| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Oct 2007 : Column 1292W—continued
Building Schools for the Future
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will revise the criteria for granting Building Schools for the Future capital funding to local education authorities to ensure adequate funding for schools which have an intake of students from deprived areas but which are relatively prosperous local authority areas, with particular reference to Stockport. [159419]
Jim Knight: As I set out in my written statement of 10 October 2007, Official Report, columns 33-38WS, on capital investment in schools, 2008-11, the Government aim to provide a balance of capital programmes that meets national and local needs. The balance of devolved, strategic and targeted programmes ensures that, while we press ahead as fast as possible with our strategic programmes (the Primary Capital Programme and Building Schools for the Future), there is also significant funding available for other areas.
Overall, there is £21.9 billion capital available over three years for schools. The allocations for Stockport for 2008-11 are given in the following tables.
| £ | ||||||
| ICT | Locally Co-ordinated VA Programmes | |||||
| Harnessing Technology | Initial Allocation | Return of Advanced Payment | Nat LCVAP Allocation | Targeted Capital Fund | Total | |
We are reviewing the operation of waves 7 to 15 of Building Schools for the Future and will be consulting publicly later this year. The key criterion that is emerging for Building Schools for the Future is readiness to deliver, and with the right education vision authorities can put themselves in a good position to accelerate their entry into the programme.
Children: Abuse
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the incidence of sexual abuse of children was in England in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [153938]
Kevin Brennan: The Government collect data on children who became the subject of a child protection plan. In the past this meant they had also had their names placed on a local authority child protection register. Arrangements to maintain a separate register are being phased out by 1 April 2008. Figures on the number and percentage of children who became the subject of a child protection plan as a result of sexual abuse are shown in the table for the years ending 31 March 1990 to 2007.
Up until year ending 31 March 2001 sexual abuse was recorded and could also be identified in cases where concerns about children included a mix of different categories. After that point, local authorities ceased reporting mixed categories separately so figures from year ending 31 March 2002 onwards are only available for registrations and child protection plans that are attributed to sexual abuse as a single category.
| Children who became the subject of a child protection plan( 1) as a result of sexual abuse during the year ending 31 March 1990 to 2007 | ||||
| Sexual abuse (alone) | Total sexual abuse( 2) | |||
| Number | Percentage( 3) | Number | Percentage( 3) | |
| n/a = Not available (children ceased to be reported under mixed categories in 2002). (1) A child may be registered more than once during the year. (2) Includes children who have suffered sexual abuse alone in conjunction with other categories of abuse. Children may be counted more than once in these mixed categories. (3) Expressed as a percentage of the total children who became the subject of a child protection plan during the year. (4) The increase in figures reflects the removal of the category ‘grave concern’. Children who were at significant risk of abuse but whose situations did not fit the main categories of neglect, physical injury, sexual and emotional abuse were recorded under ‘grave concern’. After the removal of this category, these children were re-classified within the main categories including sexual abuse. | ||||
Children: Day Care
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of child care providers have designated outdoor space for children as part of their premises. [158546]
Kevin Brennan: The information is not collected centrally. We recognise the importance of outdoor play and that regular play opportunities are crucial to a child's growth and development. For example, our guidance on the Early Years Foundation Stage makes clear to providers our expectation that, wherever possible, there should be access to an outdoor play area. Providers without direct access to an outdoor play area will be expected to make daily arrangements for outdoor play in an appropriate nearby location.
Class Sizes: Greater London
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the teacher-pupil ratio was in each London borough in each of the last five years. [159003]
Jim Knight: The following table provides the overall pupil teacher ratio within maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in local authority areas within London, January 2003 to 2007.
| Overall( 1) Pupil/Teacher ratios by local authority area within London | |||||
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| (1) The overall PTR is based on the total FTE number of pupils on roll in local authority maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools and the FTE of all teachers in these schools (including: centrally employed; occasional teachers; those on employment based routes to QTS; others without QTS, those on paid absence and any replacements). Source: School Census (Pupils numbers) and 618G Survey (Teacher numbers) | |||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |