1-20 of 44 results for subject:Finance
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.209 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Finance
- We searched for
- subject_t:Finance OR subject_ses:91257
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
Primary member
Blunkett, Lord (44)
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
If she will list the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education in each OECD country in the last 10 years. - Inc table.
If she will list the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education in each OECD country in the last 10 years. - Inc table.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
James Paice
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
12 December 1996
Answered on
12 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the proportion of gross domestic product
spent on education in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country in the last 10 years. [8557]
Mr. Paice: The information requested for those OECD countries for which data are available is shown in the following table. The
figures given are based on information provided by each country to OECD for its latest edition of "Education at a Glance", published
on 9 December. Copies of "Education at a Glance" will shortly be available in the Library.
Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, 1984 - 1993
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
North America
Canada 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.8 | 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.2 | 6.9
Mexico 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.9 | 4.1
United States 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.8 | 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.4 | 5.2
Pacific Area
Australia 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 | 5.5 n/a 4.6 4.7 5.5 | 5.6
Japan n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a | 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 | 3.6
New Zealand 4.7 5.1 5.8 5.9 6.1 | n/a n/a n/a 6.5 | 6.7
European Union
Austria 5.8 5.8 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.8 | 5.5
Denmark n/a 6.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.3 n/a n/a | 6.6
Finland 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 | 5.7 6.0 6.1 8.3 | 7.9
France 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 | 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 | 5.7
Germany 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 | 4.8
Greece 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.4 | n/a n/a n/a n/a | 3.5
Ireland 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.2 | 5.4 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.5 | 5.6
Italy 5.1 5.0 5.0 | 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 n/a 5.1 | 5.1
Netherlands 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.9 | 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 | 5.4
Portugal 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.2 | 4.0 4.3 5.5 n/a | 5.4
Spain 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 | 4.7
Sweden 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.5 | 5.4 5.6 6.5 7.7 | 7.7
United Kingdom 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.8 | 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.3 5.2 | 5.1
Other OECD countries
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.2 n/a n/a | 6.0
Norway 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.7 | 7.0 n/a 6.8 n/a | 9.0
Switzerland 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.0 | n/a 5.2 5.4 5.7 | 5.8
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Notes:
Vertical bars indicate a break in the series.
n/a= Data not available. Source:
Data supplied to OECD by individual countries for the publication "Education at a Glance", OECD December 1996.
Subjects
Finance; Education; OECD countries
Date
12 December 1996
Reference
8557; 287 c314W
House
House of Commons
When, by what mechanism and to which local authorities the £50m in capital allowances announced in the Budget statement will be distributed. - Includes fact that copy of the Department's letter setting out the basis on which these distributions will be made has been placed in the Library as DEP/3...
When, by what mechanism and to which local authorities the £50m in capital allowances announced in the Budget statement will be distributed. - Includes fact that copy of the Department's letter setting out the basis on which these distributions will be made has been placed in the Library as DEP/3...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Cheryl Gillan
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 December 1996
Answered on
9 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when, by what mechanism and to which local authorities the
£50 million in capital allowances announced in the Budget statement will be distributed. [7471]
Mrs. Gillan: I expect to make an announcement about the distribution of credit approvals to local education authorities and of grant
to governors of voluntary-aided schools for 1997-98, including amounts over and above the previously announced baselines, later this
month. A copy of the Department's letter setting out the basis on which these distributions will be made has been placed in the
Library. Further support is also available through the specialist schools programme. The distribution of grant to the governors of
grant-maintained schools is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools.
Subjects
Central government; Finance; Education; Grants; Local government; Schools; Voluntary schools
Date
9 December 1996
Reference
7471; 287 c9W
House
House of Commons
If she will publish a breakdown of (a) the £830m available for education in 1997-98, according to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (b) the £875m quoted in the departmental Press release and (c) the £633m available for local education authorities, showing how the above figures are intended...
If she will publish a breakdown of (a) the £830m available for education in 1997-98, according to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (b) the £875m quoted in the departmental Press release and (c) the £633m available for local education authorities, showing how the above figures are intended...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 December 1996
Answered on
9 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a breakdown of (a) the £830 million
available for education in 1997-98, according to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (b) the £875 million quoted in
the departmental press release and (c) the £633 million available for local education authorities, showing how the above figures are
intended to be spent. [7470]
Mr. Robin Squire: The £875 million is the increase in provision for schools, colleges and universities between 1996-97, after
adjusting for in-year changes, and 1997-98. Of this, £830 million relates to schools. The £633 million is the increase in local
authority education standard spending--total education standard spending assessments plus recurrent specific grants to local
authorities related to education--as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement
to the House on the local authority financial settlement on 27 November 1996.
The breakdown of the £875 million increase is shown in the table:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Increase in: £ million
Education standard spending assessments{1} 591
New money for the nursery voucher scheme 129
Assisted places scheme 22
GEST 22
GM recurrent 15
OFSTED 13
Schools capital{2} 9
Specialist schools{3} 7
Other smaller items{4} 22
Sub total--schools 830
Further and higher education institutions 45
Total 875
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} After adjustments for changes in function and funding, in particular the national introduction of the nursery voucher scheme
{2} After allowing for contribution to LA challenge
{3} Includes an increase in capital provision of £3 million
{4} Including additional resources for ethnic minorities (section 11 grant), teacher training, changes to key stage 2/3 tests, the
music and ballet scheme and literacy and numeracy centres.
Subjects
Central government; Finance; Education; Grants; Local government; Schools
Date
9 December 1996
Reference
7470; 287 c8-9W
House
House of Commons
What amounts have been requested by way of capital spending in 1997-98 by each local education authority; and what has been the total amount requested in England. - Table given.
What amounts have been requested by way of capital spending in 1997-98 by each local education authority; and what has been the total amount requested in England. - Table given.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Cheryl Gillan
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
5 December 1996
Answered on
5 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amounts have been requested by way of capital spending
in 1997-98 by each local education authority; and what has been the total amount requested in England. [7473]
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the schools capital expenditure, annual capital
grants, bid for each local education authority for 1997-98. [7711]
Mrs. Gillan: Each year we invite LEAs to submit their plans for education capital expenditure so that we can determine the level of
their annual capital guidelines. The following table shows the total of each LEA's planned expenditure for 1997-98, as submitted to
the Department in October.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Lea Total planned expenditure (£000)
Barking and Dagenham 3,584
Barnet 8,143
Barnsley 5,361
Bath and North-east Somerset 4,,382
Bedfordshire 9,897
Berkshire 5,892
Bexley 7,787
Birmingham 53,490
Bolton 5,872
Bournemouth 7,179
Bradford 63,643
Brent 10,278
Brighton and Hove 4,311
Bristol 3,024
Bromley 3,974
Buckinghamshire 13,740
Bury 1,900
Calderdale 9,121
Cambridgeshire 27,575
Camden 4,933
Cheshire 39,356
City 0
Cornwall 9,605
Coventry 12,334
Croydon 6,736
Cumbria 20,529
Darlington 3,488
Derby 8,837
Derbyshire 30,355
Devon 38,113
Doncaster 3,527
Dorset 14,341
Dudley 5,505
Durham 49,951
Ealing 67,218
East Riding of Yorks 2,872
East Sussex 24,747
Enfield 22,652
Essex 84,555
Gateshead 10,282
Gloucestershire 31,964
Greenwich 10,568
Hackney 9,073
Hammersmith and Fulham 9,371
Hampshire 28,299
Haringey 16,573
Harrow 16,926
Hartlepool 3,921
Havering 5,851
Hereford and Worcester 10,890
Hertfordshire 27,171
Hillingdon 3,814
Hounslow 7,447
Hull 12,826
Isle of Wight 12,094
Isles of Scilly 49
Islington 8,839
Kensington and Chelsea 2,555
Kent 50,939
Kingston 5,969
Kirklees 6,795
Knowsley 2,901
Lambeth 22,534
Lancashire 34,469
Leeds 42,407
Leicester 1,486
Leicestershire 6,375
Lewisham 30,904
Lincolnshire 8,936
Liverpool 23,325
Luton 8,568
Manchester 48,375
Merton 6,552
Middlesbrough 2,198
Milton Keynes 12,179
North Somerset 5,269
North Tyneside 8,169
North Yorkshire 29,821
North-east Lincolnshire 14,471
Newcastle 5,372
Newham 10,461
Norfolk 23,979
North Lincolnshire 6,007
Northamptonshire 20,729
Northumberland 1,799
Nottinghamshire 24,672
Oldham 8,048
Oxfordshire 30,218
Poole 4,442
Portsmouth 9,438
Redbridge 12,611
Redcar and Cleveland 2,856
Richmond 4,685
Rochdale 8,669
Rotherham 4,770
Rutland 290
South Gloucestershire 8,367
South Tyneside 9,677
Salford 29,083
Sandwell 11,982
Sefton 3,521
Sheffield 51,309
Shropshire 5,981
Solihull 4,708
Somerset 12,130
Southampton 3,229
Southwark 8,260
St. Helens 5,310
Staffordshire 24,120
Stockport 6,028
Stockton on Tees 5,754
Stoke on Trent 9,147
Suffolk 21,155
Sunderland 9,010
Surrey 25,683
Sutton 8,071
Tameside 5,901
Thamesdown 5,269
Tower Hamlets 12,595
Trafford 8,957
Wakefield 27,486
Walsall 6,804
Waltham Forest 11,937
Wandsworth 4,439
Warwickshire 5,528
West Sussex 12,920
Westminster 4,853
Wigan 16,365
Wiltshire 10,760
Wirral 9,976
Wolverhampton 12,798
York 5,223
Totals 1,903,343
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Capital investment; Finance; Local education authorities
Date
5 December 1996
Reference
7473; 286 c739-41W;286 c737-9W
House
House of Commons
If she will list (a) the breakdown of the allocations under each separate title of the grants for education support and training in 1996-97, (b) the planned breakdown for 1997-98, and (c) the change in numbers and percentage between the two years for each element and the total allocations for...
If she will list (a) the breakdown of the allocations under each separate title of the grants for education support and training in 1996-97, (b) the planned breakdown for 1997-98, and (c) the change in numbers and percentage between the two years for each element and the total allocations for...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
2 December 1996
Answered on
2 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list (a) the breakdown of the allocations under
each separate title of the grants for education support and training in 1996-97, (b) the planned breakdown for 1997-98, and (c) the
change in numbers and percentage between the two years for each element and the total allocations for the above periods. [6937]
Mr. Robin Squire: The following table sets out allocations under the grants for education support and training--GEST--programme for
1996-97. GEST allocations for 1997-98 will be announced in December.
Grants for education support and training 1996-97
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Number Grant Programme £ million
1a School Effectiveness 131.7
1b School Improvement Initiatives 2.3
2a NC Assessment--audit 8.4
2b NC Assessment--supply cover 16.8
3a Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge 16.7
3b Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment 2.9
4 Training for Special Educational Needs 10.5
5 School SEN Policies 9.9
6 SEN Parent Partnership Schemes 4.0
7 Licensed and Overseas Teachers 0.4
8 Vocational Qualifications 10.9
8b Vocational Qualifications--pilot Part Ones 3.5
9A and B Truancy and Disaffected Pupils 13.8
9C Pupil Behaviour and Discipline 3.7
10 Training in Youth and Community Work 2.2
11 Bilingual Pupils 5.7
12 Training for Careers Teachers 4.0
13a Drug Prevention and Schools (Formula) 4.5
13b Drug Prevention and Schools (Bids) 1.4
14 Specialist Schools 6.9
15a Literacy and Numeracy Centres 3.5
15b Literacy and Numeracy (Books and 1.5
Equipment)
16 Specialist Teacher Assistants 1.2
Programme total 266.4
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Grants for education support and training
Date
2 December 1996
Reference
6937; 286 c480W;286 c478W
House
House of Commons
If she will give a breakdown of spending on the grant-maintained sector in 1996-97 and of planned spending in 1997-98, showing (a) current funding and (b) capital funding and the percentage change between the two years. - Inc table.
If she will give a breakdown of spending on the grant-maintained sector in 1996-97 and of planned spending in 1997-98, showing (a) current funding and (b) capital funding and the percentage change between the two years. - Inc table.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
2 December 1996
Answered on
2 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give a breakdown of spending on the
grant-maintained sector in 1996-97 and of planned spending in 1997-98, showing (a) current funding and (b) capital funding and the
percentage change between the two years. [6927]
Mr. Forth: The information requested is as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1996-97 1997-98 Percentage increase
£ million £ million
Recurrent {1}101 116.2 15.0
Capital 138 144.9 5.0
Total 239 261.1 9.6
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Funding to the Education Assets Board and Education Associations is not included in the 1997-98 recurrent baseline. It has
therefore been deducted from the published recurrent amounts shown for 1996-97 so as to provide comparable figures.
Subjects
Finance; Grant maintained schools
Date
2 December 1996
Reference
6927; 286 c481-2W;286 c479-80W
House
House of Commons
If she will give a breakdown of spending on the Teacher Training Agency in 1996-97 and of planning spending for 1997-98. - Inc figs.
If she will give a breakdown of spending on the Teacher Training Agency in 1996-97 and of planning spending for 1997-98. - Inc figs.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
2 December 1996
Answered on
2 December 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give a breakdown of spending on the Teacher
Training Agency in 1996-97 and of planning spending for 1997-98. [6936]
Mr. Forth: The latest estimate of the Department's grant to the Teacher Training Agency in 1996-97 is £197.763 million, consisting
of £190.090 million recurrent expenditure, £4.473 million on capital expenditure and £3.200 million on administration costs. Subject
to parliamentary approval, we plan a total grant of £209.771 million to the TTA in 1997-98, including £204.778 million on programme
expenditure and £4.993 million on administration. Decisions on the detailed distribution of these sums are for the TTA itself.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Teacher Training Agency
Date
2 December 1996
Reference
6936; 286 c481W;286 c479W
House
House of Commons
If she will list for each local education authority in England the number of surplus places and the money allocated to removing them using the latest available data. - Inc ref to 274 c113-8w and table of allocations for new surplus place removal projects.
If she will list for each local education authority in England the number of surplus places and the money allocated to removing them using the latest available data. - Inc ref to 274 c113-8w and table of allocations for new surplus place removal projects.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
18 November 1996
Answered on
18 November 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in
England the number of surplus places and the money allocated to removing them using the latest available data. [4728]
Mr. Robin Squire: For the number of surplus places in each local education authority, I refer the hon. Member to the reply the
Under-Secretary my hon. Friend for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)
on Tuesday 19 March 1996, Official Report, columns 113-18.
One of our priorities for capital allocations is supporting cost-effective surplus place removal projects. The following table shows
the amount allocated in 1995-96 and 1996-97, in response to local education authority bids, for the first year costs of new surplus
place removal projects.
Allocations for new surplus place removal projects
£000
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1995-96 1996-97
Avon 4,929 --
Barnsley 2,725 671
Bedfordshire 243 495
Berkshire 0 461
Bexley 175 0
Birmingham 1,077 1,290
Bolton 0 574
Bradford 346 750
Brent 14 0
Bristol -- 108
Buckinghamshire 57 467
Calderdale 0 115
Cambridgeshire 127 469
Cheshire 443 20
Cleveland 275 --
Cornwall 656 0
Coventry 120 379
Cumbria 1,180 870
Derbyshire 610 0
Devon 2 0
Doncaster 7,472 355
Durham 133 802
Ealing 0 241
East Sussex 300 1,335
Essex 1,278 1,601
Gateshead 2,500 530
Greenwich 61 741
Hackney 100 750
Hampshire 1,457 3,167
Havering 15 0
Hereford and Worcester 0 116
Hertfordshire 0 173
Humberside 1,477 --
Kent 2,663 0
Kirklees 165 398
Knowsley 50 110
Lambeth 50 0
Lancashire 35 40
Leeds 0 3,590
Liverpool 505 990
Manchester 400 240
Norfolk 387 376
Northamptonshire 340 50
North Tyneside 280 198
Northumberland 528 151
North Yorkshire 425 0
Nottinghamshire 638 805
Oxfordshire 336 495
Rochdale 0 73
Rotherham 25 281
St. Helens 0 366
Salford 435 630
Sandwell 0 610
Sefton 78 88
Sheffield 63 737
Shropshire 168 62
South Tyneside 665 400
Stockport 225 0
Sunderland 1,420 569
Trafford 0 50
Wakefield 168 120
Warwickshire 7,925 0
Wigan 1,704 50
Wiltshire 0 92
Wirral 0 665
Wolverhampton 269 1,065
York -- 25
Total 47,719 29,806
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1996-97 allocations for Bristol and Cheshire are currently held in reserve pending decisions on statutory proposals.
Subjects
Central government; Finance; Education; Grants; Local government; Population; Schools
Date
18 November 1996
Reference
4728; 285 c416-7W
House
House of Commons
What was (i)the actual spending per pupil in each local education authority and (ii)the education standard spending assessment per pupil in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) total in 1996-97. - Inc table.(Question also printed without table at 285 c83W).
What was (i)the actual spending per pupil in each local education authority and (ii)the education standard spending assessment per pupil in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) total in 1996-97. - Inc table.(Question also printed without table at 285 c83W).
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
12 November 1996
Answered on
12 November 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what was (i) the actual spending per pupil in each local
education authority and (ii) the education standard spending assessment per pupil in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and
(c) total in 1996-97. [2758]
Mr. Squire: Actual spending per pupil for 1996-97 will not be known until the year has ended. The following table shows the 1996-97
education standard spending assessment per pupil in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each local education authority, and
(c) the England averages.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
LEA Primary SSA per pupil 1996-97 Secondary SSA per pupil 1996-97
£ £
Barking and Dagenham 2,273 3,057
Barnet 2,203 2,897
Barnsley 1,955 2,617
Bath and North East Somerset 1,880 2,462
Bedfordshire 2,057 2,750
Berkshire 2,047 2,733
Bexley 2,124 2,831
Birmingham 2,173 2,907
Bolton 1,958 2,603
Bradford 2,070 2,777
Brent 2,554 3,504
Bromley 2,074 2,744
Buckinghamshire 2,021 2,715
Bury 1,909 2,517
Calderdale 1,986 2,650
Cambridgeshire 1,962 2,615
Camden 2,841 3,596
Cheshire 1,903 2,529
City of Bristol 2,011 2,759
City of Kingston upon Hull 2,080 2,789
City of London 2,736 7,422
Cornwall 1,984 2,644
Coventry 2,049 2,731
Croydon 2,277 3,089
Cumbria 1,957 2,598
Derbyshire 1,911 2,555
Devon 1,958 2,609
Doncaster 2,039 2,719
Dorset 1,909 2,536
Dudley 1,896 2,526
Durham 1,983 2,649
Ealing 2,378 3,246
East Riding of Yorkshire 1,890 2,517
East Sussex 2,043 2,728
Enfield 2,289 3,034
Essex 2,055 2,749
Gateshead 2,006 2,691
Gloucestershire 1,912 2,542
Greenwich 2,716 3,620
Hackney 2,991 4,207
Hammersmith and Fulham 2,808 3,701
Hampshire 1,989 2,657
Haringey 2,631 3,599
Harrow 2,194 2,951
Hartlepool 2,010 2,673
Havering 2,104 2,816
Hereford and Worcester 1,914 2,556
Hertfordshire 2,074 2,754
Hillingdon 2,195 2,930
Hounslow 2,341 3,072
Isle of Wight Council 2,070 2,755
Isles of Scilly 3,574 4,794
Islington 2,865 3,889
Kensington and Chelsea 2,628 3,605
Kent 2,032 2,714
Kingston upon Thames 2,108 2,787
Kirklees 1,971 2,637
Knowsley 2,231 3,055
Lambeth 3,024 4,431
Lancashire 1,964 2,616
Leeds 1,947 2,597
Leicestershire 1,954 2,601
Lewisham 2,803 3,769
Lincolnshire 1,969 2,630
Liverpool 2,203 2,924
Manchester 2,320 3,141
Merton 2,216 2,948
Middlesbrough 2,109 2,859
Newcastle upon Tyne 2,104 2,793
Newham 2,620 3,490
Norfolk 1,971 2,630
North East Lincolnshire 1,982 2,638
North Lincolnshire 1,965 2,595
North Somerset 1,863 2,462
North Tyneside 1,946 2,620
North Yorkshire 1,940 2,560
Northamptonshire 1,927 2,568
Northumberland 1,935 2,582
Nottinghamshire 1,973 2,630
Oldham 2,008 2,646
Oxfordshire 1,985 2,625
Redbridge 2,241 2,970
Redcar and Cleveland 2,042 2,698
Richmond upon Thames 2,040 2,660
Rochdale 2,017 2,711
Rotherham 1,978 2,609
Salford 2,047 2,747
Sandwell 2,051 2,734
Sefton 1,955 2,590
Sheffield 1,996 2,679
Shropshire 1,952 2,596
Solihull 1,872 2,468
Somerset 1,933 2,580
South Gloucestershire 1,834 2,442
South Tyneside 2,012 2,681
Southwark 2,926 3,933
St. Helens 1,945 2,609
Staffordshire 1,894 2,520
Stockport 1,863 2,482
Stockton on Tees 1,981 2,622
Suffolk 1,901 2,538
Sunderland 2,001 2,673
Surrey 2,040 2,723
Sutton 2,162 2,829
Tameside 1,908 2,530
Tower Hamlets 3,052 4,051
Trafford 1,905 2,518
Wakefield 1,910 2,536
Walsall 1,991 2,634
Waltham Forest 2,484 3,348
Wandsworth 2,654 3,551
Warwickshire 1,906 2,543
West Sussex 1,987 2,647
Westminster 2,667 3,470
Wigan 1,905 2,523
Wiltshire 1,921 2,561
Wirral 2,024 2,690
Wolverhampton 2,081 2,807
York 1,888 2,533
England--average 2,053 2,728
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Costs; Finance; Education; Local education authorities; Pupils; Primary education; Secondary education
Date
12 November 1996
Reference
2758; 285 c131-2W
House
House of Commons
Queens speech debate (fifth day) on education and local government. (Amendment negatived on division 283-297).
Queens speech debate (fifth day) on education and local government. (Amendment negatived on division 283-297).
Lead member
Lord Blunkett
Answering member
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
Department
Department for Education and Employment; Department of the Environment
Type
Queen's speech debates
Procedure
Addresses to the Crown
Subjects
Admissions; Council housing; Class sizes; Finance; Education; Grant maintained schools; Income; Local government; Local education authorities; Parental responsibility; Standards; Sales; Schools; Teachers; Special educational needs; Training; School choice
Date
29 October 1996
Reference
284 c458-554
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
What will be the cost of the publicity measures relating to the national implementation of the voucher scheme, as announced by her Department on 24th July, identifying separately the costs under the headings (a) poster campaigns, (b) leaflets and other publications, (c) TV and radio advertising, (d) newspaper and journal...
What will be the cost of the publicity measures relating to the national implementation of the voucher scheme, as announced by her Department on 24th July, identifying separately the costs under the headings (a) poster campaigns, (b) leaflets and other publications, (c) TV and radio advertising, (d) newspaper and journal...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
17 October 1996
Answered on
17 October 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the cost of the publicity measures relating to
the national implementation of the voucher scheme, as announced by her Department on 24 July, identifying separately the costs under
the headings (a) poster campaigns, (b) leaflets and other publications, (c) television and radio advertising, (d) newspaper and
journal advertisements, (e) specialist mailing, (f) seminars and (g) other. [40541]
Mr. Squire: The estimated budget for publicity about the nursery voucher scheme up to its initial implementation is £1,900,00. This
will provide information for parents and providers of nursery education which will enable them to participate fully in this new
scheme.
The figure is broken down in table below:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
£
Posters, leaflets and other publication 475,000
TV and radio advertising 850,000
Newspaper and journal advertisements 50,000
Specialist mailings 100,000
Seminars and exhibitions 40,000
Other 385,000
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Pre-school education; Publicity; Voucher schemes
Date
17 October 1996
Reference
40541; 282 c1127W;282 c1125W
House
House of Commons
What (a) statistics and (b) representations her Department has assessed regarding spending on (i) discretionary awards and (ii) special needs by local education authorities in England in 1995-96 and 1996-97.
What (a) statistics and (b) representations her Department has assessed regarding spending on (i) discretionary awards and (ii) special needs by local education authorities in England in 1995-96 and 1996-97.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
15 October 1996
Answered on
15 October 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what (a) statistics and (b) representations her Department
has assessed regarding spending on (i) discretionary awards and (ii) special needs by local education authorities in England in
1995-96 and 1996-97; and if she will make a statement. [40545]
Mr. Forth: The latest available data from local education authorities on discretionary awards are for the academic year 1994-95.
Provisional national data were published in a departmental press notice--110/96--on 1 April 1996. Final data, including information
from individual local education authorities, will be published on 22 November in the statistics of education student support volume,
1994-95. Provisional data at national level for the academic year 1995-96 will be available in spring 1997.
Both the number and level of discretionary awards have been in decline recently. Representations have been made about this by a wide
range of bodies representing the interests of students and institutions in dance and drama, horticulture and agriculture, legal
practice and other disciplines. These are matters for local education authorities, who decide which students to support and at what
rates in the light of local needs and priorities and the resources available.
Funds for special education are contained within the education standard spending assessment but cannot be separately identified.
Local education authorities can and do spend more or less than their education SSA on education services.
Subjects
Education; Finance; Grants; Local education authorities; Special educational needs; Students
Date
15 October 1996
Reference
40545; 282 c886W;282 c884W
House
House of Commons
If he will list for local education authorities in England (i) individually, (ii) by class and (iii) in total (a) the actual budget outturn for 1996-97, (b) the provisional budget for 1997-98 and (c) the provisional education standard spending assessment. - Includes figures and fact that budgeted 1996-97 net revenue...
If he will list for local education authorities in England (i) individually, (ii) by class and (iii) in total (a) the actual budget outturn for 1996-97, (b) the provisional budget for 1997-98 and (c) the provisional education standard spending assessment. - Includes figures and fact that budgeted 1996-97 net revenue...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
David Curry
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department of the Environment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
18 July 1996
Answered on
18 July 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for local education authorities in England (i)
individually, (ii) by class and (iii) in total (a) the actual budget outturn for 1996-97, (b) the provisional budget for 1997-98 and
(c) the provisional education standard spending assessment.[37781]
Mr. Curry: Budgeted 1996-97 net revenue expenditure information by individual authority has been placed in the Library of the House.
Class totals are as follows:
£ million
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Total net revenue expenditure Education net revenue expenditure
Shire counties 17,190 9,956
Unitary authorities{1} 2,136 1,028
Isles of Scilly 3 1
Metropolitan districts{1} 9,470 4,462
City of London 143 4
Inner London boroughs 2,857 1,109
Outer London boroughs 3,873 1,849
All local education authorities{1} 35,672 18,409
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Includes estimates for two authorities who have yet to return a valid RA96/97 form.
Provisional budgets and standard spending assessments for 1997-98 will not be available until after the revenue support grant
consultation announcement towards the end of this year.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Local education authorities
Date
18 July 1996
Reference
37781; 281 c596W
House
House of Commons
What was the total budget allocated to phase one of the voucher scheme broken down into budget headings; and in which areas actual spending has exceeded projected spending. - Inc figs.
What was the total budget allocated to phase one of the voucher scheme broken down into budget headings; and in which areas actual spending has exceeded projected spending. - Inc figs.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
16 July 1996
Answered on
16 July 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total budget allocated to phase one of the
voucher scheme broken down into budget headings; and in which areas actual spending has exceeded projected spending.[37108]
Mr. Robin Squire: In the financial year 1996-97, £17.8 million has been allocated to cover the cost of vouchers for every eligible
child in the phase 1 authorities. A total of £10.8 million of this money has been found from existing LEA budgets, the remainder is
new money. In addition £5 million has been allocated for setting up the inspection regime, training inspectors for both phases of
the scheme and for administration for phase 1 of the scheme. A total of £300,000 has been allocated for providing information to
parents and providers in phase 1. None of these budgets has been exceeded.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Pre-school education; Voucher schemes
Date
16 July 1996
Reference
37108; 281 c467W
House
House of Commons
What funding is provided by her Department specifically for governor training and support to enhance school effectiveness in (a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools.
What funding is provided by her Department specifically for governor training and support to enhance school effectiveness in (a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
21 June 1996
Answered on
21 June 1996
Subjects
Finance; Education; Governing bodies; Grant maintained schools; Local education authorities; Schools; Training; Grants for education support and training
Date
21 June 1996
Reference
33745; 279 c644W;279 c635W
House
House of Commons
What additional resources her Department has made available under the headings of school improvement and school effectiveness in recent years to (a) local education authorities and (b) grant-maintained schools; and, in each case, under what headings resources have been reduced to meet the additional cost. - Inc figs and that...
What additional resources her Department has made available under the headings of school improvement and school effectiveness in recent years to (a) local education authorities and (b) grant-maintained schools; and, in each case, under what headings resources have been reduced to meet the additional cost. - Inc figs and that...
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
21 June 1996
Answered on
21 June 1996
Subjects
Central government; Finance; Education; Grant maintained schools; Grants; Local education authorities; Funding Agency for Schools; Grants for education support and training
Date
21 June 1996
Reference
33747; 279 c643W;279 c635W
House
House of Commons
If she will list the items of local education authority expenditure on schools that her Department considers impracticable or undesirable for delegation as stated in the 1996 departmental report; on what criteria each is considered impracticable or undesirable for delegation.
If she will list the items of local education authority expenditure on schools that her Department considers impracticable or undesirable for delegation as stated in the 1996 departmental report; on what criteria each is considered impracticable or undesirable for delegation.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 June 1996
Answered on
11 June 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the items of local education authority
expenditure on schools that her Department considers impracticable or undesirable for delegation as stated in the 1996 departmental
report; on what criteria each is considered impracticable or undesirable for delegation; and if she will make a statement.[31834]
Mr. Squire: Items excluded from the potential schools budget--PSB--are conveniently listed in schedule 1 to the Education (School
Financial Statements) (Prescribed Particulars etc.) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No 208). Reasons for their exclusion were set out in
part 4 of the Department's circular 2/94, except in the case of three items, the removal of which from the PSB was the subject of
subsequent decisions. These items are: expenditure on inspections carried out by local education authorities for the Office for
Standards in Education, which self-evidently cannot be delegated to schools; expenditure on the insurance of LEAs against liability
in negligence, which it seemed reasonable to place on the same footing as governors' liability insurance; and expenditure on
provision for ethnic minority pupils, much of which was previously excluded from the PSB by virtue of being supported by section 11
grant. The Government have been reviewing policy on delegation, and their conclusions will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper
on self-government for schools.
Subjects
Finance; Education; Expenditure; Local education authorities; Schools
Date
11 June 1996
Reference
31834; 279 c120-2W;279 c118W
House
House of Commons
Standards in education. Fourteenth opposition day debate. (Part 1). Motion negatived on division (243 to 285). Amendment agreed to on question.
Standards in education. Fourteenth opposition day debate. (Part 1). Motion negatived on division (243 to 285). Amendment agreed to on question.
Lead member
Lord Blunkett
Answering member
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
Department
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Opposition days
Subjects
Finance; Education; Grant maintained schools; Qualifications; Pre-school education; Local education authorities; Office for Standards in Education; Primary education; Standards; Secondary education; Teaching methods
Date
11 June 1996
Reference
279 c122-73
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
If she will list for each local education authority in England the percentage of the potential schools budget which has been delegated in the aggregated schools budget in each year since 1990, ranked according to the highest levels of delegation. - Includes table and ref to 228 c16-20W.
If she will list for each local education authority in England the percentage of the potential schools budget which has been delegated in the aggregated schools budget in each year since 1990, ranked according to the highest levels of delegation. - Includes table and ref to 228 c16-20W.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 June 1996
Answered on
11 June 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in
England the percentage of the potential schools budget which has been delegated in the aggregated schools budget in each year since
1990, ranked according to the highest levels of delegation.[31837]
Mr. Robin Squire: The information requested for the financial years 1994-95 to 1996-97 is shown in the table. Information on earlier
years is contained in the answer given on 5 July 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), Official Report,
columns 16-20.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1996-97 1995-96 1994-95
Percentage Percentage Percentage
Rank Local Education Potential schools Potential schools Rank Potential schools Rank
Authority budget delegated budget delegated budget delegated
1. Dudley 96.1 95.8 (1) 92.5 (1)
2. Brent 94.6 93.5 (7) 90.0 (6)
3. Solihull 94.4 94.0 (3) 90.4 (4)
4. Waltham Forest 93.9 93.9 (4) 89.8 (9)
5. Sunderland 93.8 92.3 (15) 88.0 (28)
6. Leeds 93.7 93.4 (8) 89.9 (8)
7. Hertfordshire 93.6 94.1 (2) 91.3 (3)
8. Berkshire 93.5 93.1 (9) 90.0 (7)
9. Rochdale 93.3 92.9 (11) 88.7 (21)
10. Greenwich 93.1 92.6 (14) 89.3 (12)
11. Knowsley 93.1 93.9 (6) 89.1 (13)
12. Staffordshire 93.0 92.8 (12) 87.9 (30)
13. Northamptonshire 92.9 92.9 (10) 89.3 (11)
14. Wigan 92.9 92.7 (13) 86.9 (44)
15. Liverpool 92.7 92.2 (16) 86.5 (60)
16. Islington 92.6 93.9 (5) 92.5 (2)
17. Suffolk 92.6 90.6 (38) 87.6 (37)
18. Bury 92.5 91.8 (20) 88.3 (27)
19. Bedfordshire 92.4 91.2 (27) 88.7 (18)
20. Wolverhampton 92.2 91.9 (19) 88.7 (19)
21. Havering 92.1 91.7 (23) 88.3 (26)
22. North Tyneside 92.0 91.8 (21) 85.9 (81)
23. Isles of Scilly 91.9 85.1 (109) 86.3 (68)
24. Bexley 91.9 91.2 (28) 87.6 (36)
25. Oxfordshire 91.8 91.6 (24) 88.7 (20)
26. Shropshire 91.8 88.2 (91) 85.4 (91)
27. Manchester 91.8 92.0 (17) 89.1 (14)
28. Redbridge 91.4 90.6 (40) 87.0 (41)
29. Sutton 91.4 90.2 (47) 86.0 (79)
30. Croydon 91.3 90.0 (51) 90.1 (5)
31. Birmingham 91.3 90.3 (44) 86.8 (49)
32. Cumbria 91.3 91.8 (22) 86.5 (59)
33. Richmond 91.3 90.4 (41) 88.9 (15)
34. Cheshire 91.3 90.9 (31) 88.7 (22)
35. Gloucestershire 91.2 91.1 (29) 86.4 (64)
36. Hammersmith/Fulham 91.2 90.8 (35) 86.6 (57)
37. Devon 91.2 91.9 (18) 87.8 (31)
38. Norfolk 91.2 91.4 (25) 87.8 (33)
39. Somerset 91.2 91.1 (30) 86.2 (72)
40. Stockport 91.2 90.9 (32) 89.3 (10)
41. Hampshire 91.1 88.6 (84) 86.6 (56)
42. Northumberland 91.1 90.8 (36) 88.9 (16)
43. Essex 90.9 89.0 (73) 85.9 (82)
44. Coventry 90.9 91.3 (26) 87.1 (40)
45. Bristol 90.8 -- -- -- --
46. Kingston 90.8 89.2 (67) 85.5 (89)
47. Oldham 90.7 90.6 (39) 86.8 (50)
48. Wirral 90.7 90.3 (42) 86.3 (67)
49. Kensington/Chelsea 90.7 90.0 (50) 85.6 (85)
50. Salford 90.6 90.7 (37) 87.8 (32)
51. North Yorkshire 90.5 89.8 (54) 86.9 (45)
52. Barking/Dagenham 90.5 89.1 (72) 85.3 (93)
53. Surrey 90.5 89.8 (55) 86.9 (46)
54. Ealing 90.5 89.9 (53) 86.1 (75)
55. Stockton on Tees 90.4 -- -- -- --
56. Hereford/Worcester 90.3 90.8 (34) 88.3 (25)
57. Enfield 90.2 89.4 (62) 87.9 (29)
58. Hillingdon 90.2 89.9 (52) 86.6 (52)
59. Harrow 90.1 90.1 (49) 88.8 (17)
60. Hounslow 90.0 88.8 (80) 86.4 (65)
61. Wiltshire 90.0 89.6 (58) 86.0 (77)
62. St. Helens 89.9 89.5 (59) 85.5 (88)
63. East Sussex 89.9 88.9 (77) 86.2 (69)
64. Walsall 89.9 90.3 (43) 87.7 (35)
65. Tameside 89.9 89.3 (64) 86.0 (80)
66. Corporation of London 89.9 88.9 (75) 87.0 (43)
67. North East Lincolnshire 89.8 -- -- -- --
68. Isle of Wight 89.8 90.2 (45) 86.9 (47)
69. Hull 89.8 -- -- -- --
70. Warwickshire 89.8 88.4 (89) 85.7 (84)
71. Lewisham 89.8 87.6 (99) 84.6 (104)
72. South Gloucestershire 89.8 -- -- -- --
73. Bath and North East 89.7 -- -- -- --
Somerset
74. Bradford 89.7 88.5 (86) 86.5 (58)
75. Dorset 89.7 89.7 (56) 86.6 (54)
76. Merton 89.7 89.2 (69) 88.3 (24)
77. East Riding 89.6 -- -- -- --
78. North Somerset 89.6 -- -- -- --
79. Rotherham 89.6 89.4 (63) 86.2 (71)
80. Cambridgeshire 89.5 89.3 (66) 86.2 (70)
81. Wandsworth 89.5 85.4 (108) 82.4 (109)
82. Barnet 89.4 90.2 (48) 86.6 (55)
83. Westminster 89.4 90.2 (46) 88.5 (23)
84. Hackney 89.4 86.9 (104) 83.5 (107)
85. Sefton 89.4 88.7 (82) 87.0 (42)
86. Southwark 89.3 88.0 (94) 86.1 (74)
87. Lincolnshire 89.3 89.5 (60) 86.9 (48)
88. Derbyshire 89.2 89.3 (65) 85.0 (99)
89. West Sussex 89.2 88.9 (78) 87.2 (38)
90. Sandwell 89.2 88.1 (92) 86.5 (62)
91. Calderdale 89.1 89.1 (71) 87.7 (34)
92. Buckinghamshire 89.1 88.4 (87) 85.1 (96)
93. Hartlepool 89.1 -- -- -- --
94. Tower Hamlets 89.0 90.9 (33) 86.2 (73)
95. Newcastle 89.0 88.2 (90) 85.4 (90)
96. Kirklees 89.0 87.1 (103) 84.2 (106)
97. Kent 89.0 87.5 (100) 85.2 (95)
98. Nottinghamshire 88.9 88.8 (79) 86.7 (51)
99. South Tyneside 88.9 89.2 (68) 86.5 (61)
100. Lancashire 88.9 87.7 (98) 85.3 (94)
101. North Lincolnshire 88.8 -- -- -- --
102. Barnsley 88.7 89.1 (70) 85.0 (103)
103. Bolton 88.5 88.9 (76) 85.0 (101)
104. Trafford 88.5 88.6 (83) 86.6 (53)
105. Durham 88.3 88.5 (85) 86.0 (78)
106. Cornwall 88.3 89.0 (74) 87.1 (39)
107. Camden 88.2 87.4 (101) 83.0 (108)
108. Middlesbrough 88.0 -- -- -- --
109. Leicestershire 88.0 88.4 (88) 86.4 (66)
110. Doncaster 87.9 89.7 (57) 85.0 (100)
111. Lambeth 87.4 86.4 (107) 84.2 (105)
112. Sheffield 87.4 87.8 (96) 85.0 (98)
113. Wakefield 87.2 87.9 (95) 85.4 (92)
114. Bromley 86.9 87.8 (97) 86.4 (63)
115. Gateshead 86.8 86.6 (105) 86.1 (76)
116. Haringey 86.4 87.2 (102) 85.1 (97)
117. Newham Redcar and 85.1 n/a n/a 86.5 -- -- (106) -- -- 85.0 -- -- (102) -- --
Cleveland York
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Administration; Budgeting; Finance; Education; Local education authorities; Schools
Date
11 June 1996
Reference
31837; 279 c121-4W;279 c118-22W
House
House of Commons
What (a) mechanism and (b) requirement exists for schools to be consulted by their local education authorities over the level of delegation within the local management of schools scheme.
What (a) mechanism and (b) requirement exists for schools to be consulted by their local education authorities over the level of delegation within the local management of schools scheme.
Asked by
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Answered by
Robin Squire
(Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Education and Employment
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 June 1996
Answered on
11 June 1996
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what (a) mechanism and (b) requirement exists for schools
to be consulted by their local education authorities over the level of delegation within the local management of schools
scheme.[31838]
Mr. Squire: The precise level of delegation to schools in any local education authority--(LEA)--is not a matter upon which
consultation is required, although an LEA would be required to consult upon a proposal to amend any scheme provision which sets a
minimum delegation requirement. The method by which an LEA consults schools on changes to local management of schools schemes is for
the authority itself to determine.
Subjects
Administration; Finance; Education; Local education authorities; Schools
Date
11 June 1996
Reference
31838; 279 c120W;279 c117-8W
House
House of Commons