HC Deb 22 January 1992 vol 202 cc245-6W
Mr. James Pawsey

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what changes for the 1992–93 financial year he has decided to make in the arrangements for calculating annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I have considered carefully the responses to the consultation paper we issued on 17 October. Subject to one small technical change, I have decided to confirm the proposals set out in the paper for calculating the annual maintenance grant—AMG—for grant-maintained—GM—schools in 1992–93.

The main changes for 1992–93 are:

  1. (a) the standard percentage add-on that GM schools receive based on LEAs' average central expenditure will be 15 per cent. over and above the direct costs element of their grant compared with 16 per cent. in 1991–92;
  2. (b) where 15 per cent. or more of the maintained primary or secondary schools in the area of a local education authority are grant-maintained, the percentage add-on for GM schools will be based on scrutiny of central spending in the authority;
  3. (c) the Secretary of State will have power to substitute historic weightings or factors where elements of an individual local management of schools—LMS—scheme have been changed or cease to apply, with unfair results for GM schools.

In response to points raised in consultation, I have approved one small technical change concerning the treatment of expenditure on premature retirement compensation in the calculation of the non-standard additions in (b).

Most of the responses I have received have focused on the central costs element of AMG. GM schools have been concerned about my proposal to reduce the standard percentage add-on to 15 per cent., in line with the increased delegation by LEAs to their schools, and to allow different figures in authorities with many GM schools. I understand the schools' anxieties.

Local authorities have expressed most concern about my proposal that, as last year, the central costs element of GM schools' grant should not be able to fall in cash terms from one year to the next. I have considered carefully their arguments, but concluded that these arrangements provide an essential element of certainty and continuity in the funding of GM schools.

I have had to consider arrangements which will apply to all GM schools and their former LEAs. Overall I believe my proposals are even-handed, recognising the progress local authorities have made on delegation, while retaining sufficient stability and certainty for individual schools.

When we introduced the standard percentage addition for central costs last year we said that we would review the position for when our new LMS targets come into place in April 1993. I think it right to make these early adjustments, in particular to help local authorities with significant numbers of GM schools in their area. We shall look carefully at the arrangements again for 1993–94, when we would expect to reflect further progress on delegation.

My Department will now prepare regulations to give effect to these proposals, which I shall lay before the House in due course.