 billion in this country. Visitor numbers and spending for that year were up by 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively, when compared to 2004.
The latest available estimates from the survey are for the three months to November 2006. During this time 7.9 million inbound visitors spent £3.9 billionboth figures being significant increases on the 2005 figures for the same quarter.
Since 2004, tourisms share of the national economy has been expressed in Gross Value Added, using Tourism Satellite Accounting methodology. The latest available figures for tourisms share of the total UK economy are for the calendar year 2003. For that year, domestic and inbound tourism receipts totalled £74.2 billion, which was 3.4 per cent. of the UK economyof which, inbound tourism receipts at £11.9 billion represented 0.55 per cent.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if her Department will make representations to the Football Association to support Gibraltars request to enter a team in the UEFA Cup. 
Mr. Caborn: I have no current plans to make any representations to the FA as this is a matter between the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and Gibraltar Football Association (GFA). I understand a final decision on GFAs request is due to be agreed at the UEFA Ordinary Congress in Dusseldorf on 25 and 26 January 2007.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on
the future of the national curriculum assessments that take place at the end of key stages; 
(5) if he will ensure that the evaluation of the conclusions of the pilot announced in the Making Good Progress consultation document uses a methodology of a standard equivalent to that used in experimental research, including the use of control groups. 
Jim Knight: The consultation document Making Good Progress was published on 8 January 2007 and the consultation runs until 2 April 2007. It proposes a pilot to run for two years in a small number of local authorities (LAs). In some schools in those LAs, single-level tests for progress would be piloted, running alongside existing multi-level tests so that the results could be calibrated for consistency. Pupils in the pilot would therefore take both kinds of test. The document suggests that in-year tests might ultimately replace end of key stage arrangements, but this would depend on the experience of the pilot and is not an early prospect. Arrangements for the pilot, including the terms of reference for external evaluation, will be announced after the end of the consultation. The document makes clear that any changes trialled in the pilot, or adopted subsequently, would not be allowed to compromise the accountability delivered by the framework of tests, targets and performance tables which have helped to drive up standards so sharply over the past decade. The current national curriculum assessment arrangements at the end of key stages 1, 2 and 3 will continue to be an important part of our drive to raise standards in schools.
(2) how many (a) community schools, (b) voluntary aided schools, (c) voluntary controlled schools and (d) foundation schools have been granted Building
Schools for the Future funding; and how many of these are (i) special schools, (ii) specialist schools and (iii) grammar schools. 
Jim Knight: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) aims to rebuild or refurbish all secondary schools in England in 15 waves of investment which started in 2005-06. Prioritisation is on the educational and social needs of geographical groupings of schools proposed by authorities. The needs of all maintained schools of all types in these areas must be considered by authorities when developing details of their plans. In general, we would not expect school buildings built less than 15 years ago to receive significant investment. Full details of the criteria were published in November 2004 in BSF Prioritisation and Forward Planning Information, a copy of which is available in the House Library. Six local authority BSF projects have now reached financial closure. This means that they have been formally granted BSF funding for the schools in their projects. Other local authority BSF projects are finalising their school estate plans. The six projects at financial close are Bradford, Bristol, Lancashire, Manchester, and the London boroughs of Lambeth and Greenwich. In their projects there are in total:
A limited amount of BSF funding was also made available to pathfinder and wave one authorities in 2004-05 and 2005-06 for quick win projects. These were intended to help develop the early elements of BSF prior to the first formal phase of investment in 2005-06. Of the schools which received this funding:
12 are community schools, including four community special schools;
One is a voluntary controlled school;
Two are foundation schools.
One was a community school at the time it received the funding but is now an Academy;
11 are specialist schools;
None are grammar schools.
Jim Knight: The first phase of Lancashire county council's Building Schools for the Future project reached financial closure on 15 December. As a result the council will receive £94.8 million in PFI credits and £4.185 million in conventional funding.
Mr. Don Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations (a) have bid
to operate Centres for Excellence in Teacher Training (CETTs) in the Learning and Skills Sector from 2007 and (b) were successful in proceeding to the next stage of the bidding round; and what the membership is of panels responsible for assessing CETT bids. 
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on his decision not to conduct a regulatory impact assessment of childrens centres. 
Beverley Hughes: I have received no representations related to the decision not to conduct a separate regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for Sure Start childrens centres. A full RIA was completed for the Childcare Act 2006 that included consideration of the statutory requirement to secure proactive, accessible and integrated services for under fivesthe duty that underpins the delivery of high quality services through childrens centres.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to ensure that as many children and young people as possible take part in his Departments online childrens rights survey. 
Jim Knight: The Department has commissioned a consortium of children organisations to ensure that as many children and young people as possible take part in his Departments online childrens rights survey. The consortium consists of the Childrens Rights Alliance for England, the National Childrens Bureau, UNICEF UK and Save the Children (England).
The survey has featured on children and young people websites including those of the Office of Childrens Commissioner, Childrens Rights Alliance for England, National Childrens Bureau, Save the Children, UNICEF UK, Teen issues, School Councils UK, National Deaf Childrens Society, Participation Works, the Scout Association, Girlguiding UK and The Site. It has also been featured on a range of Government sponsored websites including those of DirectGov Young People, Connexions Direct and Every Child Matters.
The survey has been promoted by relevant networks: the UK Youth Parliament; the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and citizenship network at the National Childrens Bureau; the Participation Workers Network England; the Childrens Rights Officers and Advocates; 380 member organisations of the Childrens Rights Alliance for England; and to members of the international Childrens Rights Information Network. It has also featured in Children Now and Young People Now magazines.
Mr. Don Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of
12 December 2006, Official Report, column 1006W, on competition managers, what targets have been set for competition managers to increase the number of (a) sporting competitions, (b) teams competing and (c) matches played for each age group and sport. 
Jim Knight: Competition managers role is to improve the quality and quantity of school competitions for young people aged between five and 16. In the first year of activity, the pilot wave of 20 competition managers created 690 new competitions involving nearly 40,000 young people. We are currently reviewing their impact with a view to agreeing specific targets for the next phase of competition managers.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 12 December 2006, Official Report, column 1006W, on competition managers, how many competition managers and senior competition managers have been employed on salaries above the recommended salary ranges for their grades; and by how much their salaries exceeded the recommended level. 
Jim Knight: This information is not held centrally. Grants, based on the number of competition managers and senior competition managers allocated to the area, are passed to the host organisation, and it is for them to decide the level of salary to offer.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's policy is on the provision to courts of information regarding the
inclusion on list (a) 98 and (b) 99 of people giving evidence. 
Jim Knight: List 98 is not a list maintained by the Department for Education and Skills. Some educational establishments and authorities have introduced and maintained such lists under local arrangements, but they are not a requirement under education or employment law.
Requests from courts for information about people giving evidence who are on List 99 are not received routinely. Any request or order by a court, or for the purpose of court proceedings, would be considered in accordance with the law on a case by case basis.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|