| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1933W—continued
School Finance
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the introduction of the proposals in the White Paper Higher Standards: Better Schools for All will affect the (a) capital programmes and (b) grants for schools whose education authorities have no plans to introduce independent trust schools and academies; and if she will make a statement. [50721]
Jacqui Smith:
Decisions to acquire a trust will be for individual schools' governing bodies. Local authorities will be able to object to such proposals, and the schools adjudicator will determine in certain circumstances. Plans for a school to become an academy are agreed between the department, the authority, the academy
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1934W
sponsor, and the predecessor school. Local plans for foundation or trust schools do not impact on capital or revenue allocations to authorities.
School revenue funding for foundation, trust, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and local authority schools is allocated on the same basis, irrespective of category of school. Academies are funded at the same level as an equivalent school in their area would be.
Strategic capital programmes including Building Schools for the Future are allocated according to need and regardless of category of school. Formulaic capital funding for authorities is allocated on the needs of all their schools, including foundation and trust schools, with a separate allocation on the same basis for voluntary aided schools from the overall voluntary aided fair share of funding. These allocations do not contain amounts in respect of academies, where funding is delivered directly from the department.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition of a dedicated capital pot was used in compiling the White Paper Higher Standards: Better Schools for All. [50722]
Jacqui Smith: In our White Paper, local authorities will have a duty to respond positively to parental desire for an entirely new school or for additional provision in an existing school. They will be expected to provide dedicated consultancy support to help parents develop concrete proposals. The local authority will decide whether proposals to establish a new school should be taken forward, or whether the demands could be met in other ways. Parents will have a right of appeal to the schools adjudicator if their proposals are rejected.
Any capital funding needed for new schools will usually be provided by existing capital programmes, including Building Schools for the Future, the Targeted Capital Fund and the formulaic funding which all authorities receive. However, where these or other local resources such as disposal proceeds are not available or are insufficient for the need, we will establish dedicated capital funding arrangements to support strong and innovative proposals that come from parents.
Initially, my Department are holding funds from our overall capital resources from the 2004 spending review settlement to meet any calls until 2007–08. We will, of course, reallocate this funding to other priorities should it not be fully required. For the longer term, from 2008–09, these needs will be reflected in allocation of funding to programme, following the settlement of the comprehensive spending review which will be announced by the Chancellor in mid-2007.
School Food
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the recommendations of the school food trust sub-committee on standards for school food other than lunch will be subject to a full regulatory impact assessment. [49857]
Jacqui Smith:
The School Food Trust has been commissioned to develop standards for food and drink provided in schools at times of the day other than lunchtime, for example in vending machines and tuck shops. In the near future we will carry out a consultation
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1935W
with key stakeholders in education, health and the food industry on the Trust's recommendations. A Regulatory Impact Assessment will accompany the consultation.
School Music
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding her Department has made available for school music facilities in (a) Leicester and (b) England in each academic year since 1997. [49641]
Jacqui Smith: Capital allocations made to Leicester local authority and its schools are set out in the following table:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98 | 0.9 |
| 1998–99 | 4.9 |
| 1999–2000 | 10.8 |
| 2000–01 | 11.0 |
| 2001–02 | 11.2 |
| 2002–03 | 9.3 |
| 2003–04 | 12.3 |
| 2004–05 | 18.3 |
| 2005–06 | 25.5 |
Note:
2004–05 and 2005–06 figures include targeted capital funds of £4.7 million and £15.2 million respectively.
Capital allocations to local authorities and schools are higher than ever before. In 2005–06 they are £5.5 billion and they are planned to rise to £6.3 billion in 2007–08, an increase from £683 million in 1996–97.
Capital allocations made to local authorities and schools in England since 1997–98 are set out in the following table:
| £ billion | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98 | 0.6 |
| 1998–99 | 1.3 |
| 1999–2000 | 1.6 |
| 2000–01 | 2.5 |
| 2001–02 | 2.5 |
| 2002–03 | 3.3 |
| 2003–04 | 4.2 |
| 2004–05 | 4.9 |
| 2005–06 | 5.5 |
Allocations are made on a financial year basis, not the academic year. It is the responsibility of schools and local authorities to determine how they allocate these funds to different projects, including enhancing school music facilities, taking account of local needs and priorities.
Records are not held centrally that show how much of this funding is spent on school music facilities.
School Sport
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding her Department has made available for improvements to school sports facilities in (a) Leicester and (b) England in each year between 1997 and 2005. [49600]
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1936W
Jacqui Smith: Significant funding is being provided specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities between 2001 and 2009. In total, £686 million of lottery funding is providing a step change in school sport facilities through the Space for Sport and Arts and Big Lottery's New Opportunities for PE and Sport programmes.
Local authorities and schools may supplement this with the formula capital funding that we provide to them. However, it is the responsibility of the schools and local authorities to determine how they allocate these funds to different projects, including enhancing school sports facilities, taking account of local needs and priorities.
Records are not held centrally that show how much of this funding is spent on school sports facilities, neither am I able to provide a breakdown for Leicester.
Schools
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes to the funding formula for schools have been made since 1997; and what effect each change has had on funds per pupil for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Cambridgeshire at constant prices. [51517]
Jacqui Smith [holding answer 13 February 2006]: For 1998–99, nursery vouchers were abolished and the grant was added to the total distributed through the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) methodology. The formula used to distribute funding for under 5s was also changed: prior to 1998–99, funding had been distributed on the basis of population of under 5s living within an authority; for 1998–99, 65 per cent. of under 5s funding was distributed on the basis of 4-year-old pupil numbers educated in an authority, with the remainder distributed on the basis of population of under 5s living within an authority. An allowance for sparsity was also introduced into the under 5s formula that year.
For 2001–02, Nursery Education Grant for 4-year-olds ceased to be paid as a separate grant: this funding was included in the total distributed through the SSA methodology, and distributed at a flat rate according to the numbers of four year olds in Private Voluntary and Independent Providers.
For 2002–03, funding for school sixth forms was transferred to the Learning and Skills Council. There were no changes made to the SSA formula that year.
For 2003–04, SSAs were replaced by Formula Spending Shares. Funding for schools provision and LEA central functions was separately identified, and new formulae were introduced to distribute funding for under 5s, primary, secondary and high cost pupils, and funding for the Youth Service and LEA central functions. New indicators were introduced to reflect deprivation.
For 2006–07 and 2007–08, the Dedicated Schools Grant was introduced, with the following distribution criteria: every authority receives an initial basic increase of 5 per cent. per pupil in both 2006–07 and 2007–08; beyond this basic increase, the available increase in funding in 2006–07 and 2007–08 reflects the priority which the government attaches to meeting the costs of
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1937W
greater personalisation of learning, more practical learning options for 14–16 pupils, workforce reform and the increased entitlement to early years provision from 33 to 38 weeks. In relation to each of these priorities, the sums allocated in 2006–07 will be consolidated into the authority's baseline for 2007–08, and any further sums identified for 2007–08 will be on top of that amount. Full details are available on the Teachernet website at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/schoolfunding/2006–07_funding_arrangements/DSG200608/
Identification of the effect on primary and secondary funding per pupil caused by these formula changes—as opposed to changes in data or spending totals—would only be possible at disproportionate cost. The following table shows the adjusted percentage increase in SSA, FSS or Dedicated Schools Grant as applicable for each year since 1997–98 for Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent on (a) repairing and (b) rebuilding schools in Tamworth constituency in each year since 1992. [48655]
Jacqui Smith: Allocation and expenditure records are maintained on a local authority rather than on a constituency basis. Accordingly, figures are supplied relating to Staffordshire county council. The figures in the following tables relate to the periods in which information is held centrally.
Public funding spent on (a) repairs since 1996–97 is set out in the table.
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1996–97 | 3.3 |
| 1997–98 | 3.9 |
| 1998–99 | 6.8 |
| 1999–2000 | 6.4 |
| 2000–01 | 6.9 |
| 2001–02 | 8.3 |
| 2002–03 | 6.3 |
| 2003–04 | 5.7 |
| 2004–05 | 6.6 |
Note:
2002–03 figures exclude figures nursery schools.
The table above sets out the available revenue figures received from Staffordshire county council, unaudited by the Department, on maintenance and improvement of schools.
Capital allocations to Staffordshire county council are set out in the following table.
14 Feb 2006 : Column 1938W
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1996–97 | 3.7 |
| 1997–98 | 7.4 |
| 1998–99 | 28.4 |
| 1999–2000 | 18.5 |
| 2000–01 | 34.1 |
| 2001–02 | 27.4 |
| 2002–03 | 32.9 |
| 2003–04 | 35.5 |
| 2004–05 | 41.1 |
| 2005–06 | 29.2 |
Note:
1998–99 figures include Private Finance Initiative credits of £13.7 million. 2004–05 figures include a Targeted Capital Fund allocation of £3.6 million, and a relatively large Basic Need allocation.
We expect local authorities and schools to take decisions locally on allocating funds between new buildings and improvements in accordance with priorities set out in their local asset management plans. Records of these categories of expenditures are not held centrally.
Capital allocations to local authorities and schools are higher than ever before. In 2005–06 they are £5.5 billion and they are planned to increase to £6.3 billion in 2007–08, an increase from £683 million in 1996–97.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |