← Back to House of Commons Debates
BACKBENCH BUSINESS - EDUCATION FUNDING IN LONDONBACKBENCH BUSINESS
04 May 2016
Lead MP
Bob Neill
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
EducationChildren & Families
Other Contributors: 51
At a Glance
Bob Neill raised concerns about backbench business - education funding in londonbackbench business in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Welcomes the Government's commitment to hold a detailed consultation on the new funding formula for schools. Calls on the Government to recognise the unique challenges faced by London's schools, emphasising the need for fairness and proportionality in any changes made to the funding model. Highlights the success of education in London and raises concerns about the potential impact on outer-London boroughs that receive less funding than inner-London areas.
Joan Ryan
Lab
Enfield North
Agrees with the principle of fair funding but expresses concern over proposals that could 'level down' rather than 'level up'. Mentions schools need to retain some local flexibility.
Lucy Frazer
Con
South East Cambridgeshire
Supports the idea that other areas which have been underfunded should also benefit from improvements in funding. Emphasises the importance of levelling up for all regions, not just London.
James Berry
Con
Kingston upon Thames
Asks whether it is right that Kingston upon Thames receives less per pupil than other boroughs in London and highlights discrepancies between funding levels across different parts of the city.
Lyn Brown
Lab
West Ham
Agrees with Bob Neill's points, highlighting the outer-London needs of her constituency which are not adequately reflected in current central Government funding allocations.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Concurs that the existing funding system is broken but notes that proposals would maintain significantly higher per capita spending for London compared to other areas. Emphasises the importance of addressing disparities across all regions.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Points out additional costs in schools due to high family mobility, especially in inner-London boroughs where primary schools experience a 30% turnover annually. Urges consideration of these factors in the new funding formula.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Supports the notion that pupil mobility is not unique to London and suggests incorporating the principle of the Pupil Premium into the new funding model to account for families moving frequently, such as service families.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Neill highlighted issues including population churn, deprivation within postcodes, special educational needs funding, and the need for flexibility in dedicated school grants. He raised concerns about potential budget reductions and underfunding of high-needs blocks.
Victoria Borwick
Con
Kensington
Borwick congratulated Neill on securing the debate, noting that 28 out of 33 schools in Kensington would face significant funding reductions if proposals were implemented fully. She pointed to disparities between postcodes and raised concerns about budget cuts.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Ali thanked Neill for the debate, expressing concern over proposed changes that could reduce London school funding by £260 million annually. She emphasised the progress made in London schools despite challenges such as high child poverty levels and housing costs.
Karen Buck
Lab
Walthamstow
Buck highlighted how the formula drives perverse outcomes within local authorities, pointing out that even highly deprived schools could lose funding while less deprived ones gain. She raised concerns about the negative impact on schoolchildren.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Stuart argued for a fair system across the country, noting that certain parts of London have disproportionately benefited from the current funding formula. He mentioned disparities between schools in adjacent boroughs.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
Hodge questioned whether changing the formula to take money away from some children aligns with the Conservative manifesto commitment to protect funding for each child's education. She emphasised the importance of keeping promises made in election manifestos.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Timms pointed out an estimate suggesting that under proposed changes, the most prosperous 30 authorities would gain over £200 million while the least prosperous would lose similarly large sums. He raised concerns about disparities between wealthy and poor areas.
Harriet Harman
Lab
Cambridge
Expressed concern over the potential loss of funding for Southwark schools, questioning the Government's claim that they are protecting education budgets.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Warned about the devastating impact of proposed budget cuts on London schools, highlighting the achievements in Tower Hamlets under Labour government. Emphasised the risks to teacher recruitment due to high housing costs and the need for investment to improve education outcomes.
James Berry
Con
Crawley
Acknowledged the rising house prices across London but suggested that the distinction between inner and outer London was no longer relevant, given the current economic context.
Lucy Frazer
Con
South Ribble
Asked for clarification on funding issues in London, though Rushanara Ali declined to give way due to time constraints.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Defended the Government's proposed fair funding formula, arguing that it would level up educational opportunities across different regions. Criticised the tone of Labour opposition as divisive and unpersuasive.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Challenged the Conservative argument by questioning its underlying premise, suggesting that the debate was about redistributing resources rather than fairness alone. Asked for clarity on whether the speaker was advocating for his local area to receive more funding at others' expense.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
I want a fair system based on principle in which need is assessed, with money following the pupil and that need. The Government have set out a transparent way to bring about this fairer funding formula; criticisms for political purposes should not be made now. We should focus on how emphasis is placed on deprivation and population movements, as these are reflected in the proposed formula.
Ian Mearns
Lab
Durham Millfield
There are many different facets to differential funding around the country, one of them being historical choices made by local authorities under the standard spending assessment. Some chose to spend above the standard level, funded through local taxation, which is built into current distribution.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
It does not make sense to suggest that a fairer funding system is undermined because of past council tax choices. There are very high levels of council tax in many poorly funded areas, while there are low levels in prosperous parts of London. We need a fair system for all.
Angela Watkinson
Con
Hornchurch and Upminster
Property prices should be an element in the formula, particularly in areas like Havering where property costs are very high but teachers are paid at outer London levels. This makes it difficult for newly qualified teachers to afford accommodation.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Outer London has managed to improve standards despite lower funding, proving that the issue is not just about money. We should discuss principles without fear of scaring people or dividing communities, and support fair funding for all.
Steve Reed
Lab Co-op
Streatham
London's schools have been transformed since 2003 but need further improvement. No one considers the current performance 'job done'. The proposed new funding formula could result in a loss of £260 million annually for London’s schools, pushing education backwards. To protect all schools that stand to lose out, the Government would need to increase the block grant by £514 million.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Children with special educational needs are often disadvantaged; we must ensure their funding is maintained or increased. Problems are appearing in constituencies regarding secondary schools such as the Langley Park schools, for which my own children attend.
Jamie Reed
Lab
Croydon North
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised the importance of supporting vulnerable children in education, highlighting Croydon's significant funding shortfall per pupil and its projected growth in primary school pupils over five years. He noted a disparity in teacher pay between inner and outer London boroughs, emphasising that any new formula must not reduce pay for teachers in wealthier areas. He criticised the Government’s transitional relief grant for favouring wealthier areas with less cuts, which exacerbated Croydon's funding issues. He also raised concerns about the risk of transferring funding from deprived to less needy areas and called for protection of London schools by the new Mayor of London.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
He congratulated Jamie Reed on securing the debate and acknowledged the importance of this issue. He expressed worry over the Government's consultation process, which he felt favoured a specific group of authorities called f40, to the exclusion of London councils. He was concerned that such an unbalanced process could lead to an unfair proposal. He urged the Minister for no cuts in school funding for pupils from disadvantaged areas and highlighted how Newham would be among the biggest losers if the proposals were enacted as is.
He reassured Stephen Timms that his door was always open to any Member or local authority representative wishing to discuss school funding or concerns within his portfolio, addressing the Minister's accessibility in response to previous criticisms regarding exclusive access given to certain groups.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
He reiterated his concern about exclusive meetings with f40 and requested that all local authorities be provided with modelling or analysis of the likely impact of new funding formulae. He noted a similarity between f40 proposals from 2013 and current government consultation documents, suggesting influence over policy. Timms was particularly concerned by proposed exclusions in mobility factors which significantly affect costs for schools in London.
Helen Hayes
Lab
Dulwich and West Norwood
London's school transformation has been remarkable, with the highest percentage of good or outstanding schools. This was achieved through investment in buildings, facilities, staff, and leadership on quality standards. The current funding formula reflects additional costs for London schools due to higher levels of deprivation, special educational needs, looked-after children, and English as a second language pupils. Proposing cuts could result in £260 million loss or more, equivalent to almost 6,000 full-time teachers or nearly 12,000 teaching assistants. Such losses would lead to larger class sizes, less support for pupils with particular needs, and the loss of extra-curricular activities. The funding formula must reflect need and not be levelled down.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
London schools have made significant improvements, especially in Haringey where 43% of pupils on free school meals achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE level, significantly above the national average. The focus is on continuous improvement without any cuts or setbacks.
The speaker supports the argument that the right systems, approaches, and innovation backed by investment can bring school improvement to every child in the country, reflecting why no rounding down of funding should occur anywhere across the nation.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Believes in every child regardless of background, mentions high number of students with particular educational needs. Emphasises the importance of reflecting funding formula to address language difficulties and other educational needs in London. Points out that a reduction in funding would put all sustained education outcomes at risk. Provides an example from Wood Green primary school where performance has improved significantly despite previous challenges. Discusses recruitment challenges for teachers due to housing costs, citing a report on leadership pools in London schools. Highlights unique challenges in London such as mobility issues and high levels of deprivation.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Thanked the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for securing the debate, criticising another MP's speech for lacking genuine fairness while having special interests with certain groups. Provided an email from a headteacher about proposed budget cuts affecting their school. Discussed issues of forced academisation and recruitment problems due to high housing costs in London. Pointed out that despite spending being frozen, schools face rising costs leading to real-term cuts equivalent to 61 teachers in his borough. Emphasised the success of London schools compared to previous Conservative Governments and warned about potential consequences of further cuts including fewer subjects offered, less support staff, and school closures. Highlighted high percentages of pupils speaking English as an additional language and high mobility rates among primary schools.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
The success of London schools over recent years is undisputed, but the proposed national funding formula could significantly reduce funding for these schools. This reduction would be detrimental to pupils facing greater challenges such as high levels of deprivation, overcrowding, special educational needs, and looked-after children. Adequate funding is essential for ensuring that all young people are ready for work and can contribute economically. The Government should level up school funding allocations so no area sees a cut.
Rupa Huq
Lab
Ealing Central and Acton
The debate highlights concerns over the potential negative impacts of the proposed national funding formula on London schools, which could face budget cuts of up to 14% according to some estimates. London boroughs have received additional funding for years due to historical inequalities, but under the new proposals, this flexibility may be lost. The Mayor of London and other local leaders have called for continued local conversations about school budgets rather than a centralised decision-making process.
Greenwich and Woolwich
A key issue not yet addressed in the debate is the lack of local flexibility in the proposed funding formula. The Department for Education or the Education Funding Agency will need detailed information on private finance initiative agreements, costs, and how they align with per-pupil funding to maintain financial stability.
Rupa Huq
Lab
Ealing Central and Acton
Local accountability has been lost under the current government despite promises of devolution. The National Union of Teachers claims that without additional resources, fair funding will not address schools' problems and may lead to bigger cuts. Forced academisation is seen as a form of privatisation and faces opposition from parents and teachers due to concerns over recruitment, curriculum changes, and lack of evidence for improved outcomes. In Ealing, there are worries about the loss of social housing, health services, and education quality. Concerns have been raised about insufficient funding for asbestos removal in schools and support services previously provided by local authorities. The government's funding formula is perceived as politically motivated with cabinet members' constituencies receiving lower cuts than others. Historically, Ealing has a strong educational track record but faces challenges due to high numbers of pupils with English as a foreign language. Academisation is costly and may not be justified at times of fiscal belt-tightening. London's demographic growth raises concerns about the adequacy of funding under new proposals.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Emphasised the need to address the gap between state and private schools in funding, highlighting that students at private schools receive triple the funding of those in state schools. Acknowledged London's educational success but warned about challenges such as performance gaps for young people on free school meals, housing crisis affecting mobility, and issues with youth offending institutions particularly impacting black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups.
Nicholas Dakin
Lab
Scunthorpe
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. The debate has been wide-ranging and important, with contributions from Members across the House. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly highlighted London’s success in education but also raised concerns about potential funding cuts. My hon. Friends pointed to an estimated £260 million cut annually, which is significant and would impact extracurricular activities and staffing levels. While I commend the f40 group for their campaign, care must be taken not to undermine the gains made by London schools under Labour's policies. The consultation document aims at reducing funding for well-funded areas, raising concerns about the transition period and adequacy of transitional funding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham emphasised the disparity between state and private system funding, urging caution as we progress with reforms.
Sam Gyimah
Con
East Surrey
The Minister thanked his colleague for securing the debate and noted that investing in education is crucial for the future of the nation. He highlighted that there will be over £40 billion available next year, including a pupil premium funding worth £2.5 billion annually. The Minister also defended the government's engagement with stakeholders, stating that while meetings have occurred, they were not exclusive to any particular group. He emphasised the need for a fair and transparent schools funding formula that reflects current needs rather than historical allocations. Additionally, he mentioned concerns about mobility between local authorities in the funding system.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
The right hon. Member questioned whether the Minister's engagement was overly selective towards specific groups such as the cross-party f40 group, suggesting that there were more meetings with this particular organisation compared to others.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
The hon. Member sought assurance from the Minister regarding the protection of high-needs elements within any new arrangement for the funding formula.
Sam Gyimah
Con
East Surrey
In response, the Minister confirmed that detailed allocations would be made to address concerns about the high-needs block and assured that mobility issues would also be considered in the determination of the new funding formula.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
The right hon. Member enquired if the schools block should include an element recognising mobility within local authorities, as suggested by several contributors to today’s debate.
Sam Gyimah
Con
East Surrey
Acknowledging the importance of addressing mobility in funding systems, the Minister stated that they would consider how this could best be achieved within the new formula alongside other priorities such as population growth. He also clarified misconceptions about the impact on London schools and emphasised extra support for pupils with additional needs.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
The hon. Member questioned what the Minister meant by “additional needs” when discussing disadvantaged pupils, seeking clarity on whether it referred to special needs or broader socio-economic disadvantages.
Sam Gyimah
Con
Farnham
Addressed concerns about additional needs funding, clarifying that the formula will include extra funding for disadvantaged pupils and those with English as an additional language. Reassured that the consultation includes provision for higher costs faced by schools in London through an area cost adjustment. Highlighted improvements in London's school standards despite current challenges.
Steve Reed
Lab Co-op
Streatham
Asked if the Minister would meet with the all-party group for London to discuss future funding details when available, to address concerns raised during the debate.
Government Response
Government ministers will address mobility issues in the funding formula and clarify that additional needs include support for pupils with various barriers to success, not limited to special educational needs. Agreed to meet the all-party group for London to discuss issues before, during and after the consultation. Acknowledged the complexity of reorganising £40 billion of schools funding and committed to fairer funding through careful and thoughtful reforms.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.