I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education.

The Government allocated some £9.0 million in 2007-08, £11.2 million in 2008-09, £33.6 million in 2009-10, £49.78 million in 2010-11 and £46 million in 2011-12 for family intervention projects/services. The ring fence for this funding was removed in May 2010. From April 2011 the Early Intervention Grant of £2212 million (2011-12) and £2297 million (2012-13) was allocated to local authorities in England. This can fund universal programmes and activities available to ail children, young people and families as well as specialist services where intensive support is needed.

The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), asked Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review into the case of the 'J' brothers in Edlington following publication of an unsatisfactory Serious Case Review overview report on the case.

On the day of publication of Lord Carlile's report, the Secretary of State said:

‘I asked Lord Carlile to look at the situation in Doncaster because there were problems specific to the town which required expert external analysis. But in asking him to take on this work I was keen not just that we should learn lessons specific to Doncaster—but also that he should make recommendations about wider changes we needed to make to improve child protection.

Reading his report, I have found his overall argument compelling. There are a series of specific recommendations, many of which I am instinctively drawn to and all of which deserve careful consideration. The Government will respond formally to all the recommendations in due course.

But I want there to be a time for debate before the time of decision. Because one of the reasons why I like Lord Carlile's approach so much is that he issues tough challenges—as I hope to today—and if we speak plainly then in fairness we need to hear how others respond before acting’.

The Government is now considering each of Lord Carlile's recommendations carefully and will be consulting relevant organisations who have an interest and we will respond in due course.

The Government has been dissatisfied for some time with the way in which Serious Case Reviews are conducted. We have consulted on revised statutory guidance which will put the emphasis on conducting reviews which get to the heart of what happened in a serious incident, and why, and highlight the importance of making the findings available to the public.

Three Local Safeguarding Children Boards have been piloting a new approach to Serious Case Reviews which follows the systems methodology recommended by Professor Eileen Munro. The Department has commissioned an independent evaluation of the pilots which will, along with Lord Carlile's report, inform the final revised statutory guidance on Serious Case Reviews. The report of the independent evaluation will also be published in due course.

The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), asked Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review into the case of the 'J' brothers in Edlington following publication of an unsatisfactory Serious Case Review overview report on the case.

On the day of publication of Lord Carlile's report, the Secretary of State said:

‘I asked Lord Carlile to look at the situation in Doncaster because there were problems specific to the town which required expert external analysis. But in asking him to take on this work I was keen not just that we should learn lessons specific to Doncaster—but also that he should make recommendations about wider changes we needed to make to improve child protection.

Reading his report, I have found his overall argument compelling. There are a series of specific recommendations, many of which I am instinctively drawn to and all of which deserve careful consideration. The Government will respond formally to all the recommendations in due course.

But I want there to be a time for debate before the time of decision. Because one of the reasons why I like Lord Carlile's approach so much is that he issues tough challenges—as I hope to today—and if we speak plainly then in fairness we need to hear how others respond before acting’.

The Government is now considering each of Lord Carlile's recommendations carefully and will be consulting relevant organisations who have an interest and we will respond in due course.

The Government has been dissatisfied for some time with the way in which Serious Case Reviews are conducted. We have consulted on revised statutory guidance which will put the emphasis on conducting reviews which get to the heart of what happened in a serious incident, and why, and highlight the importance of making the findings available to the public.

Three Local Safeguarding Children Boards have been piloting a new approach to Serious Case Reviews which follows the systems methodology recommended by Professor Eileen Munro. The Department has commissioned an independent evaluation of the pilots which will, along with Lord Carlile's report, inform the final revised statutory guidance on Serious Case Reviews. The report of the independent evaluation will also be published in due course.

The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), asked Lord Carlile to conduct an independent review into the case of the 'J' brothers in Edlington following publication of an unsatisfactory Serious Case Review overview report on the case.

On the day of publication of Lord Carlile's report, the Secretary of State said:

‘I asked Lord Carlile to look at the situation in Doncaster because there were problems specific to the town which required expert external analysis. But in asking him to take on this work I was keen not just that we should learn lessons specific to Doncaster—but also that he should make recommendations about wider changes we needed to make to improve child protection.

Reading his report, I have found his overall argument compelling. There are a series of specific recommendations, many of which I am instinctively drawn to and all of which deserve careful consideration. The Government will respond formally to all the recommendations in due course.

But I want there to be a time for debate before the time of decision. Because one of the reasons why I like Lord Carlile's approach so much is that he issues tough challenges—as I hope to today—and if we speak plainly then in fairness we need to hear how others respond before acting’.

The Government is now considering each of Lord Carlile's recommendations carefully and will be consulting relevant organisations who have an interest and we will respond in due course.

The Government has been dissatisfied for some time with the way in which Serious Case Reviews are conducted. We have consulted on revised statutory guidance which will put the emphasis on conducting reviews which get to the heart of what happened in a serious incident, and why, and highlight the importance of making the findings available to the public.

Three Local Safeguarding Children Boards have been piloting a new approach to Serious Case Reviews which follows the systems methodology recommended by Professor Eileen Munro. The Department has commissioned an independent evaluation of the pilots which will, along with Lord Carlile's report, inform the final revised statutory guidance on Serious Case Reviews. The report of the independent evaluation will also be published in due course.

The Department does not collect information on the number of young people with Saturday jobs, but some data on participation of young people in education and employment are available and published in a Department for Education (DFE) Statistical First Release (SFR) entitled "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18 Year Olds in England".

The first table shows the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds (academic age) in both full-time education and employment in England between 2001 and 2011; the second table expresses that number as a proportion of all 16 to 18-year-olds in England:

Note that the tables above exclude young people who were doing work-based learning (largely apprenticeships) and also those in employer-funded training; both of these groups are in employment by definition. Also excluded are those in 'other education and training' which is a combination of part-time education and education with a private training provider. Numbers and proportions for these groups are available via the link above.

We set out our plans for improving services and outcomes for all disabled children and young people, including those with muscular dystrophy, related neuromuscular conditions and other rare and complex conditions, in the 2011 Green Paper “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability” and the subsequent “Progress and Next Steps” document, published in May 2012. The

draft provisions recently published are intended to be the next step towards achieving the Green Paper vision of a system where services work together more effectively to support families and young people and families themselves are part of decision-making rather than having to fight to secure the support that they need.

We intend to replace the current statement and Learning Difficulty Assessment with a holistic and outcomes-focused Education, Health and Care Plan which will be built on a stronger and more integrated process of assessment and planning. We are also introducing a requirement for local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to commission services jointly for children and young people with special educational needs (this includes those who have a disability which restricts them from accessing normally available educational provision). This is a significant change and will require services to work together to jointly agree what support is needed and for whom—cutting across some of the traditional gaps experienced by families between education, health and social care services.

20 pathfinders, involving 31 local authorities and their health partners, have been appointed to test the proposals in the Green Paper and will inform the changes we make to legislation through the planned Children and Families Bill. The pathfinders are focusing on involving parents and young people more fully in decisions about the education, health and care of their children, including trialling personal budgets for those who want them, and developing a clear offer of the support that is available locally.

We set out our plans for improving services and outcomes for all disabled children and young people, including those with muscular dystrophy, related neuromuscular conditions and other rare and complex conditions, in the 2011 Green Paper “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability” and the subsequent “Progress and Next Steps” document, published in May 2012. The

draft provisions recently published are intended to be the next step towards achieving the Green Paper vision of a system where services work together more effectively to support families and young people and families themselves are part of decision-making rather than having to fight to secure the support that they need.

We intend to replace the current statement and Learning Difficulty Assessment with a holistic and outcomes-focused Education, Health and Care Plan which will be built on a stronger and more integrated process of assessment and planning. We are also introducing a requirement for local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to commission services jointly for children and young people with special educational needs (this includes those who have a disability which restricts them from accessing normally available educational provision). This is a significant change and will require services to work together to jointly agree what support is needed and for whom—cutting across some of the traditional gaps experienced by families between education, health and social care services.

20 pathfinders, involving 31 local authorities and their health partners, have been appointed to test the proposals in the Green Paper and will inform the changes we make to legislation through the planned Children and Families Bill. The pathfinders are focusing on involving parents and young people more fully in decisions about the education, health and care of their children, including trialling personal budgets for those who want them, and developing a clear offer of the support that is available locally.

We set out our plans for improving services and outcomes for all disabled children and young people, including those with muscular dystrophy, related neuromuscular conditions and other rare and complex conditions, in the 2011 Green Paper “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability” and the subsequent “Progress and Next Steps” document, published in May 2012. The

draft provisions recently published are intended to be the next step towards achieving the Green Paper vision of a system where services work together more effectively to support families and young people and families themselves are part of decision-making rather than having to fight to secure the support that they need.

We intend to replace the current statement and Learning Difficulty Assessment with a holistic and outcomes-focused Education, Health and Care Plan which will be built on a stronger and more integrated process of assessment and planning. We are also introducing a requirement for local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to commission services jointly for children and young people with special educational needs (this includes those who have a disability which restricts them from accessing normally available educational provision). This is a significant change and will require services to work together to jointly agree what support is needed and for whom—cutting across some of the traditional gaps experienced by families between education, health and social care services.

20 pathfinders, involving 31 local authorities and their health partners, have been appointed to test the proposals in the Green Paper and will inform the changes we make to legislation through the planned Children and Families Bill. The pathfinders are focusing on involving parents and young people more fully in decisions about the education, health and care of their children, including trialling personal budgets for those who want them, and developing a clear offer of the support that is available locally.

[holding answer 13 November 2012]: The standalone Teenage Pregnancy Strategy ended in 2010 but the Department for Education continues to hold responsibility for teenage pregnancy policy. At present, one member of staff works part time on teenage pregnancy policy and support for teenage parents; two other officials also have responsibility for teenage pregnancy policy as part of their wider roles.

The latest year for which final annual conceptions data are available is 2010. Between 2000 and 2010, the teenage pregnancy rate (women aged under 18) in England fell by 19% from 43.6 conceptions per thousand women aged 15-17 in 2000 to 35.4 in 2010.

The Department has not issued guidance on this matter. The Department sets the statutory requirements within which Ofsted is required to inspect and it is for HM Chief Inspector to set the guidance for

inspectors on how Ofsted will meet these requirements in conducting its inspections. For schools, this forms part of ‘The framework for school inspection’ and the supporting guidance in the ‘School inspection handbook’. For colleges, this is set out in the ‘Common Inspection Framework for further education and skills’ and the ‘Handbook for the inspection of further education and skills’.

This question is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has written to the hon. Member, providing him with the information requested, and a copy of his response has been placed in the House Libraries.

Letter from Sir Michael Wilshaw, dated 10 December 2012:

Your recent parliamentary question has been passed to me, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, for response.

Ofsted received its budget allocation for 2012-15 in the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. No budget has yet been announced for-2015-16.

Ofsted's budget allocation for (a) 2012-13 is £171.0m (b) 2013-14 is £159.6m (c) 2014-15 is £142.3m. The figures for 2013-14 and 2014-15 do not include any further budget reduction announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

As at 30 November 2012 Ofsted employed (i) 1,146 full time staff and (ii) 520 inspectors (494.1 full time equivalents).

A copy of this reply has been sent to David Laws MP, Minister of State for Schools, and will be placed in the library of both Houses.

The pupil premium was introduced in April 2011. Pupil premium funding is provided to schools which have on roll pupils known to be eligible for free school meals (the deprivation premium); children in care who have been continuously looked after for at least six months (the looked after child premium); and children whose parents are serving in the armed forces (the service child premium).

In the financial year 2011-12, 5,980 pupils in Portsmouth local authority area were eligible for the deprivation premium, the looked after child premium or service child premium, attracting £2.740 million.

In the financial year 2012-13, 8,500 pupils in Portsmouth local authority area were eligible for the deprivation premium, the looked after child premium or service child premium, attracting £5.029 million.

In 2013-14, pupil premium funding will rise from £1.25 billion to £1.875 billion per year. This will enable the level of funding for the deprivation and looked after child premium to increase to £900 per pupil and the service child premium will increase to £300 per pupil.

The Department's approach is to collect data at child level that can then be used for a wide range of analyses. The National Pupil Database (NPD) is populated with data from child level data collections and to an extent it is possible to use NPD data to calculate measures of pupil turnover by tracking where pupils attend school at different points in time. Pupil turnover can however be defined in a number of ways, depending on the purpose.

The 2012 School and College Performance Tables will for the first time include a measure linked to turnover. Key Stage 2 tables will show the attainment and progress of non-mobile pupils, defined as those who have been in the same school throughout years 5 and 6. Similarly, the Key Stage 4 tables will include non-mobile pupils, defined as those who have been in the same school throughout years 10 and 11.

The Department for Education does not collect information on the presence and condition of asbestos in schools. The Control of Asbestos Regulations requires duty holders—local authorities or schools themselves—to collect this information. Nor does the Department collect information on incidences of schools being closed due to the discovery of asbestos or the removal of asbestos from schools. These are matters for the duty holders and the local management of schools.

On-line guidance on managing the risks from asbestos containing materials was published on the departmental website on 24 October. This is aimed at headteachers, school governors, other members of the school management team and those who oversee the maintenance and repair of school buildings:

www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/buildingsanddesign/managementofpremises/b00215518/asbestosmanagementschools

The Department has not commissioned any research into asbestos related diseases of people working in schools. A research report was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) relating to a case control study that covered teachers as well as other professions and this was published in 2009. HSE also publish analyses of mesothelioma mortality by occupational groups including teachers. The approach to the management of asbestos as enacted by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 is informed by the results of such research.

A central national register of school buildings containing asbestos is unnecessary as it would duplicate records which those responsible for managing asbestos are required to keep. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, schools must maintain and regularly update an asbestos register with the location and condition of asbestos containing materials in the school.