|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will name the new schools which have been commissioned through the competitive process, broken down by local education authority; and what criteria were used in making the decision whether to use that process. 
Jacqui Smith: There have been no competitions held by local authorities to find alternative providers for new schools. Provisions in the Education Act 2002 and regulations made under that Act prescribe that a local authority may not make its own proposals for additional secondary schools unless it also invites proposals from other interested parties, but under this legislation proposals outside this process are possible from other proposers, and it is open to an authority to support these proposals rather than publish its own.
We are currently consulting on regulations under the 2005 Act that extend the competitive process to all new secondary schools, including replacement schools, and prevent the publication of proposals outside this process, by either local authorities or other proposers, unless the Secretary of State gives her consent.
Jacqui Smith: We are investing £220 million over three years to help schools and local authorities transform school meals through training and increased hours for cooks, equipment and a minimum spend on ingredients.
A targeted school meals grant of £30 million for this year has already been allocated to local authorities with a further £100 million over the following two years. Similarly, £30 million has been granted direct to schools as part of their standards fund allocations for the purposes of improving school food, with a further £60 million over the following two years.
A condition attached to the targeted school meals grant is that the authority's strategy must include plans to begin the reintroduction of universal hot meals provision, where it does not already exist, by September 2008.
Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) in what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary schools hot lunches are cooked (i) on and (ii) off the school premises in (A) Lincolnshire and (B) Boston and Skegness; 
(2) what the average cost of a school meal was for (a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils in (A) Lincolnshire and (B) Boston and Skegness constituency in the last period for which figures are available. 
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what weight has been given to the (a) sparsity and (b) deprivation factors in the school funding settlement in (i) 200607 and (ii) 200708. 
Jacqui Smith: Weights for deprivation and sparsity are not separately identified with the distribution method for Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) for 200607 and 200708. That method starts from each authority's budgeted spend for schools in 200506, which largely reflects the historical allocation of resources through the Schools Formula Spending Share (FSS) formula, which had separate weightings for deprivation, sparsity, and area costs. Given the importance the Government attaches to deprivation funding, the summary of indicative allocations of DSG (which can be found on the Teachernet website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/DSG200608/), includes an estimate of funding for deprivation contained within each authority's allocation of DSG. The national average is 10.5 per cent. for 200708 and 10.6 per cent. for 200708. The overall proportion of funding distributed on the basis of sparsity within Schools FSSthe predecessor to DSGwas 0.7 per cent. That proportion was based on research into the additional costs to sparsely populated authorities of keeping open small primary schools, and larger numbers of under fives settings, carried out during the formula review which led to the introduction of the Schools FSS formula. Almost half of all local authorities received no funding for sparsity through the schools FSS formula and the maximum proportion of funding for sparsity across all authorities was 3.6 per cent. The formula for the LEA FSS recognised the increased costs of home to school transport in sparse authorities.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average financial position of (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools was in each local education authority at the latest available date. 
|Local authority name||Average (mean)(141) revenue balance(142)(5508830143) per LA maintained primary school(144)||Average (mean)(141) revenue balance(142)(5508830143) per LA maintained secondary school(144)|
|Barking and Dagenham||42,519||94,800|
|Bath and NE Somerset||46,362||152,284|
|Brighton and Hove NB UG1||26,053||207,320|
|City of Derby||44,882||63,287|
|City of Nottingham||39,258||22,180|
|City of Westminster||80,172||288,025|
|Corporation of London||41,917||n/a|
|East Sussex NB UG1||39,490||134,587|
|Hammersmith and Fulham||106,690||366,310|
|Isle of Wight||38,334||92,831|
|Isles of Scilly||24,601||n/a|
|Kensington and Chelsea||85,462||171,873|
|Kingston upon Hull (Hull City)||45,987||90,285|
|North East Lincolnshire||42,498||195,718|
|Redcar and Cleveland||72,119||190,071|
|Windsor and Maidenhead||22,441||63,062|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|