United Kingdom Parliament
Publications & records
Advanced search
 HansardArchivesResearchHOC PublicationsHOL PublicationsCommittees
Previous Section Index Home Page


Schools Budget

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list local education authorities in rank order by the proportion of the potential schools budget held back in the most recent year for which figures are available. [1025]

Mr. Robin Squire: The following table sets out in rank order, for each LEA in England, the proportion of the potential schools budget not delegated to schools. These figures are derived from LEAs' local management of schools budget statements for 1996-97, incorporating any amendments notified to the Department by 30 September 1996.

30 Oct 1996 : Column: 130

Rank Local education authorityPercentage of PSB not delegated
1.Dudley3.9
2.Brent5.4
3.Solihull5.6
4.Waltham Forest6.1
5.Islington6.1
6.Sunderland6.2
7.Leeds6.3
8.Hertfordshire6.4
9.Berkshire6.5
10.Isles of Scilly6.7
11.Rochdale6.7
12.Greenwich6.9
13.Knowsley6.9
14.Staffordshire7.0
15.Northamptonshire7.1
16.Wigan7.1
17.Liverpool7.3
18.Suffolk7.4
19.Bury7.5
20.Bedfordshire7.6
21.Wolverhampton7.8
22.Havering7.9
23.North Tyneside8.0
24.Oxfordshire8.0
25.Redbridge8.1
26.Bexley8.1
27.Shropshire8.2
28.Manchester8.2
29.Sutton8.6
30.Croydon8.7
31.Birmingham8.7
32.Cumbria8.7
33.Richmond8.7
34.Cheshire8.7
35.Gloucestershire8.8
36.Hammersmith/Fulham8.8
37.Devon8.8
38.Norfolk8.8
39.Somerset8.8
40.Stockport8.8
41.Hampshire8.9
42.Northumberland8.9
43.Coventry9.1
44.Kingston9.2
45.Oldham9.3
46.Bristol9.3
47.Wirral9.3
48.Kensington/Chelsea9.3
49.Salford9.4
50.North Yorkshire9.5
51.Barking/Dagenham9.5
52.Surrey9.5
53.Ealing9.5
54.Stockton on Tees9.6
55.Hereford/Worcester9.7
56.Enfield9.8
57.Hillingdon9.8
58.Essex9.9
59.Harrow9.9
60.East Sussex9.9
61.Hounslow10.0
62.Wiltshire10.0
63.St. Helens10.1
64.Walsall10.1
65.Tameside10.1
66.Corporation of London10.1
67.North East Lincolnshire10.2
68.Isle of Wight10.2
69.Hull10.2
70.Warwickshire10.2
71.Lewisham10.2
72.South Gloucestershire10.2
73.Bath and North East Somerset10.3
74.Bradford10.3
75.Dorset10.3
76.Merton10.3
77.East Riding10.4
78.Rotherham10.4
79.North Somerset10.4
80.Tower Hamlets10.5
81.Cambridgeshire10.5
82.Wandsworth10.5
83.Barnet10.6
84.Westminster10.6
85.Hackney10.6
86.Sefton10.6
87.Southwark10.7
88.Lincolnshire10.7
89.Derbyshire10.8
90.West Sussex10.8
91.Sandwell10.8
92.Calderdale10.9
93.Buckinghamshire10.9
94.Hartlepool10.9
95.Newcastle11.0
96.Kirklees11.0
97.Kent11.0
98.York11.0
99.Redcar and Cleveland11.1
100.Nottinghamshire11.1
101.South Tyneside11.1
102.Lancashire11.1
103.North Lincolnshire11.2
104.Barnsley11.3
105.Durham11.4
106.Bolton11.5
107.Trafford11.5
108.Cornwall11.7
109.Camden11.8
110.Middlesbrough12.0
111.Leicestershire12.0
112.Doncaster12.1
113.Lambeth12.6
114.Sheffield12.6
115.Wakefield12.8
116.Bromley13.1
117.Gateshead13.2
118.Haringey13.6
119.Newham14.9

30 Oct 1996 : Column: 132

Pupil Exclusions

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards exclusions of disruptive pupils from schools; what factors underlay the restrictions on exclusions in the Education Act 1993; and what factors underlie the current legislative proposals.[878]

Mr. Forth: It is unacceptable for a minority of ill-behaved pupils to disrupt the education of the majority and undermine standards. Schools must have the right, as a last resort, to exclude severely disruptive pupils. The Department issued detailed guidance to schools and local authorities on "Exclusion from School" in May 1994.

The Education Act 1993 abolished indefinite exclusion and limited head teachers' power to impose fixed-term exclusions up to a maximum of 15 school days per term. There was clear evidence that indefinite exclusion led to some pupils being left in educational limbo for long periods with nothing being done to get them back into school.

Our current legislative proposals on exclusions would:


30 Oct 1996 : Column: 133

Surplus School Places

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many surplus school places there were, and what was their cost, in each local education authority in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [1026]

Mr. Robin Squire: For the number of surplus school places in each local education authority, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on Tuesday 19 March 1996, Official Report, columns 113-18. At a national level, the average premises-related cost of maintaining a surplus place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995-96 prices. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from the removal of surplus places in practice in each local education authority will depend on local circumstances.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Ian McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who were disqualified from unemployment benefit, and what percentage of those in dispute with the Employment Service, won the right to benefit on appeal in the last year for which figures are available. [1146]

Mr. Forth: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 30 October 1996:

The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people who were disqualified from unemployment benefit and what percentage of these won the right to benefit on appeal, in the last year for which figures are available. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.




HEALTH

Haemophiliacs

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra cost to haemophiliacs arising from the imposition of VAT on drugs; and if he will make a statement. [141]

30 Oct 1996 : Column: 134

Mr. Horam: There is no extra cost to haemophiliac patients receiving treatment under the national health service arising from the imposition of value added tax on drugs.

Health Authority Deficits

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities and trusts had deficits approved in the financial year 1995-96. [394]

Mr. Horam: The latest year for which audited accounts are available is currently 1994-95. The audited information for 1995-96 will not be available until late November.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities and trusts have been given approval to incur deficits in the present financial year; and on what date such approvals were given. [390]

Mr. Horam: The forecast financial positions of health authorities and trusts are discussed with the national health service executive regional offices as part of a cycle of planning and regular monitoring reviews. These outturn positions are therefore subject to revision as a result of any action agreed at these reviews. The specific approval of deficits does not therefore arise.


Next Section Index Home Page