Havering's Schools Funding Forum has raised concerns over the use of de-delegated Trade Union Facility Time (TUFT) funds to support academy staff. The issue was discussed at the forum's meeting on 23 October 2025, where members sought clarification on the allocation of these funds. The meeting took place during a broader review of school funding, including updates on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit, high needs funding, early years funding, and the Central Schools Services Block (CSSB).
The overall Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit was reported to be £34.722m carried forward from 2024-25 into 2025-26. The projected deficit for 2025-26 was £63,201,274. The cumulative DSG deficit is projected to reach £64.9m by the end of 2026-27.
Regarding high needs funding, the High Needs Block was reported to be £36.730m in deficit, with an in-year overspend of £21.4m. Some of this was due to the burden of covering out-of-borough funding for non-Havering resident pupils, which had added an extra £400,000 to the deficit.
Regarding early years funding, the overall Early Years carry-forward balance was revised from £1.744m to £1.003m, with agreed distributions indicated for various entitlements and provisions. More details can be found in the Early Years funding update document.
Indicative funding for 2026-27 through the DSG Central Service Block (CSSB) has been delayed, and is due to be announced by the DfE after the Autumn Budget statement in late November, according to the CSSB Funding 2026-27 document.
De-delegated funds are specifically for maintained schools, with academies expected to make their own TUFT arrangements. However, some forum members voiced concerns that TUFT funds from maintained schools were being used to support academy employees, despite some academies not contributing financially to this support. The LA has communicated to unions that they should not support colleagues who are not contributing to facility time. Trevor Cook, Assistant Director of Education, stated that this was an ongoing discussion with the Conditions of Service Working Party (COSWP) group and that the LA had been clear that all unions should not support colleagues who were not contributing to facility time. The group was also exploring allocating funds based on membership numbers and the possibility of unions invoicing schools directly.
George Blake, Teaching staff union representative, summarised the work of the district officers and stressed that their role was to support with HR procedures and de-escalate situations.
The forum agreed to carry forward £46,000 for the re-organisation of arrangements for TUFT as part of the COSWP, composed of the cumulative balance from the previous year (£26,000), in-year de-delegation (£2,000), and academy buyback (£18,000). This agreement is contingent on further discussion and a final decision in the autumn term. The £46,000 is intended to fund the re-organisation of arrangements for Trade Union Facility Time (TUFT) as part of the Conditions of Service Working Party (COSWP).
Forum Members (Maintained schools only) agreed to the proposal for the carry forward as long as it was based on a further discussion/decision in the autumn term. Specific actions to be taken during the 'further discussion' in the autumn term include providing an update on the potential allocation model of funding. Mr. Cook suggested that the proposal was agreed in principal, however was subject to cluster feedback and an update at the next meeting on the potential allocation model of funding; a final decision would therefore be made in October 2025.