|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Schools in Barnet which have received ring-fenced funding from the Department since 1997, in addition to East Barnet secondary school, are as follows: Targeted capital funding (TCF) allocations of £2.7 million in 2002-03 for development of the Compton school, £6.8 million in 2004-05 for Akiva primary school, and £4.4 million in 2005-06 for a school for the future at West Hendon.
In addition each local authority is required, from its allocations, to give schools devolved formula capital (DFC) for their own use. Guidelines on how local authorities should calculate DFC are set out in the following website link:
All these schools are providing a core offer of extended services. This is comprised of a varied menu of study support activities and high quality childcare 8am-6pm all year round in primary schools. These services will be provided on the school site or in partnership with local private, voluntary and independent providers. They will also offer parenting support; swift and easy referral to a wide range of specialist support services such as health and social care; and wider community access to ICT, sports and arts facilities, on the school site including adult learning.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount spent by (a) his Department and (b) local education authorities was on each full-time pupil attending secondary school in England in each year from 2003-04 to 2006-07. 
Jim Knight: The following table gives the information requested on the average amount spent by the Department and local education authorities on each full-time pupil attending secondary school in England in each year from 2003-04 to 2006-07.
1. Price Base: real terms at 2005-06 prices, based on GDP deflators as at 27 September 2006
2. Figures reflect relevant sub-blocks of standard spending assessment/education formula spending (EFS) settlements. Figures include the pensions transfer to EFS.
3. Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 11 to 15 and exclude education maintenance allowances (EMAs) and grants not allocated at LEA level. For those authorities in receipt of advance of grant under the transitional support arrangements for 2004-05, advance grant funding is included in the year of payment (2004-05). There will be a consequential reduction in DfES grant for these LEAs in future years (either 2006-07 and 2007-08 or 2006-07 to 2008-09, depending on the terms on which the advance was given to the LEA).
4. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to per pupil are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations.
5. Rounding: figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
6. Some of the grant allocations have not been finalised. If these do change, the effect on the funding figures is expected to be minimal.
7. The revenue funding per pupil figures only run to 2005-06 because we cannot provide a consistent time series beyond that year as the introduction of the dedicated schools grant (DSG) in 2006-07 fundamentally changed how local authorities are funded. The 2004-05 and 2005-06 figures are based on education formula spending (EFS) which formed the education part of the local government finance settlement, plus various grants. This was an assessment of what local authorities needed to fund education rather than what they spent. In 2006-07 funding for schools changed with the introduction of the DSG which is based largely on an authority's previous spending.
8. In addition, DSG has a different coverage to EFS: EFS comprised a schools block and an LEA block (to cover LEA central functions) whereas DSG only covers the school block. LEA block items are still funded through DCLG's local government finance settlement but education items cannot be separately identified. This means we have a break in our time series as the two sets of data are not comparable, an alternative time series is currently under development.
9. To provide a comparison for 2006-07 DSG, we have isolated the schools block equivalent funding in 2005-06; as described above this does not represent the totality of education funding in that year.
|2005-06 Baseline||2006-07 DSG|
(b) The funding which individual schools receive via their school budget shares is a matter for individual local authorities to decide locally through their own local funding formulae (subject to satisfying the minimum funding guarantee for schools from 2004-05 onwards). The amount of revenue funding allocated to secondary schools per pupil at the start of financial year by local authorities is contained in the following table:
|Total budget share plus grants( 1) per pupil( 2) allocated( 3) to local authority maintained secondary schools( 4) in England2003-04 to 2006-07. These figures are in real terms: 2005-06 prices( 6) :|
|Secondary school budget share plus grants per pupil( 1,2,3,4,5)|
|(1) Budget share plus grants is the combination of the schools individual budget share plus any revenue grants allocated to the school at the start of the financial year. In 2003-04, the amount of Excellence in Cities (EiC) grant allocated to individual schools was not recorded on the Section 52 budget statements and is therefore excluded from the figures for that year. The EiC grant allocated to secondary schools accounts for 36 and 41 of the respective 2004-05 and 2005-06 per pupil totals (EiC no longer existed as a separate grant in 2006-07).|
(2) The pupil numbers used to calculate the per pupil amounts are as reported by the local authority on their Section 52 budget statement comprising of the full time equivalent number pupils registered at the school used for the initial determination of the school's budget share under the local authority's allocation formula.
(3) The amount of money allocated to a school depends very much on the individual local authorities own policy for funding their schools. Different authorities retain varying amounts of funding centrally to spend on behalf of their schools while others chose to give schools more autonomy over how they spend their money by devolving more funding to the individual school.
(4) All schools are as deemed by the local authority on their Section 52 budget statement. Hence middle deemed secondary schools are included in the figures for secondary schools. Secondary figures also include any LSC funding and LSC pupils for schools with 6th forms.
(5) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and may not sum due to rounding.
6 Cash figures are adjusted to 2005-06 prices using the December 2006 GDP deflators.
The data are drawn from local authorities' Section 52 budget statements (Table 2) submitted to the Department for Education and Skills.
Mr. Dhanda: We have met the milestones for development of the new specialised Diploma qualifications that we published in the 14-19 Education and Skills Implementation Plan (DfES 2037-2005DCL-EN). This means that we are on track for specialised diploma courses to be provided for the first time from September 2008.
Chris McCafferty: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in delivering the Governments strategy to combat teenage pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. 
We are making steady progress In reducing Englands teenage pregnancy rate. The latest data show that between 1998 and 2004 the under-18
rate fell by 11.1 per cent. and the under-16 rate fell by 15.2 per cent. Both rates are now at their lowest levels for 20 years.
Helen Southworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 13 December 2006, Official Report, column 1155W, what steps have been taken to ensure that vulnerable young people at Thorn Cross Young Offender Institute will continue to receive their entitlement to services under the Childrens Act 1989 after March 2007. 
Beverley Hughes: As a result of the discussions referred to in my previous reply, the Government and the Youth Justice Board have decided to provide funding to support the role of social worker posts in young offender institutions for a further year, to March 2008, and to consider the best way forward in the light of the evaluation of this initiative. I should reiterate however that this facilitates but does not remove the statutory duty on local authorities to provide services to children and young people in need and I still expect them to act in accordance with this responsibility.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 16 January 2007, Official Report, column 1054W, on parents in prison and 30 January 2007, Official Report, column 226W, on young carers, if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities make reference to groups of vulnerable children in their Children and Young Peoples Plans. 
Mr. Dhanda: Children and Young Peoples Plans must be broad in coverage yet succinct and accessible. They will be underpinned by detailed operational plans showing how the needs of particular groups of vulnerable children are to be met. Guidance makes clear that children, young people and families should be involved in a needs assessment and that the views of vulnerable groups should be sought.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of local authorities which spend 20 per cent. of their carers grant allocation on young carers support, according to the formula recommended by Government. 
Mr. Dhanda [holding answer 5 February 2007]: We do not collect this information. Although the Department of Health publishes guidance each year to assist local authorities in the use of their allocations, it is for the authorities themselves to make spending decisions based on local needs.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions she
has had with the Afghan Government on the dismissal of Mohammed Daud as provincial governor of Helmand Province; 
Dr. Howells: The United Kingdom is the second largest donor of development assistance to Afghanistan and the second largest troop contributor. We made clear to the Afghan Government that as lead nation for the Helmand Provincial Reconstruction Team we continued to have confidence in governor Daud.
Decisions on appointments are for the Afghan Government to make. We welcome the positive relationship that our officials have already established with the Helmands new governor, Asaddullah Wafa, with whom we are working closely and constructively.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what (a) investigations she has undertaken into and (b) reports she has received on the detention of the Algerian nationals known as Q and K in Algeria following their deportation from the UK; whether access is permitted to the two men; and if she will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: Four individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activity were deported to Algeria between 20 and 27 January 2007. Embassy officials in Algiers are in regular contact with senior Algerian Government officials. The Algerian Government have provided information on all four men, including whether they have been detained. The latest information is that all four men were detained for questioning; two were released before the 12 day period of detention authorised under the Algerian Penal Code expired; one man remained in detention as of 6 February (the 12 day period of detention not having expired in his case); and one remained in detention, having been charged with an offence before the 12 day period expired. Article 51(a)(l) of the Algerian Penal Code states that a person held in custody is entitled to communicate with his family and to receive visits, subject to preservation of the secrecy of the investigation. Embassy officials will stay in close touch with the Algerian Government.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Algeria on the detention in Algeria of two men removed from the UK on 20 and 24 January 2007. 
Dr. Howells: Four individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activity were deported to Algeria between 20 and 27 January 2007. Embassy officials in Algiers are in regular contact with senior Algerian Government officials. The Algerian Government have provided information on all four men, including whether they have been detained. The latest information is that all four men were detained for questioning; two were released before the 12 day period of detention authorised under the Algerian Penal Code expired; one man remained in detention as of 6 February (the 12 day period of detention not having expired in his case); and one remained in detention, having been charged with an offence before the 12 day period expired. Embassy officials will stay in close touch with the Algerian Government.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions on independence for Bermuda; what the Governments policy is on independence for Bermuda; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Hoon: There are no discussions taking place with Bermuda on independence. Britains policy towards the Overseas Territories rests on the basis that it is the citizens of each territory who determine whether they stay British.
Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to reciprocal pension arrangements for nationals of Commonwealth countries at the last three Commonwealth Heads of Government conferences; and what plans she has to place the matter on the agenda of the next conference. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|