|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Kitty Ussher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the capital costs of building new (a) schools that offer A-levels under the Building Schools for the Future programme and (b) colleges that predominantly serve 16 to 19-year-olds was financed by her Department in the last year for which figures are available. 
Information on the funding contributions to be made by local authorities to schools in the Building Schools for the Future programme is not held by the department. Local authorities are free to make their own investment decisions in accordance with their asset management plans. Total capital funding of around £2.2 billion per year to 200708 has been
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1696W
committed as part of Building Schools for the Future and this will benefit 47 schools that offer A-levels in the first wave (200506) of the programme. This information is not yet available for waves 2 and 3.
The Learning and Skills Council administers funding for Further Education capital projects and contributes grant aid towards the costs. Assessments of the appropriate level of contribution are made against affordability criteria. Levels of grant support vary from around 1050 per cent. of the total project costs, with an average of 35 per cent.
Jacqui Smith: The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) determines the appropriate level of funding for capital projects in further education colleges from the funds allocated to it by the Department for capital investment in the post-16 learning and skills sector, including relocation.
I am writing to you following Jacqui Smith's reply of 30 June to your question regarding funding to support the relocation of Burnley College. As the Minister said this is an operational matter for the LSC.
The LSC has been in discussion with Burnley College regarding its accommodation strategy for some time and the LSC has supported two feasibility studies into the relocation of the college to the amount of £66,000. Regular discussions are taking place involving the college and its property consultants, LSC Lancashire and the regional capital adviser to support the development of a formal proposal.
As I am sure you will appreciate, the LSC has finite capital resources and demand for support is extremely high. To manage this the LSC has developed a set of criteria including consideration of space utilisation, value for money and affordability. This is essential if the LSC is to ensure that limited resources are used in the most cost effective manner. It is only possible to consider these criteria against detailed proposals. Such proposals have not, as yet been submitted by the college but LSC Lancashire has acknowledged the urgent need for a new building on a new site in Burnley as a priority. Once formal proposals have been received full consideration will be given to them against the above criteria.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what progress there has been on the commitment in the Child Review 2004 to review the way in which education formulae operate in relation to schools in deprived areas; 
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1697W
(2) what the spending per pupil was in (a) the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities and (b) the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities in (i) 1997, (ii) 200203, (iii)200304 and (iv) 200405' 
(3) what the percentage difference in spending per pupil between the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities and the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities was in (a) 1997, (b) 200203, (c) 200304 and (d) 200405. 
Jacqui Smith [holding answer 23 June 2005]: The Government target additional resource to authorities where there are higher numbers of pupils living in deprived circumstances because these pupils are more likely to have additional educational needs, and they will require higher levels of funding if they are to have equality of opportunity. At national level, the formula for distributing funding for schools to local authorities comprises a basic entitlement for each pupil of the same age, which is the same across the country, plus top-ups reflecting the relative needs of each area, including a top-up for each pupil with additional educational needs. (The other top-ups are for higher area costs in some areas and sparsity in others). In addition, some specific grants such as Excellence in Cities have been directed towards deprived areas.
The funding that individual schools receive in their budget shares is a matter for local authorities through their local funding formulae. Each authority's local formula should direct resources according to the relative needs of the schools in the area and their pupils. Work on the joint HM Treasury/Department for Education and Skills review of the ways in which local education authorities fund schools for the effects of social deprivation started in the autumn of 2004. The collection of evidence from stakeholders and drafting of the report is largely complete and the review will be published when conclusions have been finalised. As stated in the Child Poverty Review document published in July 2004, those conclusions will need to recognise the priority of maintaining stability and predictability in school funding, while ensuring that funds are accurately targeted according to need.
The table sets out the spending figures for the least and most deprived authorities for 199798, 199899, 200203 and 200304. Figures for 200405 are not yet available. The figures reflect the Government's commitment to fund adequately pupils living in deprived circumstances.
The figures given include those for 199899 because those figures are more comparable with later years. That is because spending in 199798 reflected the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme: these were returned to local government from 199899. Also, because of local government reorganisation some authorities included in the calculations have only existed in their current form since 199899.
30 Jun 2005 : Column 1698W
|In the top 10 per cent. least deprived local authorities(3)(£)||In the top 10 per cent. most deprived local authorities(3)(£)||Percentage difference(4)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|