Labour is accused of punishing rural England as new analysis shows town and city councils getting three times as much Government money for children’s services as shires
An analysis commissioned by the County Councils Network found that central Government grants for children’s services are far higher per child in metropolitan and London boroughs than in county and rural councils. The figures have prompted claims from opposition politicians and rural council leaders that Labour’s funding reforms disadvantage rural areas and could make it harder to support vulnerable children.
The analysis puts this year’s average grant at £1,011 per child for metropolitan boroughs and £912 for inner London, compared with £339 for county and rural unitary authorities. Tower Hamlets receives £1,806 per child, while Surrey receives £73. The Government says the figures exclude councils’ council tax income and points to nearly £3 billion over four years for its Families First Partnership programme.
- Urban councils receive higher children’s services grants per child.
- Tower Hamlets gets £1,806 per child; Surrey gets £73.
- The Government says grant figures exclude council tax income.
New here? Start with this
Councils in England provide services for children who need extra help or protection, including support for families and children in care. Their funding comes from central Government grants as well as local income such as council tax.
Councils are organised in different ways: metropolitan and London boroughs generally serve towns and cities, while county councils and rural unitary authorities cover larger areas with smaller communities. Differences in the amount of grant each council receives per child raise questions about how funding needs are measured and whether the system accounts for the cost of serving spread-out populations.
The issue matters because councils use this money to support vulnerable children and families. The debate centres on how fairly Government funding is shared, alongside what other sources of money and national programmes contribute.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The grant gap could leave rural and county councils with less capacity to support vulnerable children, despite having to provide the same essential services. A fair funding formula should reflect need and the higher costs of serving dispersed communities, and the figures suggest the current system may not do so adequately.
The case against
Per-child grant comparisons alone may not show which councils are best or worst funded overall: local tax income, levels of need and the costs of delivering services also matter. The Government says the figures omit council tax income and points to nearly £3 billion over four years for its Families First Partnership programme, which it argues supports services across the country.