| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Special Schools
Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether money allocated to her Department as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be used to increase funding and resources for special schools. [71741]
Mr. Milliband [holding answer 23 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce details of the full allocations between and within the various sectors of education later in the year. Individual special schools will continue to be funded by local authorities, but they will all benefit from an increase next year in direct funding through School Standards Grant and devolved formula capital.
Specialist Schools
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of (a) specialist schools and (b) applicants for that status offer music as their specialist subject. [71922]
Mr. Miliband: There are no specialist schools or applicants for specialist designation offering music as their specialism. However, 66 of the 685 specialist schools in operation as of September 2001 are Arts Colleges specialising in the performing arts, including music, dance and drama.
Training and Enterprise Councils
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list (a) the total sums made available to training and enterprise councils and (b) the sums spent by TECs on (i) work-based training for young people, (ii) work-based training for adults and (iii) other Government-funded programmes, in each year from 1995–96 to 2000–01. [71169]
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1355W
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The following table gives details of sums made available to TECs and actual spend between the years 1996–97 and 2000–01. Information for earlier years is not available.
| (£000s) Spend | Sums made available (Budget) | |
|---|---|---|
| 2000–01 | ||
| Work Based Training Young People | 810,592 | 859,237 |
| Work Based Training Adults | 260,448 | 279,314 |
| Other Programmes | 198,900 | 183,407 |
| Total | 1,269,940 | 1,321,958 |
| 1999–2000 | ||
| Work Based Training Young People | 770,876 | 832,376 |
| Work Based Training Adults | 233,360 | 298,622 |
| Other Programmes | 215,929 | 222,078 |
| Total | 1,220,165 | 1,353,076 |
| 1998–99 | ||
| Work Based Training Young People | 696,499 | 727,908 |
| Work Based Training Adults | 130,337 | 169,891 |
| Other Programmes | 206,675 | 218,993 |
| Total | 1,033,511 | 1,116,792 |
| 1997–98 | ||
| Work Based Training Young People | 729,834 | 730,530 |
| Work Based Training Adults | 213,806 | 223,577 |
| Other Programmes | 201,279 | 213,470 |
| Total | 1,144,919 | 1,167,577 |
| 1996–97 | ||
| Work Based Training Young People | 736,807 | 750,165 |
| Work Based Training Adults | 265,875 | 271,046 |
| Other Programmes | 153,537 | 154,882 |
| Total | 1,156,219 | 1,176,093 |
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list in respect of each training and enterprise council the number of staff (a) employed at the end of 1999–2000, (b) transferred to the Learning and Skills Council, (c) transferred to the Small Business Service, (d) transferred to Business Links, (e) transferred to other organisations and (f) made redundant by the TEC prior to 31 March 2001. [71173]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Please following table shows the number of staff employed by the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) for the period 1999–2000. These figures were taken from the TEC audited Statutory Accounts. As TECs were private limited companies engaged in a wide range of activities the Department was not in a position to monitor the actual destination of each individual employed by them.
However the Department can confirm that of the staff in post at March 25 2001, 3750 transferred with TUPE rights of employment to the LSC and just over 320 to the Employment service. A further 520 staff with transfer rights took voluntary severance or were made redundant for technical reasons.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1356W
Information relating to the numbers of staff transferring to other organisations or otherwise being made redundant is not available.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1357W
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the aggregate amounts for each year from 1995–96 to 2000–01 to which her Department gave consent to transfer by training and enterprise councils between budget heads, showing for each budget head the total amount transferred out and the heads to which it was transferred. [71171]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: This information is not available. Training and enterprise councils obtained approval from Government Offices to transfer between budget heads on an individual TEC basis. This information was not collated centrally.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance was given by her Department to training and enterprise councils on the virement of funds between the budgets allocated for work-based training for young people and adults and those for central TEC administration, for each of the years 1995–96 to 2000–01. [71170]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The guidance relating to the virement of funds between budgets allocated for work-based training for young people and adults was detailed and complex but in essence prior to 1999–2000 TECs were allowed to vire up to 10 per cent. of their surpluses from one "budget" (funding block) to another subject to them meeting certain minimum performance targets.
This guidance was revised in the 1999–2000 TEC Licence to formally restrict the levels of surpluses that could be generated and switched from one funding block to another to 7 per cent. in total.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list in respect of each training and enterprise council (a) her estimate of the aggregate of training and enterprise council surpluses attributable to public funds, (b) the amount paid over to public funds to date in respect of those surpluses, and (c) the action her Department is taking to recover outstanding amounts. [71174]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: We are not yet able to give a final account of the individual or aggregate amounts of Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) surpluses
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1358W
attributable to public funds and we will not be able to do so until the Liquidators appointed to wind up the TEC companies (59 of the 72 TECs) have completed their work. In the case of the remaining TECs who are to continue trading, we will not be able to give the figures until we have finally resolved the amount of attributable reserves due back to us.
However the Department believes that by March 2003 they will have received back from the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) approximately £250 million worth of reserves. This amount includes £127 million in respect of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs), £45 million in legacy funds for the Learning and Skills Council, £40 million in fixed assets transferred to a range of successor bodies or for use in the local community and £38 million for the National Transition Budget which is used to meet specific costs incurred in setting up the LSC, e.g., new IT system.
To date we have received £100 million for ILAs, £24 million for LSC legacy funds and 16m towards the National Transition Budget.
The return of funds has taken longer than initially expected due to the variety and complexity of issues which have had to be resolved, prior to TECs being able to appoint a liquidator or agree a clean break with the Department where the TEC have decided to continue. The Department are currently working closely with the relevant TECs and liquidators to ensure that outstanding issues are resolved and funds released as a matter of urgency. We have on occasions threatened the appointment of an administrative receiver where we have failed to secure the level of co-operation needed.
In return for releasing funds the Department is offering TEC Boards and or liquidators financial guarantees in the form of indemnities that ensure the funds will be repaid if they need them to meet genuine contractual commitments. In our experience all liquidators have been reluctant to release reserves until they have completed the wind-up, which in most cases is proving a complex and time-consuming process that can take over a year from appointment.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list in respect of each training and enterprise council for 2000–01 the proportion of total expenditure on Government-funded programmes represented by central administration costs; and what assessment she has made of whether the sums spent on central administration represented value for public money; [71172]
- (2) if she will list (a) the total sums made available by her Department or its predecessors to training and enterprise councils for their central administration costs and (b) the amounts actually spent by TECs on central administration for each year from 1995–96 to 2000–01. [71168]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Information on central administration costs is not available. Training and enterprise councils were not provided with specific funds for their central administration costs. They received payments for programme and strategic budgets deemed to include an unspecified contribution towards administration costs. The amounts spent by TECs on administration and its disclosure were a matter for individual TECs and varied
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1359W
between them. Some TECs showed no administration costs within their statutory accounts under this heading, while most excluded the costs of staff involved in the direct delivery of their programmes. However, all TECs had to show staffing costs as a note within their accounts.
While this understates administration costs, as it does not cover expenditure on premises, information technology and other support systems, it is the best proxy for the information sought. I have therefore provided
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1360W
below figures for each of the financial years from 1995–96 to 2000–01 showing spend on staffing costs of each of the former Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in England as stated in their consolidated annual statutory audited accounts for the full range of activity TECs undertook.
Any direct comparison of staff costs between TECs is misleading, both because there is no statutory definition of staff costs and also because the range of training and enterprise activities differed between TECs.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1361W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |