|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
This new collection is the first opportunity to report nationally on the relationship between absence and pupil characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, special educational needsand to highlight the concentrations of persistent absentees missing a fifth or more of lessons.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many statements of individual childrens special needs were compiled by local education authorities in 2006; how many recommended funding towards education at a special needs school; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the statement assessment system. 
Statements set out details of childrens special educational needs, the provision to meet those needs and the school the child should attend. Once a statement is finalised local authorities are under a duty to arrange the specified provision. Of the new statements issued in 2006, 5,330 were for children placed in special schools. 4,870 children were placed in maintained special schools (including foundation schools); 110 were placed in non-maintained special schools; and 360 were placed in independent special schools. (Figures are taken from the SEN 2 Survey 2007 and are provisional.)
The Departments team of SEN advisers following visits to all 150 local authorities, report proactive dialogue with parents on statutory assessment matters. Excluding cases where it was impractical to comply with timescales, 95 per cent. of draft statements were produced in the 18 week statutory timescale in 2006.
The outcomes achieved by vulnerable groups of learners, including many children with SEN, are improving, for example, the proportion of children with SEN (with and without statements) achieving 5 A* to C grades at GCSE continues to rise.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of (a) mathematics, (b) English, (c) science and (d) all lessons (excluding PE lessons) inspected by Ofsted were recorded as (i) setted and (ii) banded in years (A) 7, (B) 8, (C) 9, (D) 10, (E) 11 and (F) overall in each year since 2002. 
Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majestys Chief Inspector, for reply.
You asked what proportion of (a) mathematics, (b) English, (c) science and (d) all lessons (excluding PE lessons) inspected by Ofsted were recorded as (i) setted and (ii) banded in years (A) 7, (B) 8, (C) 9, (D) 10, (E) 11 and (F) overall in each year.
The tables attached show the percentage of lessons which were setted by ability, seen by inspectors during the academic years 1996/97 to 2002/03. Prior to 1996/97 inspectors were not required to record information about grouping and from 2002/03 records do not distinguish between setting and banding. Please note that the percentages do not add up to 100% as the data here do not include other categories that are counted. For example, groups formed by age and mixed ability have not been accounted for.
A copy of this reply has been sent to Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Schools, and will be placed in the Library of both Houses.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the funding given to participating local authorities will be (a) ring fenced and (b) via reimbursement for specific expenditure, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar of 28 February 2007, Official Report, column 1351W, on anti-social behaviour. 
This question refers to the Department for Education and Skills grant of up to £125,000, that can be accessed by 40 Respect areas and seven London boroughs. The purpose of the grant is to help improve and strengthen the delivery of parenting support in those areas, especially around the prevention and tackling of antisocial behaviour. The funding to these local authorities is non ring-fenced.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will seek legal advice on the compatibility of the ultrasonic antisocial behaviour deterrent device with (a) Article 3 and (b) Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement; 
Mr. McNulty: The Home Office encourages local agencies to consider the full range of innovations, schemes and practices intended to reduce crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. It is for local agencies like the police and local authorities to decide on the most appropriate interventions to tackle antisocial behaviour based on their knowledge of what works best locally. We do encourage agencies to adopt a tiered approach with a blend of measures to provide a proportionate response. The Home Office does not promote or recommend any particular commercial product or venture above this, and as such has not sought legal advice on this device.
The Home Office has not produced guidance for police and local authorities on the use of the mosquito device, and has no plans to require the police to notify the Secretary of State if and when such a device is purchased.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances criminal antisocial behaviour orders are issued; in what ways they are different from antisocial behavioural orders; and what assessment he has made of the impact of each type of order on changing behaviour in young people. 
Mr. McNulty: Antisocial behaviour orders on conviction were introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002 to allow the courts to deal with the antisocial behaviour of a convicted individual in an effective and timely manner by removing the need for a separate application to be made on complaint to the magistrates court. The order is in addition to the criminal sentence and is considered separately from the criminal part of the proceedings.
An order on conviction has the same effect as an antisocial behaviour order and lasts a minimum of two years. Breach of the terms of the order is a criminal offence, whether the order was obtained on conviction or by way of a stand alone application.
The effectiveness of the Governments antisocial behaviour policies has been assessed in two key independent reports published last year, by the National Audit Office and by the Youth Justice Board. Both confirmed that our twin track approach of support and enforcement is effective in protecting communities from antisocial behaviour. This is bringing resultsnationally, the percentage of people who perceive high levels of antisocial behaviour has fallen from 21 per cent. in 2002-03 to 17 per cent. in 2005-06.
We are due to commission an evaluation of various interventions (including ASBOs) designed to tackle antisocial behaviour. This proposed research is likely to explore what impact these interventions can have on tackling antisocial behaviour problems.
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) arrests have been made and (b) charges have been brought by the police since 1997; and how many convictions arose from such charges, broken down by (i) category of offence and (ii) police authority. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 19 March 2007]: Information is not collected centrally on how cases progress from arrest to prosecution or otherwise. Data collected by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) on arrests are collected separately from data on prosecutions and their outcome. Data on numbers charged are not collected by either OCJR or the Home Office.
The available data by notifiable offence group are given in tables A1 to A10 for arrests and B1 to B9 for convictions respectively. Arrests data for years prior to 1999-2000 are not available while the data for 2005-06 on both arrests and convictions will be available later this year.
Care should be taken in interpreting the tables not least because the main offence for which a person is arrested may be different from the one which resulted in a conviction. Also people arrested within a given year will not necessarily have been convicted in the same year.
|Table A1: Number of persons arrested for recorded crime (notifiable offences) within the offence group violence against the person by pol ice force area, 1999-20 00 to 2004-05|
|Police force area||1999-2000||2000-01||2001-02||2002-03||2003-04||2004-05|
|n/a = not available|
(1) Revised since initial publication with HOSB.
(2) Revised since publication of annual HOSB. DATA as issued in HO S95 publication Statistics on Race & cjs, 2005.
(3) Excludes divisions on NSPIS Custody (Rayleigh, Southend and partly Basildon).
(4) Covers a period of 46 weeks onlysix weeks data were lost due to IT problems within the October/December quarter 2001.
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when these data are used.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|