Age Diversity (Hansard, 14 July 1999)

§ Mr. Andrew Smith

The initial consultation on the draft Code cost around £22,000. This includes the cost of designing, printing and distributing 21,000 copies of the consultation document and carrying out the consultation exercise.

Costs for the final version of the Code amount to £100,000. This includes the costs for printing and distribution of 35,000 initial packs of the Code and guidance, the production of publicity fliers and posters for display in Jobcentres, libraries and Citizens Advice Bureaux: and initial advertising in human resource journals. Beyond this, an additional £70,000 has already been committed to support initiatives by partners to take the Code forward with employers.

Table A: Expenditure in each year and the amount of government support
£000
	1997–97¹	1997–98¹	1998–99	1999–2000
LEA's Education Capital	n/a	²1,000	³1,313	n/a
Programme, supported by the following government initiatives:
Annual Capital Guidelines⁴	n/a	196	335	552
Supplementary Credit Approvals⁵	n/a	89	95	607
New Deal for Schools⁶	n/a	900	1,159	2,681
Class Sizes	n/a	n/a	141	848
Removal of Outside Toilets	n/a	n/a	156	0
Energy Management	n/a	n/a	80	0
Security in Schools⁷	n/a	67	84	87
National Grid for Learning⁷	n/a	n/a	250	500
Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools (inc. Voluntary Aided Challenge Fund)⁸	16	379	800	613
Grant to Grant-maintained Schools	265	241	49	30
¹ 1996–97 and 1997–98: Annual Capital Guidelines, Supplementary Credit Approval, and VA grant: For 1996–97, Stoke was part of Staffordshire; it is not possible to disaggregate what credit approvals and grants would have benefited Stoke schools. New Deal for Schools, Reduction in Class Sizes, National Grid for Learning, and Security in Schools: None of these initiatives were running in 1996–97; nor, in 1997–98, were the initiatives for Class Sizes and the National Grid for Learning operational.
² LEA's Education Capital Programme: Please note, the total education programme is less than the sum total of the amounts allocated under government initiatives. This is because LEAs are not obliged to use credit approvals for the purposes for which they were allocated (see notes 3 and 4); also some of the grants are used for revenue purposes (see note 7).
³ Education Capital Programme 1998–99: Please note, this figure is provisional only, based on estimates by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
⁴ Annual Capital Guidelines: This is used in the calculation of the LEA's Basic Credit Approval (BCA), where the LEA's capital receipts are taken into account. Just because a project has been taken account of in calculating the ACG, it does not mean that the LEA has to use its BCA for that purpose.
⁵ Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA): Unlike BCA, receipts are not taken into account when calculating the level of SCA. However, unless the SCA specifically says otherwise, the LEA is not obliged to use the SCA for the purpose for which it was allocated.
⁶ New Deal for Schools: Some of the grant figures for VA schools would have changed slightly in order to reflect the actual costs of the project.
⁷ National Grid for Learning and Security in Schools: While the majority of the expenditure supported by the grant will be capital in nature, some will be revenue, and it is not possible to isolate the two elements.
⁸ VA Grant: Capital grant is paid in respect of Governors' liability at a rate of 85 per cent. Actual amount of grant paid may change depending on the costs of project on tender.

198W

We are currently assessing the initial impact of the launch of the Code last month and will be developing a forward strategy to raise awareness and support employers who want to implement the principles of the Code.

I hope to make an announcement about the next phase of the Code's development in the autumn.