| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Nov 2008 : Column 1357W—continued
Pupils
Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what proportion of students in each local education authority area (a) were eligible for free school meals, (b) had a statement of special educational needs and (c) were on School Action Plus in the latest year for which figures are available. [233331]
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The information to answer part (a) can be found in Tables 16 for nursery and primary schools and 17 for secondary schools in the Statistical First Release (SFR) ‘Pupil Characteristics and Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England: January 2008 (Provisional)’ in the excel file ‘(These Excel spreadsheets contain local authority tables of pupils characteristics and class sizes)’. This SFR is available at:
The information to answer part (b) can be found in Table 13 in the SFR ‘Special Educational Needs in England: January 2008’ in the excel file ‘(Additional analyses, including local authority level tables)’. This SFR is available at:
The information to answer parts (b) and (c) can be found in Tables 14 and 15 of the same SFR for primary and secondary schools respectively.
Schools: Biometrics
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his Department's policy is on the use of biometrics in schools; and if he will place in the Library all guidance on the subject his Department has published. [234768]
Jim Knight [holding answer 11 November 2008]: The decision to implement biometric technology, for uses such as registration, in libraries and for school food, resides at school level. Becta's guidance was written in partnership with the Department and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This guidance says that schools should consult as widely as possible with parents before implementing biometric-based systems. This guidance is in the public domain on the Becta and ICO websites. We will place this guidance in the House of Commons Library.
Schools: Databases
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether pupils resident in Wales and Scotland who attend schools in England will be included on the ContactPoint database; and if he will make a statement. [234895]
Beverley Hughes: ContactPoint will not hold information on children who reside in Wales or Scotland unless that child also has a current residential address in England. If information is provided to ContactPoint on such a child (for instance by a school in England), the system will flag the record for review by the local authority ContactPoint management team and, once it has been confirmed that the information is for a child permanently residing outside England, the data will be moved to archive. The system submitting the information will receive an automated ‘stop notice’ asking them not to provide the information when it attempts to send these data again.
ContactPoint is an online directory to enable the delivery of co-ordinated support for young people. It will contain basic identifying information about all children and young people ordinarily resident in England up to their 18th birthday, and contact details for services working with them. These details have been clearly set out and restricted in section 12 of the Children Act 2004 and regulations made under section 12 and will not include any case information such as attendance, behaviour, educational achievement or exam results.
Secondary Education: Coastal Areas
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the turnover rate among pupils was in each secondary school serving the population of a principal seaside town in England in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [235545]
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Department does not collect information on the rates of turnover of pupils at schools. Local authority level data on the numbers of pupils in schools is available at:
South East: Departmental Expenditure
Dr. Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much his Department spent on services, broken down by type, in (a) Dartford Borough, (b) Kent Thameside, (c) the Thames Gateway, (d) Kent County Council area and (e) the South East region in each of the last five years. [222449]
Ed Balls: My Department does not make grant payments to Dartford borough, Kent Thameside, or the Thames Gateway. However it does make payments to Kent county council and local authorities in the South East region for children and families services. Tables showing the amount of Local Authority Grant funding which has been made available to these areas by my Department in each of the last five years are set out as follows, broken down by: revenue funding for children and families services; capital funding for schools; and capital funding for children and families.
| Table 1: Funding made available to Kent county council by DCSF between 2003-04 and 2007-08 | |||
| £ million | |||
| Kent | Children and families services( 1) | Schools capital( 2) | Children and families capital( 2) |
| Table 2: Funding made available to local authorities in the South East region, including Kent, by DCSF between 2003-04 and 2007-08 | |||
| £ million | |||
| South East | Children and families services( 1) | Schools capital( 2) | Children and families capital( 2) |
(1) The aforementioned tables include Connexions funding, however up until 1 April 2008 no Connexions funding was paid direct to Kent authority, but to the Kent and Medway Connexions Partnership Ltd. Some Connexions grant was paid to other Partnerships in the South East region. Connexions grant not paid direct to authorities is as follows:
| £ million | ||
| Kent | South East | |
Similarly until 2006-07 the Children’s Fund was not paid direct to Kent local authority, but a voluntary organisation, although all other authorities in the South East received the Children’s Fund direct. The allocation for the Kent area was £6.233 million in 2003-04; £3.597 million in 2004-05, and £3.083 million in 2005-06.
(2) Capital figures exclude PFI credit allocations, and supported borrowing allocations as part of Building Schools for the Future. Allocations for targeted capital projects are shown in the year the project started.
(3) The tables do not include children social care services grants in 2003-04 as responsibility for children social care services was transferred to this Department, from the Department of Health, in 2004-05.
(4) The Children and Families revenue figures for 2006-07 onwards are not comparable with figures in and before 2005-06 because the introduction of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded for Education Services.
In 2005-06 local authorities were funded through the Education Formula Spending (EFS) which formed the education part of the Local Government Finance Settlement. The DSG is based on planned spend. In addition, the DSG has a different coverage to EFS, which comprises a schools block and a local education authority (LEA) block (to cover LEA central functions) whereas DSG only covers the school block. LEA block items are still funded through Communities and Local Government's Local Government Finance Settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. Consequently, there is a break in the Department’s time series as the two sets of data are not comparable. For information the EFS figures for 2003-04 to 2005-06 are shown as follows:
| Kent | South East | |
(5) Authorities were given two year Sure Start allocations covering 2004-06, these allocations are reflected in the 2004-05 funding figures in the tables for revenue and non-schools capital.
Vetting
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many and what proportion of Criminal Records Bureau checks were failed by those seeking to work with children (a) in 2002, (b) in 2005, (c) in 2007, (d) in 2008 and (e) since inception; [232338]
(2) how many Criminal Records Bureau checks were undertaken in respect of adults seeking to work with children in (a) 2002, (b) 2005, (c) 2007 and (d) 2008. [232339]
Beverley Hughes: In relation to question 232339, the information sought by the hon. Member is not available in the form requested. Figures provided as follows are based on the number of adults who have requested a check of the Protection of Children Act (POCA) list and list 99 as part of their standard or enhanced disclosure when completing a CRB application form.
| Number of disclosures for adults working with children | |
| Financial year | Number |
| (1) April to September 2008. | |
This may not show all individuals who have applied to work with children or within the education sector because some applicants may not have requested a check of the two lists, on their application form, as this is not a mandatory field for completion.
In relation to question 232338, applicants do not pass or fail disclosures. A person who applies in the prescribed manner receives a disclosure providing the relevant details of any criminal records information, which is also provided to the registered body under part V of the Police Act 1997. This information will be taken into account by the employer in determining the suitability of an individual for a post applied for. The Department cannot advise employers whether or not they should employ a particular person.
Independent research conducted between 2004 and 2007 demonstrates that the CRB is continuing to make a difference to the protection of children and the vulnerable. Around 80,000 unsuitable people have been prevented from gaining access to children or the vulnerable, as a direct result of CRB checks in the past four years:
20,000 in 2004 (out of 2.6 million checks);
25,000 in 2005 (out of 2.7 million checks);
15,000 in 2006 (out of 3.2 million checks); and
20,000 in 2007 (out of 3.3 million checks).
Many more unsuitable people are deterred from applying to work with children and the vulnerable as a direct result of a requirement for a CRB check.
In 2007, around 190,000 CRB checks (5.7 per cent. of all checks) revealed information on an applicant and, of these, around 20,000 (11.1 per cent.) had a job offer withdrawn (representing less than 0.6 per cent. of all CRB checks). 74 per cent. of job offers that were withdrawn were as a result of conviction information. The majority of the convictions (56 per cent.) that resulted in the job offer being withdrawn were for theft and violence (GBH, ABH and assault).
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Airwave Service
Tom Brake: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what organisations for which his Department is responsible (a) use and (b) are planning to use Airwave handsets. [234708]
Mr. McFadden: The Department makes no use of Airwave handsets and has no plans to do so.
I have asked the Chief Executives of the Department’s agencies to respond direct to the hon. Member. There are no central records available relating to the use or planned use of Airwave handsets by BERR’s delivery partners.
Letter from Gareth Jones, dated 13 November 2008:
I am responding on behalf of Companies House to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Minister of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Companies House does not use and has no plans to use Airwaves handsets.
Letter from Stephen Speed, dated 13 November 2008:
The Minister of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has asked me to reply to you directly in respect of your question (2007/4360), asking what organisations for which his Department is responsible (a) use and (b) are planning to use Airwave handsets.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |