| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Sep 2007 : Column 1703W—continued
Asylum
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the evidential basis was for the statement in the Care Matters White Paper that 95 per cent. of asylum claims are rejected. [152953]
Beverley Hughes: The evidence basis for the statement in the Care Matters White Paper regarding the percentage of negative decisions made on asylum claims from UASC was sourced from the Immigration Research and Statistics Service which is available from the Home Office website in two different formats.
Statistics on UASC applications are published as part of the quarterly asylum bulletin. Statistics on UASC are also available in the annual asylum bulletin.
The most up to date data on the outcome of UASC asylum claims can be found on page 10 (point 12) of the Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2005, these statistics show that the numbers of UASC granted refugee status or humanitarian protection (HP) is very low (five per cent. in 2005). This document is available via the following link. The 2006 annual publication, and Q2 2007 quarterly publication will be published on August 21.
The management information report is produced quarterly and contains more detailed statistics on UASC. This report can also be sourced from the same website link as before.
Bishops Park College
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between his officials and Essex local education authority on the decision to build Bishops Park college in Clacton. [153377]
Jim Knight: This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost to the Department.
Building Schools for the Future Programme
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2007, Official Report, column 90W, on the Building Schools for the Future programme, whether the recommendations of the review have been implemented; [153609]
(2) pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2007, Official Report, column 90W, on the Building Schools for the Future programme, for what reason HM Treasury was a joint commissioner of the review. [153610]
Jim Knight: The reports and other associated documentation following joint Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) reviews are confidential advice to Ministers and are not put into the public domain. This includes terms of reference and other documentation connected with the substance of the review. The action plan to address the recommendations of the review is an ongoing piece of work.
Building Schools for the Future Programme: Private Finance Initiative
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2007, Official Report, column 92W, on Building Schools for the Future (BSF): private finance initiative, how much funding from his Department's capital budget was spent on the BSF schools already built in each financial year, broken down into expenditure on newly built and refurbished schools and the seven new-build BSF schools that are under construction. [153647]
Kevin Brennan: BSF schools which are complete were funded as part 5 of a “Quick Wins” initiative. Funding from the capital budget for these projects is shown in the following table.
| £ million | |||
| 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | |
There are currently 30 new build schools under construction. Of these, 23 are being procured through the private finance initiative scheme and so will not receive any funding until the schools open. Capital funding of £18 million was provided to authorities in 2006-07 to meet milestone payments for those conventionally funded new build schools currently under construction.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2007, Official Report column 92W, on Building Schools for the Future (BSF): private finance initiative (PFI), how his Department decides whether BSF schools will be procured as part of PFI schemes. [153648]
Kevin Brennan: The procurement strategy for BSF projects is determined on value for money grounds. Local authorities are required to carry out a detailed options appraisal which considers different procurement and funding methods for the schools in a project using both quantitative (discounted cash flow) and qualitative analysis, in accordance with HM Treasury’s ‘Value for Money Assessment Guidance’ of November 2006.
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service: Accountability
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the principal responsibilities are of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service support workers. [150869]
Kevin Brennan: This is a matter for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). Anthony Douglas, the Chief Executive, has written to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service: Appeals
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service's self-regulated appeals procedures. [152736]
Kevin Brennan: This is a matter for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). Anthony Douglas, the chief executive, has written to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
Letter from Anthony Douglas, dated 25 July 2007:
I am writing to you in response to the Parliamentary Question that you tabled recently:
152736—To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service's self-regulated appeals procedures.
Cafcass current complaints procedures provide for a review process in relation to all decisions made in response to service users complaints. An important part of the complaints procedures rests with the problem solving stage in which Cafcass makes every effort to understand the service users complaint, to address it and to respond to it. Cafcass has mechanisms for learning from those complaints and ensuring that lessons learnt from them are applied to its practice.
Independent scrutiny of the application of Cafcass complaints procedures is provided by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who, on request, will consider any complaint that Cafcass has not operated its complaints procedures in a fair and reasonable way.
In 2006 the former DfES produced new guidance and standards for complaints procedures for Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and Local Authorities to put in place for children's services. On publication of the DfES guidance, Cafcass undertook an examination of its own complaints procedures as a direct comparison against those advised by the DfES Guidance. In December 2006 this comparative report was presented to the Cafcass Board Task Group on complaints
procedures, which decided in principle that Cafcass should begin work on a revised complaints procedures that builds on the strengths of its current procedures whilst meeting the standards set down by the DfES guidance, unless in any specific respect there were clear reasons related to the nature of the work of Cafcass not to do so.
In particular, the Cafcass Board made the decision that Cafcass complaints procedures should be revised to meet the requirements laid down within the DfES guidance in two respects:
1. For the services of independent observers to be employed to oversee the progress of complaints investigations, in order to guarantee the process in terms of fairness and reasonableness.
2. To include a final appeal process involving a panel of independent people.
As a consequence Cafcass is currently in the process of redrafting its complaints procedures to meet these standards of independence as well as other aspects of the DfES guidance.
A copy of this reply will be placed in the House Library.
Children: Day Care
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many people have participated in level 3 to 5 childcare training since the inception of the Transformation Fund; and if he will make a statement; [152687]
(2) how many (a) recruitment incentives, (b) quality premiums and (c) home grown graduate incentives have been paid from the Transformation Fund for child care; and at what cost; [152688]
(3) how much each local authority has received from the Transformation Fund since its inception. [152794]
Beverley Hughes: The Transformation Fund was introduced in April 2006 as a time-limited initiative to test out approaches to improving the qualifications of the early years workforce in the private, voluntary and independent sectors and to raise standards in the provision of early education and child care. Its particular focus has been to initiate action directed at ensuring all full day care settings are led by a graduate, through the availability of a quality premium, a recruitment incentive and, since December 2006, a home grown graduate incentive. It has also supported broader upskilling of the workforce to raise the numbers of staff qualified at Level 3, 4 and 5 as well as to train staff to work with children with additional needs.
The Department does not collect data on the number of people who are participating in Level 3 to 5 training via the Transformation Fund. However, based on returns from local authorities, over 18,000 settings (including over 4,200 childminders) have received support through the Transformation Fund for one or more of the five eligible strands identified above.
According to returns from local authorities, as of March 2007:
(a) 428 full day care settings received the Recruitment Incentive at a cost of £1,218,218;
(b) 1,152 full day care settings received the Quality Premium at a cost of £4,506,676; and
(c) 282 full day care settings received the Home Grown Graduate Incentive at a cost of £448,608 (this element started in December 2006).
The following table sets out out-turn data for 2006-07 based on the unaudited financial statements received to date from local authorities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |