Yes, certainly, Chair. I think any cut of that magnitude will be missed, won't it, to a budget. But what we have endeavoured to do, in making choices that I'm sure have been the most difficult choices during the period of devolution, really, given the pressures on the budget, is to try and do that in a way that is as strategic as possible on the one hand, and that has an eye to minimising the impact on people's real experiences on the other.
What we have tried to do across the Government, I think, is to try and reshape those budgets to reflect the challenges that we face at the moment. There have been some common principles that all Ministers, I think, have sought to apply, which have been around trying to protect the front-line services in the budgets that we are responsible for, to prioritise jobs wherever that has been possible, and to try and extend the partnership working that we have, so that we can try and weather the storm together across public services more broadly. The consequence of that has been the freeing up of money, including from my budget, for the NHS and for the core local government settlement in particular.
As you say, it's a little under £103 million in my budget, which is around 5.68 per cent of my budget. But you will have seen from the paper and the tables we submitted that that percentage reduction hasn't been applied consistently across the main expenditure group; we have looked to balance that set of reductions. The consistent principle, which I hope I've been able to apply, is that we would do everything we could to protect pre-16 education settings, and to focus funding, as far as we possibly could, on improving standards. That has inevitably meant that other parts of the budget, therefore, carry a larger part of that burden, necessarily, unfortunately. But just over half of it, actually, has been found from demand-led budgets, and the heavy lifting there is done by the student support budget, as you can imagine, as you will have seen from the tables.
What we have done in relation to that is, essentially, reproject the level of demand. We believe that is going to be, as you can see, quite significantly under what we had provided for in the budget, and so we are releasing that funding to the centre, if you like, for reallocation. Just to be absolutely clear with the committee, this is a demand-led budget, people have entitlements to it, and those entitlements aren't changing. We are projecting how many of those entitlements will arise. If we end up being wrong, and there are more than we have projected for, we will need to meet those claims as well. So, this won't affect an individual student's entitlement to make a claim. We are making assumptions about that level of demand, if you like. I think that is a sensible approach. Obviously, it's an approach that carries risk. I think it's a risk that's reasonable for us to take, but if I'm wrong on that, there will be consequences in the budget, obviously.
In other parts of the budget, we've tried to limit the impact of reductions. For example, in the Welsh language budget, in agreement with Plaid Cymru, we will be reprofiling an increase to the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol and the canolfan dysgu of £3.5 million, so that will be increased over future years. I took that decision because the alternative was to find that sum of money from a plethora of grants that go to third-party organisations who do important work, and very often are quite dependent on those grants, because they're quite often quite modest, quite small-scale organisations. The only advantage, if you like, of limiting that cut to two big, resilient organisations is that they have some more flexibility and are able to manage movements in the profiling of their funding in a more flexible way. So, we've applied that lens to how we've made that reduction there as well. The net effect of that is that the funding going to schools, through my school grants programme, has been prioritised in this set of reductions, as it was in the in-year set of reductions last year as well.