Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Primary School Pupils in Private Education

Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:

Baroness Blackstone: The proportion of pupils of primary school age in independent schools situated in each local education authority area in England is given in the table.

Independent schools are allocated to a local education authority if the school is geographically

22 Feb 2000 : Column WA22

located within the local education authority area. The area of residence of the pupils attending an independent school may be different to the local education authority area to which the school has been allocated.

Pupils aged between 5 and 10 (1): Proportion of pupils in independent schools opposed to all schools as at January 1999
England

% of pupils in independent schools
City of London57.7
Camden28.4
Greenwich4.2
Hackney14.7
Hammersmith & Fulham15.9
Islington2.5
Kensington & Chelsea48.8
Lambeth6.8
Lewisham4.2
Southwark7.3
Tower Hamlets0.8
Wandsworth22.4
Westminster22.7
Barking and Dagenham0.0
Barnet9.5
Bexley2.9
Brent5.4
Bromley9.3
Croydon8.8
Ealing10.8
Enfield4.1
Haringey3.7
Harrow8.5
Havering2.8
Hillingdon8.2
Hounslow2.4
Kingston-upon-Thames13.0
Merton12.0
Newham0.5
Redbridge10.4
Richmond-upon-Thames23.3
Sutton6.2
Waltham Forest2.0
Birmingham3.0
Coventry3.0
Dudley0.6
Sandwell0.0
Solihull3.9
Walsall1.5
Wolverhampton2.1
Knowsley0.0
Liverpool2.8
St Helens2.4
Sefton4.0
Wirral5.2
Bolton2.7
Bury4.2
Manchester3.2
Oldham2.3
Rochdale0.9
Salford6.3
Stockport7.5
Tameside0.5
Trafford8.4
Wigan0.2
Barnsley0.3
Doncaster1.4
Rotherham0.8
Sheffield2.7
Bradford2.8
Calderdale2.6
Kirklees1.3
Leeds3.3
Wakefield4.6
Gateshead3.0
Newcastle-upon-Tyne8.4
North Tyneside2.0
South Tyneside0.2
Sunderland2.1
Isles of Scilly1.5
Bath & NE Somerset9.3
City of Bristol6.7
North Somerset5.1
South Gloucestershire1.6
Hartlepool0.1
Middlesbrough0.2
Redcar and Cleveland0.0
Stockton-on-Tees3.7
City of Kingston-upon-Hull1.9
East Riding of Yorkshire2.1
North East Lincolnshire1.7
North Lincolnshire1.8
North Yorkshire4.6
York5.2
Bedfordshire5.6
Luton1.2
Buckinghamshire9.9
Milton Keynes3.2
Derbyshire2.4
Derby2.2
Dorset6.6
Poole3.8
Bournemouth7.4
Durham1.6
Darlington3.7
East Sussex7.7
Brighton & Hove8.4
Hampshire6.5
Portsmouth5.7
Southampton2.7
Leicestershire3.8
Leicester City3.2
Rutland8.8
Staffordshire2.2
Stoke1.3
Wiltshire6.2
Swindon0.1
Bracknell Forest7.3
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead 16.8
West Berkshire6.6
Reading8.2
Slough5.3
Wokingham8.7
Cambridgeshire5.4
City of Peterborough0.7
Cheshire5.3
Halton0.0
Warrington0.0
Devon5.4
City of Plymouth3.3
Torbay4.2
Essex5.3
Southend7.9
Thurrock0.0
Herefordshire5.4
Worcestershire5.9
Kent6.5
Medway3.0
Lancashire2.2
Blackburn and Darwen4.1
Blackpool5.1
Nottinghamshire2.6
City of Nottingham4.9
Shropshire7.4
Telford and Wrekin2.3
Cornwall2.2
Cumbria2.2
Gloucestershire6.9
Hertfordshire8.2
Isle of Wight2.8
Lincolnshire3.6
Norfolk3.9
Northamptonshire4.5
Northumberland1.7
Oxfordshire9.6
Somerset5.9
Suffolk4.6
Surrey18.0
Warwickshire5.9
West Sussex6.9
England5.2

(1) Single registered pupils only.


22 Feb 2000 : Column WA24

South Yorkshire Objective One Programme

Lord Mason of Barnsley asked Her Majesty's Government:

    When the objective one status moneys allocated for South Yorkshire are likely to be paid, especially for Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield; and what is their estimate of these payments.[HL993]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The single programme document for the South Yorkshire objective one programme was received by the European Commission on 15 November 1999. Under the regulations, the Commission has five months to agree the document. Negotiations are now taking place and the aim is to have provisional approval for the end of March. The programme could therefore begin in May, with projects receiving funding after that time. The value of the programme is £780 million in grants over the period 2000-06.

Construction Industry

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What action they have taken in response to the Rethinking Construction report of the Construction Task Force that reported to the Deputy Prime Minister in July 1998.[HL1035]

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched a "Movement for Innovation" to implement Rethinking Construction in November 1998. We established four task forces or boards made up of leading representatives of clients and the supply side: they are the M4I Board, covering

22 Feb 2000 : Column WA25

non-housing construction; the Housing Forum; the Treasury-led Central Government Task Force covering central government departments and agencies; and the Local Government Task Force. Their role is to promote innovation and the sharing of innovations and best practice and to raise awareness and improve practice among public sector clients with a view to delivering the targets set out in Rethinking Construction. Co-ordination of these four strands is overseen by a steering group chaired by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford MP, which includes my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; Sir John Egan; the chairs of each of the four strands; and the chairman of the Construction Industry Board.

The Construction Best Practice Programme, launched in November 1998, promotes dissemination of best practice and provides advice and support. Innovation and sharing of experiences are encouraged through demonstration projects: there are now more than 230 projects worth perhaps around £3.5 billion (figures are still being collected from the latest projects). This compares with the target in Rethinking Construction of £500 million). Projects are assessed and supported by teams of industry and client secondees.

Measurement of performance is being promoted. We published in May 1999 the first industry-wide key performance indicators, each of which relates to one of the targets in Rethinking Construction: these are being trialled by the demonstration projects and will be refined and extended to cover "respect for people" and "sustainability" issues. In time they will be spread through the wider industry through a "clients charter" which is currently being drawn up.

Successful national conferences have been held to help promote Rethinking Construction among clients and the wider industry; and numerous seminars, "cluster group" meetings and other occasions have been organised by the "movement"; presentations have been given by board or task force members at a whole range of occasions organised by client, industry and related bodies. Events organised by the Construction Best Practice Programme have been attended by over 13,000 people. The Construction Industry Board and the industry "umbrella" bodies have also played an important role in promoting change.

Organophosphorus Sheep Dips

The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 11 January (WA 277), what evidence was before the Veterinary Products Committee in 1992 to prompt the further requests for data from the manufacturers of organophosphorus sheep dips; and whether it is now the practice of Her Majesty's Government to speculate upon the manufacturers' reasons for the withdrawal of products or formulations from the market.[HL968]

22 Feb 2000 : Column WA26

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): Licences for the organophosphorus sheep dips were reviewed in 1992-93. Applications supported by data were required for each product. Data considered included those submitted in support of the original licence applications and any new data considered by applicants to be appropriate. Where data were considered by the Veterinary Products Committee to be insufficient, further data were requested. In addition, the then current scientific data on the toxicity of the active ingredients were summarised and presented to the Veterinary Products Committee.

It is not practice to speculate on manufacturers' motivation and the previous Answer made clear that the reason for the withdrawals was a matter for the companies involved. The additional information given was intended to be helpful and as full as possible within the constraints of the confidentiality requirements of the medicines legislation.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page