Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please stop issuing instructions to withdraw. The statement from the Minister was borderline, because there can be no accusation of anything other than honesty in the Chamber, so I was happy to leave it there. I do not require advice or help from any other quarter.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

2. What progress he is making on increasing the number of free schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)]

There are 443 open free schools, and we will establish another 263. Today, I announced the approval of a further 37 special free schools and two alternative provision schools. In the spring, we will announce the successful applications from wave 13, and we recently published the wave 14 applications.

[Dominic Raab]

Cobham Free School’s secondary department has been in temporary accommodation since 2014. While it is welcome that the sixth form is moving in to the new site at Munro House in September, the rest of the pupils will not join them until 2021, which is frustrating for pupils and parents and will cost over £1 million. Will the Secretary of State see whether more can be done to seek early vacant possession, given the additional money and expense that would otherwise go on temporary accommodation, to get those children into the permanent site as soon as possible?

[Damian Hinds]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his ongoing work with the Cobham Free School and the upcoming project at Heathside Walton-on-Thames. He has met my noble friend Lord Agnew to discuss vacant possession and, as he knows, there have been delays in trying to get it, but I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Education and Social Mobility

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

I would welcome very little of the Green Paper. I do not agree with selective schooling.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady think that eligibility to stay on at either a college or a sixth form based on the level of qualifications at GCSE should therefore also be abolished?

[Carol Monaghan]

I am not sure I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. Students should be able to stay on in school as long as the school fits their requirements, and as long as the school is able to offer them something. That might not be what he asked, but I will move on.

I have received correspondence not from my constituents but from people living in England. They have shared their concerns about grammar schools. I will read out a section of a letter I received from a gentleman in England:

“As an 11+ failure…The sense of failure is still with me…so much so I find it hard in this letter to admit I went to a Secondary Modern School. Nearly all of my fellow pupils…came from poorer or deprived backgrounds—I cannot think of one who came from a well-off background. As children, we accepted our lot and it was made clear to us that our choices of work were limited after school…There was a small cohort of teachers who did their best for us despite (as I realise now) limited resources. However, the turnover of teachers was high, which did not bode well for continuity of education. There was no question of taking any exams for qualifications of any kind. University was unthinkable. Higher education…was closed off to us; we were in the rubbish bin.”

It is well known that young people’s thinking skills develop at different rates. Some at aged 11 will have advanced cognitive abilities. For others, it takes several more years for their thinking skills to mature. A number of years ago, I taught a young boy who had come from the primary school at age 11 with extremely poor literacy and numeracy skills. As time went on, however, he showed some talent for science. Despite all the original expectations placed upon him—not by teachers, but probably by the young boy himself—he managed to scrape by in his national exams and went on to university. He went on to achieve a degree in chemistry and then a PhD. He now travels the world as a chemical engineer. That is social mobility and it was achieved in a comprehensive school. That boy would not have come close to passing an 11-plus exam. I completely oppose selective education, which, thankfully, will not be introduced in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, in which there appears to be wide agreement about the stagnant state of social mobility in the UK but less agreement on the right way to revive it. We have an elephant in the room in this debate: the deep philosophical differences between those inspired by a meritocratic vision of society and those who take the egalitarian view. That situation is perfectly healthy and respectable. Of course people who take the egalitarian view will find the idea of meritocracy very hard to reconcile with their world view. That is lurking, and some Labour Members ought to be a bit more honest about it. People hold other objections, which I also recognise. I support the meritocratic vision of fairness, not only on moral grounds but because it can, unlike the egalitarian mirage, reinforce, not paralyse, a healthy, vibrant and competitive economy which creates the jobs, wages and tax revenue for our precious public services.

I wish to discuss the evidence on selection, because there is strong evidence in favour of it—if it is done in the right way. We see that in the existing selection we have within schools; in the independent sector; at 16, when pupils want to stay on to do A-levels; and when students go to university. The motion says there is “no evidence” that selection—or any further selection—will improve social mobility, but this is clearly still a contentious issue. I am not saying it is cut and dried, but there is compelling evidence in favour of selection here: the review conducted by Sir Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools in 2009; and the evidence I heard in 2013 from Andreas Schleicher when I was serving on the Education Committee. He did not give an unequivocal view one way or another, but he did say that there was evidence that supported selection, provided admissions were done on a clear and objective basis and there were opportunities for selection later on.

The Opposition motion is therefore clearly flawed, but I accept that an expansion of grammars needs to be done in the right way, with tests that are fair and objective, minimising the scope for coaching, and with grammars schools expanded beyond a middle-class preserve. There is a strong case for making sure that the first tranche are in urban or rural areas with high levels of deprivation and low educational standards, both to create a ladder of opportunity for bright kids from the council estate or the rural backwater, and to have a beacon of educational excellence in those schools.

There is a reasonable question as to the age at which selection should take place. I certainly agree with Schleicher and the OECD that there ought to be doors for selection at different ages, to make sure that we do not close off opportunities for late developers. It also goes without saying that this is not a zero-sum game: we can support grammars and still want to raise standards across the whole state education system, particularly for the most deprived areas. That is what we have seen happening under this Government—1.4 million more children are going to schools deemed “good” or “outstanding” than were doing so in 2010—particularly through policies such as the pupil premium, which was specifically designed to target the children in the most deprived areas and to make sure that no child was left behind.

I support the Government’s proposals, but the other note of caution I sound is that grammars are not a silver bullet; they are one piece in patiently putting together the jigsaw that will help to revive social mobility. I support the Green Paper’s proposals on harnessing the talent, creativity and innovation of the independent sector. Indeed, I would go even further, as I like the idea of the Sutton Trust’s work to open up all independent schools on a meritocratic and means-tested basis. That would massively widen their intake of youngsters from humble backgrounds.

Notwithstanding the great strides we have made on apprenticeships and vocational training, this country still has a massive hang-up with the technical route for people to make a success of themselves. Whether we are talking about vocational training or apprenticeships, we do not have the same parity of esteem as there is in countries such as France, Switzerland and Germany. I would like to see us do more on those non-graduate routes to the professions so that we create the ladders of opportunities for not only bright academic youngsters, but for bright but not necessarily bookish youngsters.

When I look at the Green Paper overall, and not just what it says about grammars, I share the inspiring ambition that the Prime Minister has set out to make Britain the great meritocracy of the world. This is only the first step, but a lot of people are talking a good game about social mobility without being willing to get behind it, will it and deliver the means to it. On the basis that this is a first step, it has my full support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I have a longer memory than the hon. Gentleman; I first became involved in debates on the European Union in the mid-1970s, when I was campaigning in favour and the Labour party was against it. I am glad that it has finally seen the light, but my party has been consistent throughout.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T4. Last week Len McCluskey set out plans for illegal strikes. The Conservatives condemned it and the Leader of the Opposition said nothing—Labour is bankrolled by Unite. I just wonder whether the Secretary of State and his party condemn the threat to the rule of law or sit on the fence.

[Vince Cable]

Of course we condemn threats to the rule of law. I simply point out that the level of strikes in this country is the lowest it has been for a generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive remarks at the beginning. On funding, he will be pleased to know that under the StartUp loan scheme, we now have 13,000 loans that have been disbursed. They operate through the Business Bank, which is also funding crowdfunding, and it is operating on a significant scale and accelerating fast.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to strengthen vocational training.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We are creating a system of vocational training to enable everyone to achieve their potential. We are on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeship starts. We have introduced traineeships for young people, we are supporting national colleges for key sectors and technologies and of course more than half of university students are doing a course that leads directly to a profession.

[Mr Dominic Raab]

I welcome the huge progress that has been made. What progress has been made in implementing the Richards review recommendation to give employers greater purchasing power over apprentices’ training to drive up standards?

[Mr Willetts]

I met Doug Richards in a very upbeat mood only half an hour ago, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we agree with Doug Richards that employers should purchase apprenticeship training. We want providers to respond to businesses, not to Government. We have consulted widely on how to make that happen. We will publish details of our preferred payment mechanism and next steps in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

1. What his policy is on the length of the school day; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to extend the school day.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I would like to see state schools offer a school day that is nine or even 10 hours long, enabling schools to provide character building, extra-curricular activities and homework sessions. I look forward to working with schools to ensure that they have access to the resources necessary to provide these activities.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need to do is close the unacceptable gap in attainment between those who are fortunate enough to have parents who can pay for them to be educated privately and those in the state sector. The very best state schools recognise that a longer school day with additional extra-curricular activities is just one way of ensuring that all our children can succeed.

[Mr Raab]

These plans would strengthen children’s education, ensure time for music, sport and other extra-curricular activities, ease the time pressure on teachers and help out working parents. I urge the Secretary of State not to allow the narrow vested interests of the unions to block the delivery of these plans.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These plans will ensure that a broader range of culturally enriching activities are available to young people. I am sure that the teaching unions will recognise that this is in their interests, and I hope they will embrace and support these changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, indeed, we are acting, having inherited a complete failure in careers advice. The Connexions service that the Labour party keeps talking about was well known to be a failing institution, and when it was taken apart, it was agreed across the House that that was the right thing to do because it was not delivering. Instead, we have put in place the sort of guidance and inspiration that will help and support people all the way through and into their careers. Ofsted will hold schools to account, and that is the right way to proceed.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to allow head teachers greater autonomy in their schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The welcome growth in the number of academies has provided more freedom for more head teachers to raise standards for more students, especially the poorest.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Although a formal teaching qualification may be a bonus, with Ofsted’s rigorous new inspection regime and performance-related pay, does he agree that it would be dogmatic in the extreme to force heads to fire 15,000 teachers, regardless of their impact in the classroom, just because they do not hold a piece of paper?

[Michael Gove]

That is a characteristically acute point from my hon. Friend. The most important thing we need to do is ensure that the quality of teaching in our schools is improving. Ofsted tells us that it is, and I am delighted to report that to the House. That is a result of our reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

We are aware of that long-standing anomaly in the system, and we want to fix it. However, such matters depend on the budget allocations that we are given by the Treasury, and these are obviously difficult times. We shall have to look at the situation after the announcement of the spending review settlement.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

9. What plans he has for reform of the schools funding formula.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

The current school funding system is unfair, and is based on an out-of-date assessment of need. We have already introduced reforms to make the system simpler and more transparent, which will assist preparation for the introduction of a national funding formula in the next spending review period.

[Mr Raab]

I welcome that answer and that recognition. The current formula has arbitrary consequences in constituencies such as mine. Because a rising birth rate and other factors are not taken into account, parents living in areas like Claygate and Thames Ditton are struggling to secure local places. When will the review start, and what efforts will the Minister make to consult Members directly on the key issues and criteria that are at stake?

[Mr Laws]

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State and I are committed to introducing a fairer national funding formula in the next spending review period, but we are currently waiting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce our final settlement in his spending review statement this Wednesday. I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage in full consultation with all Members, including those who have particular interests in this area, as he has.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that when there is an economic slump in the markets that constitute half our exports, it is rather difficult to expand into them, despite the competitive advantage that we have. There are deep structural problems. Many exporters genuinely have problems in getting access to bank finance or difficulties in getting access to trained workers. These are long-term structural problems that we inherited and are now trying to deal with.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce business regulation for start-ups and small businesses.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

Through the red tape challenge, we have committed to scrapping, improving or simplifying at least 3,000 regulations. We introduced the ground-breaking one in, one out rule, which has saved businesses around £1 billion in regulatory costs; and from January we upped that to one in, two out. In addition, the micro-business moratorium introduced in April 2011 has protected the very smallest firms, and I hope that we can build on that when the moratorium expires next March.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Institute of Directors estimates that regulation costs British business £112 billion each year. I understand that the Government moratorium on new regulation applied to micro-businesses and start-ups, to which the Minister has referred, expires next year. Will he extend it for another three years in order to boost growth and get firms hiring?

[Michael Fallon]

We are looking hard at what we can do to extend that protection for the very smallest businesses from burdensome regulation from next year. In addition, we are pressing the Commission to make more proposals to implement its own commitment to a moratorium. We have seen a couple of examples from the European Union so far and we need to see more.

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The draft directive is unprincipled and counter-productive. It needs to be understood in the context of the progress that has been made towards a more equal society in this country. We are sometimes churlish in acknowledging the strides that we have made, notwithstanding our desire to go further and faster. For example, the UK median full-time gender pay gap has almost halved since 1998. Women in their 20s now earn 3% more than men; women in their 30s earn almost the same. One of the key residual issues—in regard to the pay gap and, arguably, more broadly—appears to arise at the age of 40, when women with young families strive to strike the critical balance between child care and breadwinning.

Even at the top level, however, progress is being made. Figures from Cranfield university, some of which have already been cited, show that the number of female FTSE 100 directors more than doubled between 2000 and 2012. That demonstrates a high rate of change, albeit starting from a low base. Since March 2012, 44% of new FTSE 250 non-executive directors have been women. That is evidence in favour of the argument that the problem is to a large extent an historical hangover that will be corrected over time, although we can argue about how quickly that is likely to happen.

If we look across the piste at this issue, rather than just at what is happening in the boardrooms, we see that, for most modern couples, the juggling act between work and family is not just about women. It is about teamwork and about freeing couples to make their own choices. Let us also recognise that fathers are increasingly doing their bit, with a tenfold rise in stay-at-home dads in 10 years, supporting more and more women to pursue their professional ambitions. A 2011 study by Aviva found that 39% of cohabitating couples now share child care responsibilities equally, or have the father as the main child-carer. It is these grass-roots, bottom-up changes in social attitudes, and not regulatory diktat, that will deliver real change in this country.

In the light of that progress, it is anti-meritocratic in the extreme to suggest that women need quotas to succeed in modern Britain. I have lost count of the number of women who have told me how deeply insulting they find the idea. No one has mentioned this in the debate today. Boardroom appointments, like any other competitive recruitment, should be based on individual talent and hard work, not on positive discrimination. The entrepreneur and “dragon” from “Dragons’ Den”, Julie Meyer, powerfully argues that if someone is on a board because of a quota,

“your voice will be neutered and your advice won’t be heard”.

That is what this directive would achieve; that is what it is about. It would force top FTSE companies faced with equally qualified applicants to positively discriminate in favour of women, with fines and court-ordered annulment of appointments as the sanctions for non-compliance. Let us not kid ourselves, as those on the Opposition Front Bench are trying to do. This is a quota, not a target.

[Mr Umunna]

I have read the hon. Gentleman’s contributions on this topic, and I see that the headline to his recent piece in The Sunday Times was “Sorry, girls, a seat on the board must be earned”. I am sure that many women would find that quite insulting, although I am sure that he did not write it himself. I hear what he is saying about child care—I have said it myself—but does he not accept that there are certain cultural issues at play here? Lord Davies’s report indentified the fact that people seek to select people who are like them to positions on their boards, and that that operates as a barrier to women getting on to those boards.

[Mr Raab]

I note that the hon. Gentleman did not take issue with the substance of my article—[Interruption.] No, listen to my point. He talked about the headline, but, as a media-savvy politician, he well knows that I had no hand in writing it. He also mentioned group-think, and I think that there is a substantive point there, although it might not be the one that he wanted to make. If he will bear with me, I will come to that shortly.

I was about to make the point that the Commission’s notion of equally qualified candidates is an utter fallacy. As anyone in the real business world knows, a rigorous recruitment process will always identify the best, the brightest, the top person for the job, on merit. My wife works for Google, and she was interviewed 10 times, even after they had got rid of all the other candidates. That is a good example of a cutting-edge, high-tech firm testing and testing until it finds the very best candidate.

The directive is not just anti-meritocratic; it would also damage business competitiveness. No one has yet mentioned that. The Government estimate that it would cost listed companies £9 million between now and 2020, with additional ongoing monitoring costs. There is a far greater cost involved, too, but people are just too politically correct to mention it.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he meant when he said that the measure to increase diversity on boards would damage business competitiveness?

[Mr Raab]

If the hon. Lady will just have an iota of patience, I will come to the empirical evidence for that in a moment.

I want to cite some empirical research from Kenneth Ahern and Amy Dittmar of the business school of the university of Michigan, which examined the introduction of mandatory quotas in Norway from 2003. Looking assiduously at the impact on the boards, they found that the quotas damaged equity, asset and shareholder values in the companies affected. The report also found

“significant decreases in operating performance and higher costs as a result of the imposition of the quota.”

I would be happy to debate this afterwards with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) if she wants to quibble with the empirical evidence of this study, but let me cite its findings correctly:

“These results are consistent with boards of directors that lack sufficient experience to act as capable advisors.”

The point is that if we have tokenism of this kind, we get inexperienced people on the boards and it damages shareholder value. Equality and diversity policy must be about widening the talent pool. On that we all agree, and it is through that that we strengthen business competitiveness. Tokenism is utterly counter-productive.

Equally, high-flying women would see minimal benefits from this directive because it focuses only on non-executive directorships. In that sense, I agree with some of the comments of Opposition Members. That, of course, encourages tokenism. If we look again at the Norwegian example—it is the one place in Europe where mandatory quotas were introduced—research in 2011 by Dr Hakim of the London School of Economics showed that Norway, the pioneer of gender quotas, had no female executive directors at all. That is why this measure feels—to me and, I think, to many outside the cloistered politically correct Westminster village—like a political elite debating an issue that is relevant pretty much solely to a business elite. It is largely irrelevant to the challenges of the millions of working women who live in the real world.

Of course, to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), there are still outdated attitudes in the City. There is a problem of group-think among those from similar backgrounds. I worked in the City before I went into the Foreign Office, and I saw that all the time. It is true in many professions, including—and it would be useful to see more acknowledgement of the fact—some of the politically correct institutions such as the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which have an appalling imbalance in the gender composition of their staff. If anyone bothered to look at it, they would find it deeply hypocritical that these bodies are constantly lecturing others on the subject.

In terms of the City, which is what the directive is about, raw competitive forces are ensuring that companies look far more carefully at their boardroom composition to maximise their breadth of experience. It is taken far more seriously as a strategic business issue. McKinsey and various other firms have been cited with that in mind. I am confident, given the rates that we are seeing, that a rising flow of talented women into more senior positions will continue to break through the glass ceiling, which I do not deny we residually have.

We need to be careful, however, not to give succour to the very stereotypes of which we want to rid ourselves. The deputy leader of the Labour party notoriously suggested that we might not have suffered the financial crisis if we had had “Lehman Sisters” rather than Lehman Brothers. That sort of progressive prejudice, for want of a better term, is scarcely more subtle or savoury than the conventional kind. It is also—this is the interesting point for those who care to look at the evidence—positively refuted by the available empirical material. Research for the Bundesbank—hardly an institution regarded as lacking in rigour—that reviewed German boards between 1994 and 2010 found female board members tended to increase, not decrease, risk taking. The report attributes that to a public policy drive for more female directors, which resulted in the recruitment of less experienced women, as we discussed before. The issue was really about experience, not about gender. A similar review of Swedish boards found exactly the same. This kind of evidence punctures the prejudice promoted by people such as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that men are somehow innately more reckless than women. Of course it depends on the individual and their personal character, not on crude gender stereotypes, which too often inform this debate and have too often informed this sort of proposal.

I welcome the Government’s reasoned opinion arguing that the directive does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, but let us be careful not to give the impression that we are making process points here. This directive is corrosive of a meritocratic vision of our society where we are gender blind and what matters is who people are and what they are capable of. If we really care about maximising opportunities for working women, we should be talking about such things as transferable parental leave and other family-friendly policies, which this coalition is adopting. We should be addressing the exorbitant costs of child care—

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, as I am conscious that others wish to speak and I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

The last Labour Government did nothing to address the soaring costs of child care, which is arguably the single biggest practical problem for working women today, so I am delighted that the Government are shortly to announce proposals to address it. These are the policies that will make a real difference in the real world.

Finally, let me touch on a point raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is about the tendency of those on the left to label and treat any form of ostensibly low representation in one area or one sector or another as inequality, then bluntly equating it with discrimination. This fails to recognise, in the words of the great British liberal thinker Isaiah Berlin, that from

“the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made.”

That tendency is destined to stoke up social tensions, not to ease them. If we bow to this and go down the path that quotas and positive discrimination tempt us to go down, we will open the floodgates to special interest politics, with every conceivable social group turning every gripe and grievance into an equality issue. We invite lobbying under the Equality Act 2010 based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, faith, age, parenthood and even non-religious beliefs, but for those who bother to look at the Equality Act and at the list and number of protected characteristics, it becomes mind boggling. Instead of reducing these dividing lines as factors that determine people’s fate in life, we make them decisive. That is a major social mistake and I would argue against it at all costs.

I would like to see us build a meritocratic society where people are not judged according to tick-box criteria—one that recognises that, in a free country, perfect parity of representation is not only utopian but positively dangerous, and one that in the words of the great Martin Luther King judges people

“based on the content of their character”,

not on race, gender or any other arbitrary social dividing line. This directive is a social engineer’s dream and every meritocrat’s nightmare. I hope we send it back to Brussels and never see it again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As an admirer of Danny Boyle’s film-making, and indeed of the amazing work that he did at the opening ceremony for the Olympics, I hesitate ever to disagree with him in any respect. That is why I was so pleased this morning to be able to talk to representatives of the culture sector, including those responsible for dance education, drama and visual arts, and to agree on what we can do together to ensure that every child has access to the best that has been thought and written.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T9. Our schools in Elmbridge face serious financial pressures as a result of a spike in the birth rate, the large number of young families who are moving into the area, and small pockets of relatively acute deprivation. Those factors were consistently overlooked by the last Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that they are properly taken into account in the forthcoming funding formula review?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are simplifying the funding formula for 2013-14. We believe that it contains the right factors, which will be able to accommodate the real pressures throughout the country. My hon. Friend will also know that we are conducting a review of the formula for 2014-15. If he will write to me about the problems in his constituency, I shall be sure to look at them very closely.