|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
5 Mar 2008 : Column 2648Wcontinued
|Proportion of trainees gaining QTS|
|Known not to be teaching in a maintained school||Working in a school where the sector is unknown||With an unknown destination|
|Year of gaining QTS||Total number of mainstream trainees gaining QTS||Number||Percentage||Number||Percentage||Number||Percentage|
1. Mainstream includes universities and other higher education institutions, SCITT and OU, but excludes employment based routes.
2. Performance profiles data are collected at the end of a trainees first year, therefore 2006/07 data are collected in autumn 2007 and will be published in July 2008.
3. Trainees taking the assessment only for secondary courses are not included in the table above.
4. Those known not to be teaching in a maintained school include those who are working in independent schools, those who are seeking a teaching post and those who are not seeking a teaching post.
5. The destination of trainees through Employment Based ITT (EBITT) is not collected.
6. The destination of trainees gaining QTS is collected through the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey 7. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
TDAs Performance Profiles
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether he charges independent schools whose employees are members of the teachers' pension scheme a share of (a) the Capita Business Services management fee and (b) his Department's costs for (i) medical and (ii) actuarial services charged to the scheme. 
Jim Knight: No employers, including independent schools, meet any of the direct pension administration costs of the teachers' pension scheme. These costs, which include medical and actuarial services, are not charged to the scheme but met separately from the Department's programme budgets.
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will place in the Library the findings of the mystery shopping and user survey research to monitor the performance of contact centres. 
Beverley Hughes: A mystery shopping exercise was undertaken in April 2006 to monitor the performance of the Teenage Pregnancy Helpline, Sexwise. At the time, the Sexwise line had been in operation since 1995, offering information and advice to young people about sex, relationships and contraception.
In order for the mystery shopping process to be credible, and to provide an understanding from a young persons perspective, it was important to include young people. Therefore 12 young people, 6 girls and 6 boys, between the ages of 14 and 17, were recruited to undertake the mystery calls. Given the highly sensitive nature of the project and the subject matter of the calls, all parents were provided with a detailed background to the project and its objectives, and with detailed examples of the kinds of calls we would be asking their children to make. All provided written consent for their children to participate. MRS approval was gained for the proposed method prior to the project start.
It should be borne in mind that the young people calling the line were provided with a considerable amount of background information, which would probably not ordinarily be available to genuine callers. And while we tried to provide some quantification, the analysis was based on only 60 calls, and is qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. For this reason, the results of the report were not felt to warrant submission to the House of Commons Library but copies are available on request.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the pathfinder projects to deliver integrated targeted support to parents of children and young people at risk of offending; and if he will make a statement. 
Beverley Hughes: The Department for Children, Schools and Families does not fund any pathfinder projects that solely focus on parents of children and young people at risk of offending. Since 2006, DCSF has been running the Parenting Early Intervention Pathfinder (PEIP) which aims to increase support for the parents of children and young people at risk of negative outcomes and ensure that they receive an earlier, more effective, coordinated package of relevant support. Findings from an independent evaluation will be published in spring 2008.
Targeted programmes to prevent youth offending are the responsibility of Youth Offending Teams and the Youth Justice Board. The Youth Crime Action Planto be published in summer 2008will bring together action across Government, setting an overall strategy for youth crime reduction and concrete ways to tackle it.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what discussions his Department have had with BAA on the potential disposal by BAA of one of its airports; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: Competition issues are a matter for the independent competition authorities. The Competition Commission is currently investigating the supply of airport services by BAA in the UK following a reference by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what estimate he has made of the average annual (a) days lost per employee and (b) cost to business due to stress and stress related business. 
Mr. Thomas: The average number of working days lost per employee by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, (formerly the Department of Trade and Industry), including UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) and Office of Manpower Economics (OME), attributed to stress-related conditions for the period January 2007 to December 2007 is 0.72.
The Department does not routinely calculate the average annual cost of stress. As this would involve manually investigating employee sickness records and pay details on an individual basis, the cost of doing this would be disproportionate to the benefit to be derived.
Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what guidelines his Department issues to its senior civil servants on the receipt of hospitality during public consultations run by his Department. 
Mr. Thomas [holding answer 28 February 2008]: The Department provides the following guidance to all of its staff on its HR intranet:
Acceptance and registration of hospitality
You must not accept offers of gifts or hospitality without considering whether it would be both legal and proper to do so.
The guiding principles governing the acceptance of gifts and hospitality are:
Your conduct should not create suspicion of a conflict between your official duty and your private interest;
You should not give the impression that you may have been influenced by a gift or hospitality;
If in doubt about whether you should accept a gift or hospitality, you should refuse it.
These principles are not intended to stop you accepting occasional trivial gifts or working lunches during the course of an official visit. However no offer of a more substantial gift or hospitality should be lightly accepted.
You should consult your line manager when deciding whether or not to accept a gift or hospitality.
Procedures for declaring hospitality received
You must not accept hospitality that might be seen to compromise your personal judgement or integrity.
It is up to you to judge whether an offer of hospitality should be accepted. Before accepting, you should be satisfied that the hospitality is normal and reasonable in the circumstances. If in doubt, you should consult a senior manager.
The following guidelines are intended to help you and them come to a decision:
Is it in the Department's interest? For hospitality to be in the Department's interests there will normally need to be an opportunity to discuss official business. However, it may be that the Department nonetheless needs to be represented at an event. In this case you should check with a senior manager, to make sure that the Department is not over-represented.
The value - Is it great enough to give rise to criticism? You should consider the perceived value rather than the actual cost.
The frequency: Is it more frequent or regular than would be regarded as normal or reasonable, taking into account the nature of the event?
The potential for embarrassment: Is the person or organisation offering the hospitality under investigation or have they been criticised by the Government or anyone acting on its behalf?
The nature of any relationship with the Department: Even if you are not involved in financial, contractual or regulatory matters connected with the person or body concerned, the acceptance of an invitation by a member of BERR would be open to misconstruction or misrepresentation.
You need to bear in mind that the guidelines are not just intended to safeguard the Departments position; they are framed to help you to avoid personal embarrassment and criticism, however misplaced.
Strict rules apply to those responsible for procurement and the placing or management of contracts (see the Procurement Manual for further guidance); and those involved in regulatory activity. These are issued separately to the relevant staff. Nevertheless, they have the same force and authority as though they were included in The Guide.
Records of gifts and hospitality
All material hospitality that you accept while on duty (other than of an incidental kind like tea or coffee) must be registered in the HMU's Register of Gifts and Hospitality.
The only exceptions to this rule are hospitality in relation to diplomatic activity overseas or in the UK (e.g. reception hosted by a foreign government or international institution) and attendance at an event hosted by Her Majesty's Government (e.g. an official dinner to mark a particular occasion).
Any failure to register hospitality is a disciplinary offence. Staff concerned with procurement, including contract management, should note that the CUP Guide NO 16 makes the recording of offers of hospitality and gifts, whether or not accepted, mandatory.
Legal Position in Respect of Corruption
It is an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 for any civil servant in his or her official capacity corruptly to accept any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing, or refraining from doing, anything; or showing favour or disfavour to any person.
Moreover, under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, any money, gift or consideration received by a member of staff from a person or organisation holding or seeking to obtain a Government contract will be deemed by the courts to have been received corruptly, unless the officer proves the contrary.
Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what assessment he has made of the effects on consumer representation of the Consumer Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007; what response he has made to paragraph 5.66 of the House of Lords Regulators Committees report on economic regulators; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: The Government assessment of the changes to consumer representation made by the Consumer Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 was set out in the response to the House of Lords Regulators Committees report on economic regulators, published on Thursday 21 February. Paragraph 1.16 states:
The Government believes that the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act will strengthen consumer representation in key sectors. The new National Consumer Council will be established from 1 October 2008. The Government are working with industry, regulators and the existing bodies to ensure that the current consumer representative framework is maintained and wherever possible enhanced during the transition.
The Government are confident that the overall framework established by the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act will provide full support to Energy and Postal Consumers.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what IT contracts his Department holds; and what the (a) length and (b) cost of each contract is. 
[holding answer 21 February 2008]: The core Department has one main information technology contract which provides desk top services and a variety of additional extended services. This is a private finance initiative (PFI) agreement awarded to Fujitsu Services in 1998 and the agreement commenced in
April 1999 and runs for 15 years. The spend up until March 2008 will be £370 million and it is estimated that a further £163 million will be spent up to the end of the agreement.
In 2005 the Department awarded a Competed Services Framework Arrangement to six suppliers to enable an element of competition for IT projects and a small number of IT contracts have been awarded through this arrangement and other framework arrangements available to government. The current contracts are as follows:
|(1) Amount under review|
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many of his Departments civil servants were (a) suspended and (b) dismissed for accessing (i) obscene and (ii) other prohibited material on work computers in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Thomas: Four employees of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have been suspended/dismissed in the past five years. To give further details of the cases may contravene the Data Protection Act, as it may facilitate the identification of an individual.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|