I hope that my response will cover the four questions that Lynne Featherstone asked at the end of her contribution. I congratulate her on securing this debate. She has raised the topic several times, and my Department takes it seriously.

It is essential that every school receives sufficient funding not just to ensure that their pupils receive the necessary support to learn, but to give teachers the correct amount of pay for their services. I want to ensure that all schools receive the right funding for their circumstances, including Haringey. As the hon. Lady knows, the matter has been the subject of much correspondence, and a question to the Prime Minister. It has resulted in strong lobbying from her, the Minister for Higher Education and intellectual property, my right hon. Friend Mr. Lammy, and the leader of Haringey council, Councillor Claire Kober. My right hon. Friend has requested a meeting with me, to which I have agreed, and the hon. Lady's debate today provides a further platform for this important issue.

On school funding, I want to emphasise the unprecedented amount of investment that the Government have put into schools to address decades of under-investment. Between 1997 and 2010, national revenue funding was increased by £2,410 per pupil, from £1,808 to £4,218 in 2010. We are continuing to ensure that that investment is built on to provide schools with the correct funding for their pupils and staff. That is why we introduced the dedicated schools grant in 2006, which changed how each local authority is funded for the schools in their area. That amount was calculated by the spend plus model, which took the per pupil spend by each local authority in 2005-06, and applied an increase to it. The model was used again in 2006-07 and 2007-08, and it has provided stable and predictable funding levels for all local authorities. That is why, following significant consultation, it continued to be the model from 2008 and will be until 2011.

The fact that Haringey receives money for outer-London weighting but must pay its teachers inner-London weighting puts it in a difficult position. The issue is not new, as the hon. Lady said. Haringey has paid inner-London weighting for teachers since the 1970s, and its current funding levels reflect how much it was spending in 2005-06. The significant changes in the way that local government is funded have ensured that Haringey receives substantial funding support. Its funding will continue to rise and, by 2011, will have increased by 12 per cent. from 2008-from £4,987 to £5,364 per pupil in 2010-11. However, we recognise that with that increased funding we need to ensure that there is still a focus on pupil characteristics and their needs. We want to reach a funding formula that distributes funding based on the need of each school and local authority, rather than on historical spend. That is why we are undertaking a review of how the dedicated schools grant is distributed.

A key issue that we are considering is the area cost adjustment, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Haringey is one of six London authorities-the others are Barking, Brent, Ealing, Merton and Newham-that pay teachers inner-London pay but are in outer-London ACA bands. We commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to do extensive research to support the review, and an area that it explored was the ACA. Its research was published in the summer and proposed four options for the ACA: an approach based on the general labour market in each area; an approach based on the cost of living and house prices in particular; an approach based on the specific costs that local authorities and schools face in employing teachers; and a mix of the general labour market and specific cost approach. We are exploring each of those possibilities, but I cannot confirm any choice at this time. There are pros and cons in all approaches and we shall publish our consultation in January, but I want to reassure the hon. Lady that we are bearing in mind the issue of the funding for Haringey when we consider the options.

When my officials established the formula review group, they worked closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that a large mix of representatives from different councils was in the group. With that approach, a national view could be obtained and potential impacts on the range of local authorities considered. There is a representative from London Councils in the group, and I believe that the issue in London will be represented fully. No individual authority is represented and I do not believe that an exception should be made for Haringey. That is not to say that we did not take individual local authorities' views into consideration.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the head of school funding from the Department for Children, Schools and Families attended the Haringey schools forum conference last year to hear the forum's opinions on the subject. Over the summer, we encouraged interested parties to comment and contribute to the review. We made it known through our website and interaction with partners that we were open to receiving papers from those interested in the review for consideration by the formula review group.

I want to explain why the NUT is not in the group. The Government's preferred method of engaging with trade unions is through the work force agreement monitoring group, and unfortunately the NUT is not in that group because it has not signed the work force agreement.

I am conscious that time is ticking by. The hon. Lady referred to interim measures that could be brought in now. It is important to say at this point that I understand that the number of schools in deficit in Haringey in 1999-2000 was 28, but in 2007-08 that number had reduced to 15. I point that out just for information. The issue faced by Haringey is a long-term one and we are considering, as I have set out, what to do for the future. However, we are not in a position at this stage to make any additional funding available in the meantime.

In early 2007, we consulted on the school funding arrangements for 2008 to 2011, which we published before our announcement for the settlement in November 2007. We received a clear message that the stability and predictability of the spend plus method was right for this period, but that we should carry out a review. It would not be right to reopen the funding settlement now, after we have made it clear to all local authorities that we will not-giving them confidence that they can plan within their means. To reopen the settlement would destabilise the system and we will not do that. Haringey has had, like all other local authorities, an indicative budget for the three years since 2007 to enable it to plan.

I commend the hon. Lady for her proactive role in initiating today's debate. It is on an issue affecting other local councils, and we are working to ensure that these matters are considered and to see whether a suitable solution can be put into practice. It is essential that every local authority receives the right amount of funding to support its schools. Through the work that we are carrying out in the dedicated schools grant review with our formula review group, we are ensuring that that need will be met.