Skip to main content

Teacher Training Grants

Volume 164: debated on Thursday 11 January 1990

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the increased volume of underspending on in-service teacher training grants 1988–89 shown in Class XII, Vote 1, 12; and what changes have been made for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

Vote provision for the local education authority training grants scheme, which was introduced on 1 April 1987, is for the payment of grant to local education authorities in response to claims submitted by those authorities in respect of training that they have provided. Vote provision for this purpose in 1988–89 was £130 million, expenditure was £89·2 million and the underspending was £40·8 million. The corresponding figures for 1987–88 were provision, £105 million, outturn £79·4 million and underspending £25·6 million.The underspend in 1987–88 resulted from local authorities submitting claims later than expected outside the year to which they related. This was also the case in 1988–89 when, in addition, authorities were late in submitting audit certificates for 1987–88 without payments for claims under the 1988–89 programme submitted after 1 October 1988 could not be made.The provision for 1989–90 is £130 million. Late claims for previous years of the scheme will continue to be paid from the Vote provision as soon as possible after their submission. No changes have been made to the arrangements for payments in 1989–90 and no decision has yet been taken on the arrangements for 1990–91.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of those local education authorities which in respect of in-service teacher training grant claims for 1988–89 (a) have claimed significantly less than the maximum allocated amount for that year or (b) have not yet made either final claims for all quarters of 1987–88 or a provisional end-of-year claim showing for each of (a) and (b) the amount underspent or apparently unclaimed.

The following LEAs underspent by 5 per cent. or more in 1988–89:

Local Education AuthorityTotal amount unclaimedUnderspend as percentage of total maxima
Bromley183,00016·7
Haringey1421,31544·5
Kent534,0009·0
Liverpool1497,40020·9
Oldham152,5285·0
Walsall176,5555·9
1 provisional end-of-year claims only.
Newham has not yet submitted an end-of-year claim for 1988–89; the total amount yet to be claimed is £371,889.There are no authorities that have not yet made either final claims for all quarters of 1987–88 or a provisional end-of-year claim for that year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what amount and proportion of the 1987–88 Vote provision for the in-service teacher training grant scheme realted to (a) areas of national priority and (b) areas of local priority; what amount and proportion of claims made for 1987–88 relate to each of (a) and (b); what further information is available as to the breakdown of expenditure claims between separate national priorities; and if he will make a statement;(2) what amount and proportion of the 1988–89 Vote provision for the in-service teacher training grant scheme related to

(a) areas of national priority and (b) areas of local priority; what amount and proportion of claims made for 1988–89 relate to each of (a) and (b); what further information is available as to the breakdown of expenditure claims between separate national priorities; and if he will make a statement.

The level of Vote provision in 1987–88 was based on an estimate of the likely claims by local education authorities under the local education authority training grants scheme in 1987–88, and the in-service teacher training grants scheme, which preceded the local education authority training grants scheme, for the years prior to 1987–88. The level in 1988–89 was based on a similar estimate covering that year and previous years. Because Vote provision is calculated to meet local authorities' overall claims, no further breakdown is made between the areas of training to which the claims relate, such an analysis could be made only at disproportionate cost. Local authorities have been told that delays in submitting claims will be taken into account in setting their allocations of grant for future years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the expenditure on in-service teacher training grants 1988–89 shown in Class XII Vote 1, 12 includes any amount relating to late claims made for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. A total of nearly £5 million expenditure relating to late claims for local education authority expenditure in 1987–88 was included in the expenditure for 1988–89.