Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his Answer of 6 March to Question 129597 on Unemployment: Young People, how many and what proportion of pupils who were (a) eligible for free school meals, (b) not eligible for free school meals, who were (i) included in the Children in Need census, (ii) not included in the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013-14, three years after finishing key stage 4, in each ethnic group.
Answered by Anne Milton
The following tables show the number and proportion of pupils that were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013-14, three years after finishing key stage 4. These figures include those eligible for free school meals, whether or not they were in the Children in Need census and their summary ethnic group. Pupils whose eligibility for free school meals is unknown are not included in these tables.
| Eligible for free school meals between 10 and 15 | Not eligible for free school meals between 10 and 15 | ||
Summary ethnic group | In the Children in Need census | Not in the Children in Need census | In the Children in Need census | Not in the Children in Need census |
White | 7,900 (26%) | 6,300 (9%) | 4,800 (19%) | 6,400 (2%) |
Mixed | 500 (22%) | 300 (6%) | 200 (17%) | 200 (2%) |
Black | 400 (15%) | 300 (3%) | 200 (14%) | 200 (1%) |
Asian | 200 (11%) | 300 (2%) | 200 (10%) | 300 (1%) |
Any other group | 100 (12%) | 100 (2%) | 100 (22%) | less than 100 (1%) |
Unknown | 600 (31%) | 300 (10%) | 300 (21%) | 300 (1%) |
Total | 9,600 (24%) | 7,500 (7%) | 5,800 (18%) | 7,400 (2%) |
Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Secretary of State for Education, what estimate he has made of the annual cost of extending (a) free school meals, (b) the pupil premium to all pupils whose parents are in receipt of universal credit in (i) each of the next four years and (ii) once universal credit has been fully rolled out.
Answered by Nadhim Zahawi
We estimate that providing free school meals to all children from households receiving Universal Credit would result in around half of all pupils becoming eligible for free school meals – over three times as many as the 1.1 million (14%) that are eligible for and claiming free school meals in the latest figures[1]. We estimate that this would cost in excess of £3 billion more a year, including the cost of the extra meals and associated school deprivation funding, such as the pupil premium – the additional meal costs alone would be in excess of £450 million per year.
Costs in each of the next four years will be lower than this as the proportion of the pupil population living in households receiving Universal Credit will be lower prior to the completion of rollout. We have not provided precise estimates for the next four years as we believe the level of uncertainty around these figures means that releasing them would not be in the public interest.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his Department's report, Characteristics of young people who are long-term NEET, published on 8 February, what proportion of young people who are classified as (a) white, eligible for free school meals, and Children in Need, (b) white, eligible for free school meals, and not Children in Need, (c) any ethnicity, eligible for free school meals, and not Children in Need, were not in education, employment or training in 2013-14.
Answered by Anne Milton
26 per cent of white pupils who were eligible for free school meals and included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
9 per cent of white pupils who were eligible for free school meals and not included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
7 per cent of pupils who were eligible for free school meals and not included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his Department's report, Characteristics of young people who are long-term NEET, published on 8 February, what proportion of young people who are classified as (a) white, eligible for free school meals, and Children in Need, (b) white, eligible for free school meals, and not Children in Need, (c) any ethnicity, eligible for free school meals, and not Children in Need, were not in education, employment or training in 2013-14.
Answered by Anne Milton
26 per cent of white pupils who were eligible for free school meals and included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
9 per cent of white pupils who were eligible for free school meals and not included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
7 per cent of pupils who were eligible for free school meals and not included within the Children in Need census, were not in education, employment or training for the whole of academic year 2013/14, three years after finishing key stage 4.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what discussions the Government has had with UK universities on the negotiations for the UK leaving the EU.
Answered by Sam Gyimah
We regularly engage with a wide range of higher education (HE) stakeholders – including universities and representative bodies such as Universities UK – at both ministerial and official levels to ensure we fully understand the sector’s priorities for EU exit. This engagement includes the High Level Stakeholder Working Group on EU Exit, Universities, Research and Innovation, which I chair as Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. This group brings together voices from across the HE and research sector, and is also attended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the European Union. We value this close engagement and we want to maintain a dialogue with the sector as discussions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU progress.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when she plans to publish her response to the consultation on mandatory reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect.
Answered by Robert Goodwill
The consultation 'Reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect' sought views on the advisability, risk, nature and scope of a mandatory duty to report child abuse and neglect and an alternative duty focused on taking appropriate action, as well as the effects of embedding current government reforms. The government has committed to laying a report before Parliament on the outcome of the consultation. Submissions are being considered and a government response will be published in due course. Just as it was right to consider in depth the evidence around these questions, it is important that we apply equally careful consideration to formulating our response in such a complex policy area, with such vitally important implications for the safety and welfare of children.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the cost of abolishing university tuition fees.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Marylebone
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated that abolishing tuition fees would increase the fiscal deficit for the 2017/18 student cohort by around £11bn, with the long-term cost of student funding increasing by around £6.5bn.
The major reforms to English higher education in 2012 have significantly increased average per-student funding. Graduates do not start repaying loans until their annual incomes reach £21,000, and loans are written off after 30 years.
By enabling English universities to charge current tuition fees, the Government no longer has to ration access to higher education via a cap on student numbers. This enables it to offer more places, including to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are now going to university at a record rate – they are 43% morelikely to go to university 43%more likely to go to university than they were in 2009.*
Graduates earn, on average, substantially more than people with A levels who did not go to university.
Various pieces of research show that Higher Education graduates earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes than those without a degree but with 2 or more A-Levels. The most recent BIS commissioned research shows that, on average, a male graduate could expect to earn £170,000 more and a female graduate £250,000 more over their lifetimes, than someone without a degree but with 2 or more A-levels, net of tax and other costs (2012 prices).
Abolishing tuition fees would be socially regressive: as well as unfairly burdening the general taxpayer, it would benefit mainly those students going on to well-paid jobs, who repay their loans in full.
*https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldsecleg/92/9207.htm
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the cost to the public purse of increasing teachers' pay in line with inflation over the course of the current Parliament.
Answered by Nick Gibb
Teachers’ pay is based on recommendations made by the School Teachers’ Review Body (SRTB).
The SRTB, which reports to the Secretary of State on an annual basis, considers evidence from a range of stakeholders before making their recommendations.
As stated in the Written Ministerial Statement on 10 July 2017 the Secretary of State has accepted the STRB’s recommendations for this year subject to the consultation, which commenced on 10 July 2017 and closes on 28 July 2017. When the consultation is complete the final School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document for 2017-18 will be published.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the cost of introducing free school meals to all primary school children.
Answered by Robert Goodwill
Expanding universal infant free school meals (UIFSM) to all primary school children is not something the government plans to do and we have not examined this fully. However, initial costings suggest there would be an additional cost of between £700m to £900m per year, increasing the overall cost of UIFSM to between £1.3 billion and £1.5 billion per year.
Asked by: Alex Burghart (Conservative - Brentwood and Ongar)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate she has made of the cost of restoring the education maintenance allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds in each parental income decile.
Answered by Anne Milton
The Department for Education has not assessed the cost of restoring the Education Maintenance Allowance for 16 to 18 year olds in each parental income decile.