Pupil Roll Numbers and School Closures: London

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed. We come to an important debate on pupil roll numbers and school closures in London.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pupil roll numbers and school closures in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to lead my third Westminster Hall debate and to discuss this really important issue. I am grateful to everyone for coming. I also thank London Councils, which has supported me to raise this important issue.

This is an emotive topic. I think everybody here remembers when they went to school; those experiences really do stay with us for life. I still have memories of when I went on a visit from primary school to big school—secondary school—in my summer uniform. I thought this place was like Hogwarts, but when I walked into secondary school it felt like Hogwarts too, because it was so much bigger! Schools are places that communities are built around: places where, as children, we learn to make friends and find our passions in life; and, as parents, we watch our children learn about the world and their place in it.

As a proud Londoner who has lived in Lambeth all my life and now has the opportunity to represent my home constituency of Vauxhall, this debate is personal for me. I went to four schools in total: Durand Primary School and St Helen’s Catholic Primary School, then to Bishop Thomas Grant School and St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, all of which were a short trip away from where we stand now. We will talk about policy over the course of the debate, but this is a human issue. We all care deeply about the communities we represent, and schools sit at the centre of them. We all want our city to thrive, with an education system that produces the next generation of Londoners—one that gives them the chances we all had. That is a shared purpose that I hope will define this debate.

The current situation facing London schools is a difficult one. There has been a sharp decline in the number of children born here. In fact, the latest data shows that between 2012 and 2021, there was a 17% decrease in London’s birth rate, which represents a reduction of over 20,000 births. We are only just beginning to see the effects, as children born across that period reach school age, but it is already clear that it will have a drastic impact on the number of pupils attending London schools. The scale varies across boroughs, but it is predicted that reception numbers will fall by an average of 7.3% by 2027—a drop of more than 7,000 pupils. And it is not just primary schools; secondary schools are seeing the same thing happen at a slightly delayed rate, with an anticipated decline of 3.5% over five years. That figure will increase further over time as children currently starting primary school reach secondary age.

The declining birth rate leaves many schools facing an uphill struggle to stay afloat. Our national education funding model works on a per pupil basis. Across the country, schools are already working hard on very tight budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I agree. That is something that my party is committed to. I hope that my colleague—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—will be able to outline why it is important that we have that approach.

Archbishop Tenison’s School in my constituency announced in May that it will close at the end of this academic year, and it was closely followed by St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls in Tulse Hill, which is represented by another constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), although young pupils also attend it from my constituency of Vauxhall and that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Both these secondary schools have histories dating back to the 17th century and their closures will leave a huge hole in the communities they have served.

I will say a bit more about Archbishop Tenison’s School, because its closure has directly impacted my constituents. The beautiful, grand, 1920s school building is matched by the school’s history. The school overlooks the Oval cricket ground and has proudly offered high-quality education to many generations of south Londoners who have studied there. I have had the pleasure of visiting on many occasions, and every time I have been struck by the strong sense of community. Pupils from all different backgrounds feel at home there.

The school’s closure has caused an outpouring of sadness. I was contacted by so many constituents who were shocked by the announcement, many of whom were former pupils with so many happy memories to share. The closure has caused significant practical disruption for the current students, which brings me back to the people at the centre of what we are discussing: the children and the school staff who have to bear the brunt of what is happening.

Mr Hollobone, I want us all to imagine what this would feel like: imagine what it would be like to be in the middle of your school journey, in a place you know like the back of your hand, having navigated the corridors where you have made friends you have seen every day for years; you feel at home. Then, one morning—out of the blue—you come to school to hear that your school is closing. You are probably preparing for exams and coping with the stress of being a teenager, but at the same time have to start at a completely new school, maybe in a new area, with new teachers, new classmates and new buildings. The uncertainty of the situation is having an impact on our young people mentally, and this will happen to many children in the years ahead if we do not act now.

Fortunately, neighbouring schools have rallied round to help minimise the impact for students from Archbishop Tenison’s. I am particularly grateful to St Gabriel’s College, which has agreed to take on a majority of the students in exam years, as well as a majority of the teaching staff. Earlier this week I had the pleasure of visiting St Gabriel’s with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, and we saw preparations for the new students. Many areas would not be lucky enough to have such a sustainable alternative nearby, but even where a new school is found, the process will be disruptive for all involved.

My central point is a simple one: without action to address falling pupil numbers, Archbishop Tenison’s and St Martin-in-the-Fields will be joined by other good schools across London being forced to shut their doors. Data from London Councils shows that there are 14 parliamentary constituencies in London where at least one school has already closed or is consulting on closure—that is just in the last two years—but it does not have to be inevitable.

The Government have to act to address the core issues driving young families out of the capital and causing the birth rate to fall. There are a number of factors behind this behaviour. During the pandemic, we saw many families move away from London to be closer to relatives during the lockdown. Some have chosen to resettle where they are, because moving back to London is, frankly, too expensive. The picture has not been helped by the loss of many young European families who were living here in recent years. The uncertainty of the Government’s post-Brexit immigration policy has meant that we have lost the stability we had in previous years, and this has caused many to move away from the UK, leaving a hole in London’s workforce and meaning fewer people are settling here. Those factors have played a part in putting schools under pressure in recent years.

The single most important reason for the fall in the number of children growing up in London is the affordability crisis. It is an issue frequently discussed in the context of the cost of living. Sky-high inflation has pushed up the cost of everything from food to energy bills and household goods; we have all spoken about the issues and the pressing need for the Government to do so much more, but London’s affordability problem has long-term roots, starting with the extortionate cost of housing. The impossibility of finding an affordable place to buy as a young adult is a problem across the country, but it is particularly significant in London.

The average property sale price in London is now over half a million pounds. That is wildly out of reach for so many young couples wanting to start a family, and the private rental market is not a suitable alternative. Private rents have soared in recent years, driven by rising demand and falling supply. I have heard from so many of my Vauxhall constituents who face the choice between paying nearly double the rent to renew their tenancy or having to battle—in some cases, with up to 60 people—just to view a rental property. For a young family with children, that is no option.

Despite the best efforts of our councils to cope with the rapid rise in demand, social housing waiting lists are at an all-time high. Taken together, that means that young couples on lower and middle incomes simply have no choice but to leave London and look for cheaper housing elsewhere. Fewer children are being born here because of that, which fuels the drop in demand for school places. The housing crisis runs through so many issues we face, but if we are serious about protecting the future of our fantastic schools, Ministers must ensure that London remains a place where people of all backgrounds can afford to live.

Without more young families staying in London, we may sadly lose more schools. I have already spoken about the impact of school closures, but the loss of a school is also a wider risk to national education standards. As schools close and pupils are relocated, existing schools become larger. Over time, that creates a culture of survival of the biggest, where smaller schools are consumed by those with more capacity. We have already seen that locally with larger academies seeking to expand at the expense of neighbouring schools. That trend threatens the mix of small and big schools that defines London’s school ecosystem, reduces parental choice, and leaves smaller schools unable to compete, even if they are performing well.

For most pupils, what does that mean? It means longer commutes, and bigger class sizes, which puts pressure on our teachers, who are so stretched that some are at breaking point. Some are leaving the profession they love and care about, while the others are left with less time to spend with our children. Also, resources for specialist teaching are squeezed, and those with special educational needs are adversely impacted. Collectively, all those factors damage school standards.

The reality is that where education declines, the life chances of future generations suffer. That is what is at stake when schools close. The importance of that has been reflected in recent media coverage. Last month, the BBC reported that London is becoming “a city without children”. That should worry us all. London is a vibrant, diverse and young city, built on young people. If there are less of them living here, our economic strength to compete in a global world will be harmed. The UK economy will be hit hard by our capital city falling behind.

But what do we have? So far, Ministers have been silent, acting as if this is not happening on their watch. There are spatial impacts: if people are priced out of their home communities, gentrification will accelerate. I am proud to be a working-class girl from Brixton, and I still live there today. I know how important lifelong Londoners are to this city. I am proud to meet so many of them on my walkabouts across my constituency. They are the lifeblood of London, which would be so much poorer without them.

I have five simple asks of the Minister to help. First, further school closures can be avoided if the Department for Education recognises the pressure in the system. Will the Government please work with school leaders and local authorities to identify schools at risk of closure and to work out a plan?

Secondly, London’s birth rate means that pupil roll numbers will fall over the next few years. We have to plan ahead. Will the Minister address the inequalities in school funding? Will he work with the sector to develop a collaborative approach to the challenges ahead, so that we do not see disruption to education standards?

Thirdly, affordable housing shortages are driving young families out of London. The Mayor of London and many of our councils do all they can to increase the supply of affordable housing, but the reality is that the national planning framework, which the Government control, is stacked in favour of developers building high-end housing that no one can afford. Will the Government bring forward their long-awaited planning reform? Will they put power back in the hands of local communities, so that those communities can have development that meets the needs of the local population?

Fourthly, the local housing allowance is a lifeline for many low and middle-income families in the private rented sector, but the Government have frozen its rate since April 2020. Rents have gone through the roof since then. Will the Minister please ask the Chancellor to reverse that real-terms cut to housing support and give hope to the millions of people who have been forced out of their homes?

Finally, will the Minister meet me and other interested MPs to discuss the issue in more detail? Will he work with us to find a solution?

I will end by taking us back to the heart of the issue: the children who have their life chances impacted by what has happened to our schools in recent years. The Government may want to look away and pretend that this is nothing to do with them—that it is the fault of, and down to, the multi-academy trusts or MATs, the education authorities and the schools—but the reality is that Ministers are the ones with the power to do something. I urge them to act now.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 4 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Opposition spokesman no later than 3.37 pm and the Minister at 3.47 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes each for the Opposition spokesman and for the Minister. The mover of the motion will have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Until 3.37 pm, we are in Back-Bench time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. The sense is that this issue will not go away—[Interruption.]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that a Division has been called in the House. Does the hon. Lady wish to return in half an hour, or is she happy to end the debate now?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I am happy to end the debate now. I thank the Minister. I note that he has not answered any of my questions, so will he meet me?

Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Debate between Florence Eshalomi and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered residential leaseholders and interim fire safety costs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall and to be able to debate such an important topic today. When I became the MP for Vauxhall in 2019, two and a half years after the horrific Grenfell Tower fire, I did not expect to find so many of my constituents still living in unsafe buildings, blighted by dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. To date, I have received correspondence from and been contacted by more than 250 individual leaseholders living in 27 different unsafe building developments in my constituency. And that is just in Vauxhall. The sheer scale of the cladding scandal is truly shocking, and it has revealed the full extent of what can only be described as a systematic failure in building safety in this country. But because of the tireless efforts of campaigners and their supporters up and down the country, we know that safety is only one part of this story. Leaseholders who bought their homes in good faith now find themselves saddled with the financial responsibility and liability for problems that they had absolutely no part in creating.

Much has been said recently about this injustice, and I am grateful to colleagues across the House who have called for urgent action to protect innocent leaseholders. Understandably, much of the debate has focused on who should pay for the cost of the remedial works to remove and replace the cladding. However, I want to draw attention to an equally urgent but much less talked about financial aspect of this crisis. That is the eye-watering charges that are being passed on to leaseholders for compulsory interim fire safety measures while they wait for the remediation work to be completed.

Interim costs have life-changing impacts. The sheer feeling of hopelessness is shared by many leaseholders I have spoken to. One constituent wrote to me and said,

“I have worked hard. I have contributed to the communities in which I have lived. I have paid over £100,000 in taxes over the past three years. And yet I now find myself facing potential bankruptcy, homelessness and the collapse of my business through no fault of my own. My future is utterly bleak, and my life feels worthless.”

As soon as a building is assessed to be unsafe, residents are told that they must immediately introduce additional fire safety protocols or face an evacuation order from the fire brigade. The requirement for those interim measures can be met in two ways. One is by appointing a waking watch, whereby trained wardens continually patrol the building in order to be able to detect a fire. The second is the installation of specialist alarm systems. Faced with homelessness, leaseholders have little choice but to assume the costs for those measures.

Interim measures have become a frequent occurrence as the fire safety crisis has unravelled over the last three and a half years. Every week, new buildings have been discovered to be unsafe. Worryingly, a fire safety assessment is generally triggered only when the leaseholder tries to remortgage or sell, which in turn triggers the external wall survey or the now-infamous EWS1 process. It means that the true scale of the problem is still unknown, and it will only grow in the months and years ahead.

There is currently nothing in law to protect leaseholders from the financial responsibilities for such interim measures, which are typically passed on through increased service charges. The data on interim costs are patchy and incomplete. Government figures show that the average estimated cost of a waking watch in England is £17,000 per block, rising to over £20,000 in London. Per household, that translates to a bill of approximately £500 a month for each affected household. Alarm systems are not much cheaper as an alternative, with estimates ranging from £50,000 to £150,000 depending on the size of the building. Those figures are eye-watering, and they will recur month after month, year after year, until the cladding is removed and the building is deemed completely safe.

In February of this year, the Minister told Parliament that

“we are clear that waking watch regimes should only ever be used in the short term”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 690-691.]

On one development in the Kennington area of my constituency, however, they have been paying for a waking watch since July of last year, at a cost of £10,000 per flat. The remediation works are not expected to be completed before the end of next year, and the alarm system is deemed insufficient to meet the danger. The total cost of the interim measures for this one development is currently estimated to reach over £1 million. What really sticks in the throat for my constituents is not just that the interim measures are expensive and mandatory, but that their effectiveness has been called into question. One constituent told me:

“These guys add little practical value and sit around watching TV on their phones, and yet we have to pay for them under the threat of being evicted if we don’t. In a fire, they are not really going to be able to make a blind bit of difference through evacuating residents.”

We have to remember that such interim measures are a daily reminder to our constituents that the buildings they live in are unsafe. The amounts are unaffordable for most people at any stage in life, but many of those affected are young, first-time buyers whose dreams of home ownership have turned into an unaffordable nightmare, with their homes literally unsellable. Industry experts estimate that it will take between five and 15 years for all affected buildings to be remediated. The truth is that the costs are anything but interim.

Ministers have known about this problem for almost four years. They have repeatedly acknowledged that fire safety defects are not the fault of leaseholders, and yet it took the Secretary of State until December last year to announce any sort of help for interim costs. The waking watch relief fund, which offers a grant to pay for the installation of fire alarm systems, was a welcome step in the right direction, but it remains the only form of Government assistance that is available for interim costs. In their current form, the fund’s provisions are partial and insufficient. Leaseholders living in blocks below 18 metres are excluded from applying. The Government claim that this is because the risk of a life-threatening fire in lower buildings is smaller, but any building that faces an evacuation order if the interim measures are not established is, by definition, clearly not safe, regardless of whether it is 18, 15 or 12 metres.

One such block in Vauxhall, which is under 18 metres, failed its EWS1 assessment in October 2020, and its leaseholders have had to find more than £170,000 to pay for interim safety measures. It is estimated that the remediation work will cost in total £1.4 million. The developer of the building has gone out of business, and leaseholders were all excluded from any Government support schemes. I simply do not know how this situation can ever be fair.

Even if we focus our attention on just the buildings over 18 metres that can apply for the fund, the £30 million that the Government have allocated is drastically short of what is needed. The Government estimate that that will pay for a maximum of 460 buildings, but there are at least 560 eligible buildings in London alone. Lord Greenhalgh told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on Monday this week:

“We recognise that the £30 million goes some way, but not all the way.”

Finally, the fund pays only for an alarm system purchased and installed after December 2020. That totally ignores the thousands of pounds that leaseholders have already spent on compulsory and expensive but ineffective waking watch systems. How can that be right or fair?

The Government, including the Minister, have repeatedly said in the House that no leaseholder should pay, so I ask the Minister whether he agrees in principle that innocent leaseholders should not be responsible for solving the problems that they did not cause. Why are we asking the same leaseholders to pay extortionate sums for interim costs?

I am grateful to the Minister for attending this debate today. I want to conclude my remarks by focusing on what can be done to fix this appalling situation. I have four questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. Will the Government agree to the principle that no leaseholder should have to pay for interim fire safety measures to mitigate the problems that they did not cause? Will the Government commit to including provisions within the upcoming draft Building Safety Bill to protect leaseholders from such costs, and ensure that they are picked up by the people who were responsible for causing them in the first place? Will the Government immediately extend the waking watch relief fund to match the number of buildings that we know are affected, and make sure that all leaseholders facing these costs can apply regardless of building heights?

The Minister has previously said that interim measures should be used only temporarily,

“because they are an entirely inadequate substitute for remediation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 691.]

With that in mind, will the Minister ask the Government to mandate a timetable for the completion of the remediation work in all unsafe blocks to make sure that the interim costs do not have to be paid by leaseholders for years to come?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate will last until 10.55 am. I intend to call the Opposition spokesman no later than 10.32 am and the Minister at 10.42 am. Florence Eshalomi will have two or three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are 16 Back Benchers seeking to contribute. I want to make sure that everyone gets in, so I am afraid that I will have to impose a time limit. If we aim for three minutes, everybody should have their say. All Members participating virtually should have a countdown clock on their screens. We will start with Stephen McPartland.