|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of lessons in each school year were set in the latest period for which figures are available. [Official Report, 10 July 2008, Vol. 478, c. 11MC.] 
Jim Knight: Ofsted collects data on the use of streaming and setting in lessons observed during inspections, the latest period for which their data indicate the proportion of lessons in each school year which are set by ability is 2002/03.
|Lessons set as observed by Ofsted, 2002/03|
Until 2002/03, Ofsted recorded lessons observed during inspections as being set, streamed, mixed ability or otherwise organised. For clarity, setting' is the term used to describe the organisation of pupils in classes on the basis of their prior attainment in the particular subject being taught. The term banding', which is very similar to streaming, is used when the decision as to which pupils are included or not in a class is based on the prior attainment in a range of subjects.
From 2003/04 the distinction between streaming and setting was removed and Ofsted now record data on whether classes they observe are mixed ability or set/streamed. They no longer record data on setting alone. It is therefore not possible to provide data on the proportion of lessons which are set for the period from 2003/04 onwards.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children aged (a) 13, (b) 14, (c) 15, (d) 16, (e) 17 and (f) under 18 years have been held in police cells under Operation Safeguard. 
Since October 2006 the Government have used significant numbers of police cells provided through Operation Safeguard to help manage pressure in the prison population. Juveniles are not held under Operation Safeguard itself although over this period our records indicate that 36 juveniles were held overnight on an ad hoc basis. It is not possible to break this figure down by age without incurring disproportionate cost. The Government's policy is that juveniles should be held overnight in police cells only in the most exceptional circumstances. It does not happen routinely.
|Number of households in private rented accommodation in England|
Labour Force Survey
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (1) for what reasons exemptions and reliefs on water charges for churches and charities will be removed in 2010; and if he will make a statement; 
(4) what discussions he has had with (a) Ofwat, (b) the Consumer Council for Water and (c) other water industry representatives on the removal of exemptions and reliefs on water charges for churches and charities in 2010; 
In 2000 the Secretary of State issued guidance on matters to be taken into account by Ofwat, the industry's economic regulator, in agreeing companies' charges schemes, including charging non-household users that are not businesses. These include places of worship, community facilities, charities and voluntary bodies. The guidance stated that those making similar demands on a service should be charged on the same basis. It also made clear that where premises impose customer-related costs in line with or lower than those of typical households, they should be able to benefit from tariffs which reflect their small demand on the water system.
Churches were traditionally zero rated under the rateable value system of charging, meaning that they did not have to pay surface water drainage (SWD) charges. However the replacement of rateable value charges for SWD with a site area based charge means that churches will be required to pay surface water drainage charges and will no longer benefit from the cross subsidy that resulted from the rateable value system.
Ofwat reviewed companies' approaches to charging for SWD in 2003. In RD35/03, Surface water drainagecharging policy (September 2003), Ofwat concluded that charging according to site area was the best method of charging for SWD. Ofwat recommended that water companies consider introducing site area-based charging for SWDparticularly for non-household customers where the process is simpler to implement. However Ofwat also noted that, given that set up and administration costs of introducing this method were considerable, and would vary depending on customer base, it was for individual companies to decide if the benefits of implementing site area SWD charging outweighed the costs.
For sewerage customers served by United Utilities the site area based SWD charge was introduced in 2007-08 for new and substantially altered properties. In 2008-09 it is being introduced for all non-household properties, including churches. The move to site area charging will be phased in over three years to reduce the year-on-year impact on those customers who will see an increase in their charges.
The most cost reflective way of charging non-household customers for SWD is by reference to the customer's site area, because the larger the site area, the more surface water will drain from it. SWD charges based on site area are only payable for areas which drain (directly or indirectly) into public sewers. Chargeable areas will be adjusted to take account of large grassy or gravelled areas, such as church yards or burial grounds that do not drain into a public sewer. Surface area based charging offers strong incentives to customers to reduce surface water drainage costs they impose on companies, for example by installing soakaways. Charges can therefore be mitigated by customers by installing such devices. The approach aligns with the Government's water strategy for fair, affordable and cost reflective water and sewerage charges which incentivise environmentally responsible behaviour.
Companies are obliged under their licences to ensure that charges are neither unduly preferential or unduly discriminatory between groups of customers. Ofwat therefore considers that churches and other places of worship should be treated no differently to other non-household customers.