| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Primary School Pupils in Private Education
Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the proportion of all primary school pupils in private education in each local education authority in England.[HL1064]
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
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.% of pupils in independent schools
| City of London | 57.7
| Camden | 28.4
| Greenwich | 4.2
| Hackney | 14.7
| Hammersmith & Fulham | 15.9
| Islington | 2.5
| Kensington & Chelsea | 48.8
| Lambeth | 6.8
| Lewisham | 4.2
| Southwark | 7.3
| Tower Hamlets | 0.8
| Wandsworth | 22.4
| Westminster | 22.7
| Barking and Dagenham | 0.0
| Barnet | 9.5
| Bexley | 2.9
| Brent | 5.4
| Bromley | 9.3
| Croydon | 8.8
| Ealing | 10.8
| Enfield | 4.1
| Haringey | 3.7
| Harrow | 8.5
| Havering | 2.8
| Hillingdon | 8.2
| Hounslow | 2.4
| Kingston-upon-Thames | 13.0
| Merton | 12.0
| Newham | 0.5
| Redbridge | 10.4
| Richmond-upon-Thames | 23.3
| Sutton | 6.2
| Waltham Forest | 2.0
| Birmingham | 3.0
| Coventry | 3.0
| Dudley | 0.6
| Sandwell | 0.0
| Solihull | 3.9
| Walsall | 1.5
| Wolverhampton | 2.1
| Knowsley | 0.0
| Liverpool | 2.8
| St Helens | 2.4
| Sefton | 4.0
| Wirral | 5.2
| Bolton | 2.7
| Bury | 4.2
| Manchester | 3.2
| Oldham | 2.3
| Rochdale | 0.9
| Salford | 6.3
| Stockport | 7.5
| Tameside | 0.5
| Trafford | 8.4
| Wigan | 0.2
| Barnsley | 0.3
| Doncaster | 1.4
| Rotherham | 0.8
| Sheffield | 2.7
| Bradford | 2.8
| Calderdale | 2.6
| Kirklees | 1.3
| Leeds | 3.3
| Wakefield | 4.6
| Gateshead | 3.0
| Newcastle-upon-Tyne | 8.4
| North Tyneside | 2.0
| South Tyneside | 0.2
| Sunderland | 2.1
| Isles of Scilly | 1.5
| Bath & NE Somerset | 9.3
| City of Bristol | 6.7
| North Somerset | 5.1
| South Gloucestershire | 1.6
| Hartlepool | 0.1
| Middlesbrough | 0.2
| Redcar and Cleveland | 0.0
| Stockton-on-Tees | 3.7
| City of Kingston-upon-Hull | 1.9
| East Riding of Yorkshire | 2.1
| North East Lincolnshire | 1.7
| North Lincolnshire | 1.8
| North Yorkshire | 4.6
| York | 5.2
| Bedfordshire | 5.6
| Luton | 1.2
| Buckinghamshire | 9.9
| Milton Keynes | 3.2
| Derbyshire | 2.4
| Derby | 2.2
| Dorset | 6.6
| Poole | 3.8
| Bournemouth | 7.4
| Durham | 1.6
| Darlington | 3.7
| East Sussex | 7.7
| Brighton & Hove | 8.4
| Hampshire | 6.5
| Portsmouth | 5.7
| Southampton | 2.7
| Leicestershire | 3.8
| Leicester City | 3.2
| Rutland | 8.8
| Staffordshire | 2.2
| Stoke | 1.3
| Wiltshire | 6.2
| Swindon | 0.1
| Bracknell Forest | 7.3
| Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead | 16.8
| West Berkshire | 6.6
| Reading | 8.2
| Slough | 5.3
| Wokingham | 8.7
| Cambridgeshire | 5.4
| City of Peterborough | 0.7
| Cheshire | 5.3
| Halton | 0.0
| Warrington | 0.0
| Devon | 5.4
| City of Plymouth | 3.3
| Torbay | 4.2
| Essex | 5.3
| Southend | 7.9
| Thurrock | 0.0
| Herefordshire | 5.4
| Worcestershire | 5.9
| Kent | 6.5
| Medway | 3.0
| Lancashire | 2.2
| Blackburn and Darwen | 4.1
| Blackpool | 5.1
| Nottinghamshire | 2.6
| City of Nottingham | 4.9
| Shropshire | 7.4
| Telford and Wrekin | 2.3
| Cornwall | 2.2
| Cumbria | 2.2
| Gloucestershire | 6.9
| Hertfordshire | 8.2
| Isle of Wight | 2.8
| Lincolnshire | 3.6
| Norfolk | 3.9
| Northamptonshire | 4.5
| Northumberland | 1.7
| Oxfordshire | 9.6
| Somerset | 5.9
| Suffolk | 4.6
| Surrey | 18.0
| Warwickshire | 5.9
| West Sussex | 6.9
| England | 5.2
| |
(1) Single registered pupils only.
Lord Mason of Barnsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
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.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
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
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.
The Countess of Mar 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]
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]
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