|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Appointments made to each grade in the contracted prison estate between 1 March 2010 and 30 June 2010|
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many unfilled places there were on each training course for new prison officer grades since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: Since 1 October 2009, when Prison Officer 2 recruitment was introduced, there have been 96 unfilled training places. This figure includes those who were offered a training place but, subsequently, decided not to take up their offer of employment. 50 Prison Officer Entry Level Training (POELT) courses have delivered 901 training places against 997 scheduled places.
Mr Blunt: As I said in my previous answer to the hon. Member we are reviewing the options for strengthening the law in relation to squatting and the way in which it is enforced. We hope to conclude this work early next year.
Yasmin Qureshi: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) children and young people under the age of 18 years and (b) looked-after children and young people under the age of 18 years were released from custody in each local authority area in England and Wales in each of the last five years. 
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the number of custodial episodes ended for children and young people under the age of 18 years by the youth offending team they were attached to in each of the last five years where data are available.
The majority of youth offending teams are coterminous with local authorities in England and Wales; however there are some exceptions where a single YOT covers two or more local authorities. During 2008-09, there were 157 YOTs; 139 in England and 18 in Wales.
1. Please note Flintshire and Wrexham YOT split into two YOTs in 2001, though have been recorded as the combined YOT up to 2007. This problem has been corrected for 2008.
2. Mid Wales YOT split into two YOTs in 2005 to become Powys YOT and Ceredigion YOT in 2005, though were recorded as the combined YOT in 2006. This problem has been corrected from 2007.
3. Reading and Wokingham YOT split into separate YOTs in 2007. Though data appears in 2007, this is due to the fact that the split did not happen until April 2007.
4. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.
Yasmin Qureshi: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those under the age of 18 years serving a Detention and Training Order in each (a) young offender institution and (b) secure training centre in England and Wales were registered as of no fixed abode on release from custody in each of the last five years. 
Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to accommodate young people in need of suitable accommodation through the Children Act 1989, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and housing legislation.
Tim Loughton: The law and the statutory guidance on adoption make clear that children cannot be adopted without their parents' consent unless the court is satisfied that the welfare of the child requires their consent to be dispensed with. We have no plans to change the position in this regard.
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children became subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order in England in each year from 1989 to 2007. 
Tim Loughton: The number of children who became subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order for years ending 31 March 1993 to 2007 is shown in the following table. Information for the year ending 31 March 1992 is affected by the introduction of the Children Act on 14 October 1991 when a new system of legal statuses was introduced, so it is not possible to extract a full year's data. Information prior to 1992 is not available.
|Children who became subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order: Years ending 31 March 1993 to 2007: Coverage: England|
|(1) Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return which covered all children looked after.|
(2) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 one-third sample survey.
1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1000, and to the nearest 10, otherwise.
2. The figures exclude children who became looked after under a child assessment order, so may differ from the figures for children who were taken into care.
3. Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials.
4. Only the first occasion on which a child became subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order, in the year has been counted.
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order or placed for adoption excluding children looked after under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 left care through adoption in England in each year from 1996 to 2010. 
Tim Loughton: The number of children who were subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order or placed for adoption excluding children looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, who left care through adoption in England in each year ending 31 March 1996 to 2010 is shown in the following table.
|Children who were adopted during the year ending 31 March who were subject to a care order, police protection order or emergency protection order or who were placed for adoption( 1, 2, 3) - y ears ending 31 March 1996 to 2010|
|Number of children|
|(1) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1,000, and to the nearest 10, otherwise.|
(2) Figures exclude children looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and also under an agreed series of short-term placements.
(3) Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials.
(4) Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return which covered all children looked after.
(5) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 one third sample survey.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many transport-related fines his Department has settled on behalf of its staff in each year since 2005; and what the cost to the public purse was in each such year. 
Tim Loughton: The Department for Education's (DFE) travel and subsistence policy clearly states that it is entirely the responsibility of employees to pay any transport-related fines they occur on official business.
There is no evidence held centrally to indicate that the Department has settled any transport-related fines on behalf of its staff since 2005. To provide absolute confirmation of this would incur disproportionate cost.
Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the monetary value was of contracts between his Department and its predecessors and (a) Post Office Ltd and (b) Royal Mail in (i) 1997-98 and (ii) each year since 2004-05. 
Tim Loughton: The Department and its predecessors has no formal contracts with Post Office Ltd or Royal Mail but uses Royal Mail services through local arrangements between Royal Mail distribution depots and our regional headquarter offices for the despatch of letters and parcels.
Tim Loughton: In the period 12 May 2010 to 12 November 2010 the Department for Education has revoked a number of regulatory statutory instruments or significant parts of statutory instruments. These are detailed in the following table. However, as indicated by the third column of the table, in some cases the content of the revoked statutory instrument has been largely replaced.
|Regulations revoked||Revoking instrument||Comments|
Mr Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new regulations sponsored by his Department have been introduced through (a) primary legislation and (b) statutory instrument in the last six months. 
Tim Loughton: In the period 12 May 2010 to 12 November 2010, one new Act of Parliament (the Academies Act 2010) received Royal Assent. The Department for Education commenced provisions of other Acts of Parliament relating to education, children and families. Nine regulation-making powers contained in primary legislation were commenced during that period. The Department made 11 statutory instruments which contain substantive regulations. Eight of these came into force by 12 November, as follows:
The Education (Independent School Standards) (England) Regulations 2010
The Care Standards Act 2000 (Registration) (England) Regulations 2010
The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Order 2010
The Equality Act (Designation of Institutions with a Religious Ethos) Order 2010
The Academy Conversions (Transfer of School Surpluses) Regulations 2010
The Equality Act 2010 (General Qualifications Bodies) (Appropriate Regulator and Relevant Qualifications) Regulations 2010
The School Governance (Transition from an Interim Executive Board) (England) Regulations 2010
The Special Restrictions on Adoptions from Abroad (Haiti) Order 2010.
The Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010
The Education (Prescribed Public Examinations) (England) Regulations 2010
The Education (Publication of Proposals) (Sixth Form College Corporations) (England) Regulations 2010.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many unpaid, expenses-only internships there have been in (a) his Department and (b) public bodies which fall within his Department's area of responsibility in the last 12 months. 
Information on the number of unpaid, expenses-only internships for the Department's public bodies is a matter for them. The Department does not hold this information centrally and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information his Department holds for benchmarking purposes on the effectiveness of conditional cost transfer schemes in increasing education staying-on rates in other countries; and if he will make a statement. 
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent assessment he has made of academic standards in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Mid Sussex constituency. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 29 November 2010]: The Department has not conducted a specific assessment of academic standards in Mid Sussex constituency. However, Ofsted is expected to publish its Annual Children's Services Assessment of West Sussex, the local authority responsible for schools in Mid Sussex, in December. This will take account of the performance of schools in the constituency area.
|Percentage of 11-year-olds in primary schools achieving level 4 or above in their 2009 key stage 2 results|
|Subject||Mid Sussex||National average|
Mr Gibb [holding answer 29 November 2010]: Sex and relationships education is not currently part of the national curriculum and will not be within scope of the national curriculum review. However, we intend to conduct an internal review to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of all personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education teaching, giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgement about how best to deliver PSHE education, including sex and relationships education.
Tim Loughton: The Department's financial records only go back as far as 2002 but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that based on these records they show that from April 2002 to October 2010 the Department spent £418,342 on services provided by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research his Department has (a) undertaken and (b) evaluated on the causes of bullying in schools; when his Department last undertook a review of the evidence relating to the causes of bullying in school drawing on (a) UK and (b) international research; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Gibb: In May 2010, Partners Andrews Aldridge completed an overview for the Department on the issue of bullying. This examined national and international evidence to determine the causes of bullying, and recommended measures to reduce and respond to bullying both in schools and in our communities. We plan to publish the key findings of the review early in the new year.
Tackling bullying is a top priority for the Government and we are supportive of any initiative that helps reduce the suffering of children and young
people at the hands of bullies. The Deputy Prime Minister met the organisers following the March and promised to consider carefully the campaigners' calls for a review of bullying guidance across Government. In addition, Ministers in the Department have agreed to meet the organisers to discuss the items raised during the campaign.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department have had with the organisers of The Big March campaign; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement. 
Tim Loughton: Beatbullying, the organisers of the Big March, attended a ministerial policy seminar on anti-bullying hosted by the Department on 9 November 2010. During this meeting we asked for their views and ideas on how existing anti-bullying policy can be strengthened. The Department will continue to consult with Beatbullying and all our partners on any changes to future Government anti-bullying policy.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether the Government plans to stipulate (a) a minimum and (b) a maximum award to students from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund in the 2011-12 academic year. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 29 November 2010]: Decisions regarding the new discretionary fund will be made locally, enabling schools, colleges and training providers to target support at those young people in greatest need. Current discretionary funds have no specified minimum or maximum payment.
In finalising the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, the Department
will consult with schools, colleges and training organisations, including on what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.
Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which training providers receive Government funding for the Discretionary Learner Support Fund; and how much was received by each such provider in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 29 November 2010]: This is a matter for the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) who operate the Education Maintenance Allowance for the Department for Education. Peter Lauener the YPLA's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
Simon Danczuk: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the proportion of newly-qualified teachers who did not find permanent employment in each of the last five years; what steps he plans to take to reduce unemployment amongst newly-qualified teachers; what estimate he has made of the effects of the implementation of the proposals in the comprehensive spending review on unemployment amongst newly-qualified teachers in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Tim Loughton: The number and percentage of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) by their employment status is given in the table. The scope of these figures is NQTs who have gained qualified teacher status (QTS) via mainstream initial teacher training courses, and the table reports their employment status six months after gaining QTS.
|Newly qualified teachers: Employment status six months after gaining QTS-Years: 2004/05 to 2008/09-England|
|Number of NQTs|
|Teachers gaining QTS-Newly qualified teachers (NQT's)||In a teaching post||Seeking a teaching post||Not seeking a teaching post||Unclassfied||Total|
|Distribution of NQTs ( % )|
|In a teaching post||Seeking a teaching post||Not seeking a teaching post||Unclassified||Total||Proportion of NQTs in a teaching post who sought/ are seeking a post (%)|
1. Excludes teachers gaining QTS via employment based routes to ITT.
2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.
TDA Performance Profiles
Centrally available information does not currently provide details relating to the type of contract held by teachers (such as permanent, fixed or temporary). The new School Workforce Census will collect information on the type of contract. First findings from this data collection are expected in spring 2011.
It is our intention that the supply of qualified teachers matches as closely as possible the needs of schools, and the number of places to initial teacher training courses is calculated on this basis. Our estimates for funding of future teacher trainees for the comprehensive spending review (CSR) took into account the latest available data on the supply of teachers.
Overall, funding for schools, including funding for the new pupil premium, will rise in real terms over the CSR period. We are providing maximum flexibility to schools in relation to how they spend the budgets allocated to them. It is for governors and headteachers to decide how to use their budgets to ensure the best outcomes for their pupils.
Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much meat of each type procured by the Department of Facilities was slaughtered using (a) halal, (b) non-halal and (c) unknown methods in the latest period in which figures are available. 
John Thurso: In the year to March 2010, the House of Commons Catering Service knowingly purchased halal meat to the value of approximately £1,500, or 0.25% of all fresh meat purchases. This was purchased expressly to cater for specific clients' requirements.
The remaining meat purchased by the Department, at a value of approximately £590,000, was ordered and received as non-halal meat, but as stated in the reply given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), on 16 November 2010, Official Report, column 761W, this included an unquantified amount of poultry slaughtered using halal methods. Suppliers have confirmed that no other type of meat supplied to the House of Commons Catering Service has been slaughtered in accordance with halal or other special requirements unless expressly ordered as such.
Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent estimate has been made of the average cost to the House of a tabled parliamentary question for (a) oral and (b) written answer; what assessment the Commission has made of the effects on its costs of recent trends in the number of parliamentary questions tabled; and if he will make a statement. 
John Thurso: The House Service estimates that the average cost to the service of a printed question and the accompanying answer in the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2010 was £80. The average cost of a printed question prior to the answer was £44; the additional average cost associated with the reporting of an answer was £36. These calculations are based on the figures given in the following table:
|Financial year||Number of questions printed||Total costs prior to answer (£)||Total costs of reporting answers (£)|
These costs include printing costs and direct staff and staff-related costs. The estimated total costs include the estimated staff costs associated with advice to hon. Members and editorial work on questions not printed, including questions tabled for oral answer and entered into the shuffle (a process dependent upon automated random number generation to determine which questions appear on the Order Paper and in what order), but not printed. To these costs should be added the costs of electronic publishing and indexing; the former cannot readily be separately identified; the latter are estimated to be in the region of £65,000 annually. It is not possible to calculate separate averages for oral and written questions.
It is estimated that 65% of the cost of questions prior to answer and 73% of the cost of reporting answers is attributable to printing-an average cost per question of £28 and per answer of £26. Any change in the number of written questions tabled directly affects such costs. The remaining costs are broadly fixed and will not fluctuate according to the number of questions, although staffing levels and some staff-related costs, such as additional hours payments and late night transport costs, may alter if there is a significant change in the volume of questions.
The list of possible savings produced by the Management Board contains a suggestion that, from the start of 2011-12, the Questions Book should no longer be printed, leading to an estimated annual saving of £865,000 or around £13 per question.
Dr Thérèse Coffey: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much the House of Commons Commission spent under its transport subsidy scheme in respect of schools in each constituency in each of the last three financial years. 
John Thurso: The transport subsidy scheme was introduced in 2009 in response to a recommendation by the Administration Committee. The objective was to encourage a greater proportion of schools to visit Parliament through the education visits programme from outside Greater London and the South East. The UK was split into three geographic bands, A-C. Band A does not attract a subsidy, in band B schools can claim 50% of costs, up to a maximum of £650, and in band C 75% of costs, up to a maximum of £1,250. The full details of the scheme, including a list of which band each constituency falls into, can be found on the Education Service website.
The following table provides the amount the House of Commons spent in individual constituencies where schools claimed under the transport subsidy scheme in the financial year 2009-10 (the first year of the scheme) and the current financial year up to July 2010. The cost listed is 70% of the overall subsidy paid as the cost of the scheme is shared with the House of Lords.
|Total of claims made in the financial year 2010-11 by constituency (based on the post-2010 boundaries)|
|Total of claims made in the financial year 2009-10 by constituency (based on the pre-2010 boundaries)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|