Asked by Lord Lexden To ask His Majesty's Government what
assessment they have made of the implications of levying VAT on
independent schools with effect from 1 January 2025. Lord Lexden
(Con) My Lords, I declare my interest as a former general secretary
of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the
Independent Schools Association, one of the council's constituent
bodies. Its 670 members—which are generally small in size, with
great...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of
the implications of levying VAT on independent schools with
effect from 1 January 2025.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of
the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the
Independent Schools Association, one of the council's constituent
bodies. Its 670 members—which are generally small in size, with
great strengths in special needs, bilingual teaching and the
performing arts—are particularly at risk as a result of the
Government's VAT plans. The council acts on behalf of some 1,400
schools, which are educating around 80% of the 600,000 children
in the independent education sector.
Surely, it ought to be the duty of each and every Government,
regardless of political complexion, to value and to safeguard all
children in our country's schools. The education of the many
thousands in independent schools ought never to be harmed by the
actions of government. Can it be right to inflict on some—perhaps
many—of these children the problems that the imposition of VAT,
our country's first ever education tax, will inevitably
cause?
Nevertheless, this very short debate is not about whether VAT
should be slapped on school fees. The die is cast: Labour's
election manifesto said explicitly that VAT would be extended to
school fees, and the Government are proceeding at breakneck speed
to get it introduced. This debate is about the great haste with
which the Government are acting. Out of the blue, schools were
told at the end of July that they would start paying VAT five
months later, on 1 January next year—five months to alter plans
and budgets that had been fixed for the academic year starting in
September. Notice of those five months was received during the
school summer holidays, during which the Treasury held a
consultation exercise covering a whole host of technical
details.
The Government say, blithely, that five months is quite
sufficient to prepare for this unprecedented change. I ask the
Minister: would the Government ever contemplate asking state
schools to redo their plans for a new academic year at such short
notice? Taxation apparently trumps the education and welfare of
children in our country's independent schools. The Treasury wants
to start getting in cash as fast as it can. Last week in the
Commons, a Treasury Minister said that
“we want to raise the money as soon as possible”,
adding, breezily yet again:
“There will have been five months for parents and schools to
prepare[”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/10/24; col.
174.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=174&House=1&ExternalId=B69945B7-C8BF-41B9-BC56-87A57B56F01C)
Glorious things are promised from the VAT receipts: 6,500 extra
teachers, 3,000 new nurseries and breakfast clubs in all primary
schools. All these benefits will come from money which, if the
Government should manage to raise their levy target of £1.5
billion, will represent just over 1% of the total education
budget. A degree of scepticism about these promises might be in
order.
Will the £1.5 billion target be reached? The crucial issue is the
extent to which the education tax will force parents to move
their children to state schools. The Government say the numbers
will be small. They have not bothered to make any assessment of
their own; they are placing their faith entirely in one single
report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This
suggests that between 4% and 7% of children will “migrate”—a
singularly inapposite term for the displacement and disruption of
pupils during their school careers. That would mean up to 40,000
children would be unable to continue their education in the
schools their parents had chosen for them. That in all conscience
would be bad enough, but a number of other independent studies
have calculated that the number will be much higher. The
Government ignore them.
But even the author of the Government's favoured report now has
his doubts about its predictions. This is hardly surprising. The
report itself declares that it is based on “relatively thin”
evidence and “relatively old” data, garnished by details
furnished by Catholic schools in America, whose relevance is
unclear. Last weekend, the author of the IFS report said that the
Government's education tax could destroy the continuity of
education for far more children: 15% could be forced to move.
That means 90,000 children would be added to the number in state
schools, virtually wiping out the £1.5 billion for which the
Government introduced their education tax in the first place.
But such gloom is misplaced, say the Government, because, as the
Treasury Minister, the noble Lord, , told your Lordships a week
ago,
“very many private schools will take steps to absorb a
proportion, or all, of the new VAT liability, so there may be no
increases in fees[”.—[Official Report, 10/10/24; col.
2103.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=2103&House=2&ExternalId=B8609017-50A8-4969-82BB-9DCDDD86E178)
The noble Lord should get out and talk to those dealing with the
financial affairs of independent schools. He would quickly
discover that absorbing the education tax would mean cuts—above
all to staff, who account for some 70% of school costs. No wonder
the NASUWT has called for the new tax to be delayed until next
September to try to find a way of reducing the prospect of job
losses.
“What about the large sums that schools derive from their
substantial capital assets?” some say. “They can be used to pay
the education tax.” But no more than a small minority have any
income from such sources. It cannot be said too often that most
independent schools are small in size, serving their local
communities in which they are embedded and by which they are
cherished. Some 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils.
They have no handy reserves into which they can dip. They will be
forced to jack up their fees by a massive 20% in the middle of an
academic year—after a period of 20 years in which fees have risen
broadly in line with inflation.
What have the Government to say to the thousands of worried
parents up and down our country? I will give just one example. A
father in Worcester will have to move his son from an independent
school at the end of this term. He writes that,
“we need a local school that will teach my son for his A-levels
starting in January. You can't possibly expect a young man to
drop two years and restart A-level courses in different subjects.
He is studying Greek, Latin and German. There is no local school
that can provide what he needs”.
How would the Minister reply to that distressed parent?
Independent schools are surely entitled to expect clear,
comprehensive guidance on what they must do when the education
tax takes effect in two and a half months' time. They have not
got it. What was issued to them a week ago by HMRC was woefully
inadequate. In a letter to the Treasury last Monday, the
Independent Schools Council described it as “disheartening” and
“disappointing” and said that it did not provide the
“clear and comprehensive overview schools need”.
The guidance, it stated, was
“confusing, partial and lacking in relevant examples for
schools”.
They may have just a single bookkeeper who will be a novice on
VAT matters. The ISC said:
“Clear and understandable guidance is needed if mistakes are not
to be made”.
Will the Minister give a firm commitment that this crucial
guidance will be revised and reissued? Nothing could illustrate
more clearly the folly of rushing to bring in the education tax
on 1 January. Will the Minister tell the House whether
anyone—anyone at all—outside the Labour Party itself has said
that they support the introduction of the tax on 1 January?
Finally, in the debate that I introduced six weeks ago, much
disquiet was expressed about the ways in which VAT will affect
service and diplomatic families defending and representing our
nation overseas; the families of the some 90,000 children with
special needs who are thriving in independent schools without
education and health care plans, which are so difficult and often
so costly to get; and the Muslim, Jewish and other families who
depend on small, low-cost faith schools in the independent
sector. Will the Government now find the time to consider with
great care the needs of these many desperately worried families?
To do that, they should halt the dash to impose VAT in
January.
2.30pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, , whom I much respect, for
giving us this debate on a subject that is, I know, close to his
heart.
The question of VAT on independent school fees was widely
circulated before the election, so nobody should be surprised by
it. I accept that the January date will have come as a surprise
to some but, having said that, if a school has decided that the
imposition of VAT will mean it has to close, I cannot believe
that the tax starting in January rather than September will be
the deciding factor. Surely no school that values its students
would close half way through an academic year.
The noble Lord, , mentioned job losses and the
National Education Union. It seems inconsequential to me because,
given the issues around the retention and recruitment of
teachers, any teacher unable to gain employment in the
independent sector will have no difficulty in getting a job in
the state sector.
My final point is that there seems to be a hypocrisy here. The
Tories have characterised the proposed national insurance
contribution rise as ignoring a Labour manifesto commitment. Here
is a Labour manifesto commitment being delivered, yet there is
more criticism. You cannot have it both ways—much as some would
like to.
2.32pm
(LD)
My Lords, I have four quick questions.
First, how many of the highly experienced educationalists on the
Government Benches are in favour of making such a demanding
change half way through the academic year? Will the Government
consider deferring this damaging decision to September, which
will give time for an impact assessment and cause far less
disruption—although disruptive it will still be?
Secondly, on VAT, what action are the Government taking on the
discrepancy that means that FE colleges are not liable for the
VAT refund scheme in the way that schools and multi-academy
trusts are? This takes well over £210 million out of FE funding
every year. They do an amazing job on very limited resources and
they really deserve parity.
Thirdly, how will the needs of children with special needs or
special skills that cannot be met by the state sector be covered
if the specialist schools cannot afford to continue? What
provision is being made for this?
Fourthly, I come to my regular question on the children of
military personnel. Will the education allowance be increased to
cover the additional cost? Military children already suffer
upheaval aplenty and military personnel may well not be able to
afford the increase if the Government do not pay. I am happy for
the Minister to write if she does not have time to reply.
We have 19 spare minutes in this debate; I apologise for taking
up 17 seconds of it.
2.33pm
(CB)
My Lords, during our previous debate, I referred to advice from
my noble friend on issues of compatibility
with conventions that are relevant to the rights of children and
their education. In the light of this proposal's impact on
schools catering for children with special needs, faith schools
and specialist schools—as well as the disruptive consequences for
children caused by the implementation date—several submissions
have now been made by Members of this House to the Joint
Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, urging it to
consider these issues of compatibility. There is also to be a
legal challenge in the courts. It would be prudent and respectful
of proper parliamentary scrutiny and consideration for the
Government to wait for the outcome of such consideration and I
urge them to do so. It is true that, when you legislate in haste,
you repent at leisure.2.34pm
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support VAT on tuition fees. If parents want
to avoid it, there is a perfectly acceptable alternative: send
children to boarding schools in the state sector, where VAT is
likely to apply to boarding alone and not to tuition. For
example, Keswick School, formerly a grammar school and now a
comprehensive with a wide curriculum, in my former constituency,
which three generations of my family have attended, provides
day-pupil and boarding facilities in a beautiful environment in
the heart of the Lake District, and attracts pupils
worldwide.
Whereas public school fees average over £40,000 per year, state
boarding schools such as Keswick School average at around
£14,000. It is their wide social mix, in an atmosphere of local
intake, parental aspiration and teacher commitment, that enable
such schools to top state and private sector academic listings.
Such schools are few and far between. I would like a huge
expansion. Too many parents commit to public schools in the
belief that a narrower social mix uniquely provides for the
standards that they seek. They are mistaken. There are far too
many casualties in the system that so often go unreported.
2.35pm
(Con)
My Lords, independent schools add greatly to their wider
communities. They take the strain from the state sector through
the willingness of parents to fund their children's education,
often at great personal cost. In many cases they offer a haven
for children who struggle in large classes.
However laudable the Government's aim to provide more resources
in the state sector is, the means of funding this is
questionable. This is not a theoretical debate. This affects real
children and real choices. The changes to the system are bound to
be complex, but enacting those changes in just five months and in
the middle of the school year will have profound consequences for
children in both the independent and the state sector. Philip
Britton, the head of Bolton School, where I was educated and am a
governor, has said that these changes need
“time and care and it really is a moment to press pause and think
harder”.
2.36pm
(Con)
My Lords, the limited warning and the unworkable timings of a
school holiday deadline mean that smaller schools without large
accounts teams and in-house expertise will struggle to make the
required changes in time, and it is unfair to give schools and
parents such little time to digest this.
What about the child who has to leave a school where they were
happy and thriving, and where that child has a supportive network
of friends? The mental health crisis for young people resulting
from the pandemic should be a reminder that young people are
vulnerable to change. Each of the children leaving a school that
they love is an individual, not a statistic, whose day-to-day
life has been upended with virtually no warning. These children
are the voiceless victims of the policy.
What plans do the Government have to support children going
through this change? I would be very interested to know what the
Minister has to say. The focus should be on bringing the whole
education sector together. One suggestion put to me by a leading
independent school was that, rather than VAT, why do the
Government say that they expect independent schools to show that
20% of revenue goes into supporting means-tested bursaries and
partnerships? If schools do not meet their target, tax them on
the rest. As it stands, levying VAT is a pernicious move which
will be disastrous on the whole of education.
2.38pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I have two points for my noble friend the Minister by
way of background to this debate. Does she agree that it is not
just those parents who pay for their children's schooling who
care about their children's education? Also, we all must pay our
fair share of taxation—some taxes on our incomes, some on our
expenditure through VAT. We pay our taxes not as a fee for
service but as part of our commitment to society as a whole.
2.38pm
of Craigmaddie (Con)
Have the Government assessed the impact for Scotland? We have a
different curriculum, exam structure, term dates, and pay and
conditions for teachers. We also have different school starting
ages, meaning that this policy could include nursery provision.
Special needs are governed by the ASL Scotland Act. A diagnosis
is not required to get help. We do not have EHCPs. A co-ordinated
support plan is not a direct equivalent, as it is not required to
attend a special school or receive additional support.
As education is devolved, the Government cannot reassure us that
any income passed to the Scottish Government would be ring-fenced
for education. At this moment, the Scottish Government are
withholding £145 million from local authorities which is
earmarked for education. Councils are making cuts. North
Lanarkshire is reducing school bus services. Falkirk Council is
considering cutting school hours. Inverclyde Council has said
that if it does not receive the funding it will be forced to cut
teacher numbers. Question 5 of the Treasury's consultation
asked:
“Does this approach achieve the intended policy aims across all
four UK nations?”
Can the Minister tell us what responses to this question have
revealed?
2.39pm
(Lab)
My Lords, as a number of your Lordships know, I prepared an
assessment on the school fees issue. I believe that this
assessment was fair, honest and accurate. I sent a copy to the
Prime Minister on 15 August and have supplied a number of Peers
with copies, including my noble friend the Minister.
On the essential issue of the likely forced pupil migration, it
is clear that the Government's assessment is patently wrong. The
consequences are grave: no profits whatever for the much-needed
benefit to state education; and 80,000 pupils being forcibly
migrated from the independent sector. This must not happen. I ask
my noble friend the Minister to prevent it.2.40pm
(CB)
My Lords, this is intended to raise £1.3 billion to get 6,500
more teachers, yet we have 7% of children in private schools. I
am a governor of Wellington College and a president of BAISIS. An
estimated loss of 135,000 pupils would mean that we lost £1.58
billion not raise £1.3 billion, even if 15% to 25% of pupils
moved to state schools. What about the 80% business rate discount
being removed? That is so unfair. Will special needs children be
exempt from this and continue to get help? Will Armed Forces
children continue to get help?
We have a state school budget of £60 billion. Trying to save £1.3
billion when we actually end up losing £1.6 billion is not just a
false economy; it is foolish. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Who thought of this? This is the politics of envy. We should be
rising all the boats.
2.41pm
(Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on a particular aspect of
education: cathedral choir schools. They are the inheritors of a
priceless tradition that goes back centuries. The number of
visitors to the cathedral services at which pupils sing is an
acknowledgement of the hard work that choristers have put in, in
their pursuit of excellence.
Musical education is hard work at these schools. They have a
normal curriculum and rehearsals, and it is a condition of
practically all choir schools that pupils study and learn a
second instrument. If a cathedral school is forced by this new
proposal to close, or at least to discontinue its choral
traditions and facilities, the public sector will not be geared
to take up the slack. I urge the Minister to do all in her power
to safeguard the continuance of these very British
institutions.
2.43pm
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government's plan, linked to the policy to recruit
6,500 more teachers, is a vital step to solving the crisis in
music education in state schools. Since 2010, there has been a
catastrophic reduction in the number of children in state schools
receiving sustained music tuition. We lost over 1,000 music
teachers from state schools in a decade. Last year, the previous
Government reached only 27% of their target for trainee music
teachers. The number of GCSE music students has fallen by over a
quarter since 2010 and the number taking A-level music has fallen
by over two-fifths. Middlesbrough was among the areas that did
not have a single school offering A-level music in 2021-22. Some
50% of children in independent schools receive sustained music
tuition, but the figure for state schools is only 15%. The
Government are right to take action to invest so that sustained
music education and music qualifications become available to more
pupils in state schools.
2.44pm
(Con)
I declare my interests, as in the register. I have three
questions. First, in opposition, noble Lords made much of
commitments to the performing arts. Why do they now attack
schools providing specialist training in these disciplines? They
rely on recruiting young people with talent regardless of the
means to pay. Ability to pay will now trump talent, endangering
the pipeline of young people empowering the creative economy,
including the tradition of English choral music.
Secondly, what is the Minister's advice to a pupil studying
A-level music who is forced out of their school in an exam year
with no local school offering that subject, which is highly
likely as 50% of state schools no longer do? Is it home schooling
or “give up on your dreams”?
Thirdly, £1.5 billion is a wild overestimate of VAT revenues
because of pupil migration. Even if, in the Government's economic
la-la land, all the money goes on teachers, which it will not,
because this magic money tree is also funding nurseries and
breakfast clubs, it will add just one-third of one teacher to
each school. Is this con trick not just raising unattainable
expectations of increasing standards for vulnerable children?
2.45pm
(CB)
My Lords, we have heard of the disruption to be caused by the
extremely tight timing and of the groups who will be impacted
particularly hard by the Bill. I have travelled professionally
around the globe, and Britain's independent schools are admired
the world over. They are soft power, which is terribly important
in this country. I am all in favour of social mobility: I was
something akin to a governor of that great school, Christ's
Hospital, a unique school with a special position in social
mobility. Please, can we not seek to level up?
2.46pm
(Con) [V]
My Lords, when I asked the Government in a Written Question what
assessment they had made of the mental health implications of
this policy on children with autism and neurodiverse conditions,
the noble Lord, , said that it was a “tough”
decision. I agree—tough if you have autism, SEN or a disability.
Can the Minister confirm that she will place in the Library a
copy of her department's rigorous assessment of the mental health
implications for these children, which her noble friend seems
unaware of?
2.47pm
(Lab)
My Lords, we need to look at this thing from a wider perspective.
I suggest that we look at it in terms of what it is trying to
achieve. Basically, it is concerned with achieving a certain
measure of equality. We all recognise that our society is,
rightly or wrongly, characterised by a deep sense of inequality,
and that has educational and economic roots: a few schools, for
example, produce students who control positions of power.
Therefore, if our society is going to make progress and be stable
and cohesive, it should be equal. An equal society would mean
that those who have should share with those who do not.
Therefore, in principle, I support this principle. The only
question is whether it will achieve anything by itself. No, it is
only a small step. Are other measures being contemplated? I do
not see that. Therefore, my answer is: yes, this is a step in the
right direction, provided it is complemented by other
steps.2.48pm
(Con)
My Lords, nowhere else in the world is education taxed in this
manner. Thousands of our children are to be basically left behind
in the middle of the year, just at the time they need to prepare
for exams and just after they have been through Covid. Boarding
is vital to the military, our diplomats, and those who work
abroad. I went boarding at Bedford School because my father was
working in Pakistan. No, we cannot have envy being the
determinant of the education, and indeed the future, of our
country.
2.48pm
(LD)
My Lords, when it comes to this subject, here is the tack I would
take: what is the practicality? What are you achieving? The fact
of the matter is that the independent sector has had a tradition
of covering gaps that the state has, particularly in special
educational needs. There is music education, which it has quite
clearly taken over, and the issues raised about services
families. I gave some warning of this question, the answer to
which should arrive in the Minister's reply: will the Government
take an assessment of what has happened in those three areas at
least, and will they publish it during this Parliament so we can
see what effect this has had? It is a fundamental change that
they are making here, and they are on very shaky ground, so I
would suggest that that happens.
2.49pm
(Con)
I too thank my noble friend for securing this debate. We
have heard an overwhelming set of arguments this afternoon, as we
did in our earlier debate, against this misguided move on the
part of the Government.
Those arguments fall into different groups of children: those
with special educational needs and disabilities, children from
military families, children who take part in the music and dance
scheme, and those attending cathedral choir schools. We have also
heard serious concerns about implementation; the timing of
introducing the new tax, particularly in Scotland; the disruption
to teachers and children; the lack of readiness of HMRC; and,
importantly, the impact on mainstream schools.
Organisations from the education unions to the Chartered
Institute of Taxation are calling for delay, so I ask the
Minister two questions. First, will she commit to talk to her
colleagues in the Treasury to review the timing of the
introduction of VAT? Secondly, if this really is not an
ideological move, will she commit that the OBR will do future
annual impact assessments, and reverse this if there is not a net
contribution to the economy?
2.51pm
The Minister of State, Department for Education ( of Malvern) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, , for securing this debate and
providing another opportunity for noble Lords to discuss the
implications of tax changes affecting private schools. I welcome
the speed with which those contributing to the debate have
rattled through their questions and I will do my best to respond
to the points that have been raised. Where I am not able to do
that, I will write to noble Lords with those responses, although
given that we had three and a half hours on this topic relatively
recently I am not sure that any new issues were raised in this
debate. That does not mean that I do not recognise the strong
feelings that have been expressed.
For the Government, the key implications are to secure the
funding necessary to improve the state-funded schools that
educate 93% of our children. Our state-funded school system
includes more than 20,000 schools in England educating almost 8.5
million pupils. It is to this system that most parents and
children must turn to meet their high aspirations—they do not
have a choice. It is to this system that any parent can turn if
they need a school place for their child—this includes parents of
children who have previously attended a private school or may do
so in the future. It is this system which already supports the
vast majority of children with special educational needs. Most
children with education, health and care plans are already
educated in mainstream state-funded schools. It is these schools
that provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment, and
high-quality education, for most children. It is for all the
parents who have no choice that we must focus our efforts on
these state-funded schools—this is where our priorities lie.
Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private
schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will generate
additional funding—I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord,
Lord Bilimoria—to help improve services, including the
Government's commitments to improve state-funded schools, which
includes expanding early years childcare for all, opening 3,000
new nurseries, rolling out breakfast clubs to all primary
schools, recruiting 6,500 new teachers, and improving teacher and
head teacher training as part of restoring teaching to the career
of choice for our best graduates.
It is strange to argue that “£1.5 billion is not that much money
and therefore we should not pursue this particular route”. It
perhaps explains how we ended up in the fiscal mess that we have
done that so many noble Lords opposite are so flip about £1.5
billion.
Many noble Lords expressed concern about the timing of this
provision. It was, of course, included in the plans of this
Government when in opposition, and was for some time. It was in
our manifesto. We have had a consultation on the issue. I and my
colleagues in the DfE and the Treasury have held many meetings
with concerned groups to listen to concerns and respond to
them.
VAT will apply to tuition and boarding fees charged by private
schools. I should say to my noble friend that VAT will not
apply to boarding fees in a state boarding school for terms
starting on or after 1 January 2025. It is right that we end tax
breaks as soon as possible to raise the funding needed to deliver
our education priorities.
HMRC will be providing support to schools. Schools will be able
to register for VAT following the Budget on 30 October. The
Government recognise that, for many private schools, this will be
the first time they have needed to register for VAT, which is why
there is already bespoke guidance for schools. There will be
online support sessions over the coming months to support schools
to ensure that the registration process is as smooth as possible
for them. That will help schools to be ready to charge VAT
correctly and to remit it to HMRC.
I was clear the last time we spoke that the Treasury is assessing
the impact of these changes in advance of the Budget. It will
publish a tax information and impact assessment, including an
equality assessment. The noble Lord, , wanted an assurance that
that would include special educational needs, and it will. On the
impact, it is worth pointing out this change does not necessarily
mean that parents will automatically face 20% higher fees. The
Government expect private schools, as all businesses have to when
taxes change, to take steps to minimise fee increases, including
through their ability to reclaim VAT that they incur in supplying
education and boarding, and, like state schools—which have seen
considerably smaller increases in the resources available to them
than the increases in fees for private schools—to make savings
where necessary.
I know noble Lords feel very passionately about special
educational needs, and so do the Government. That is why my right
honourable friend the Secretary of State has made improvements in
special educational needs provision fundamental in our
department. We are not willing to accept that the only way we can
deal with special educational needs is by providing an opt-out
for a small number of pupils. We have sought to ensure that these
changes do not disadvantage pupils who genuinely need provision
unavailable in the state sector. Pupils who need a local
authority-funded place in a private school, including those with
local authority-funded education, health and care plans, will not
be impacted by the changes because local authorities are able to
reclaim the VAT that will be charged.
Most children with special educational needs attend mainstream
state-funded schools. Most parents do not have the option to
secure support within a private school. It is right that, where
parents have the resource to choose a private school place for
their child, for any reason—I understand why parents might choose
to do that, given the parlous state that special educational
needs provision in our schools was left in by the previous
Government—they should pay their fair share to support a good
state-funded education for every child. Any child with SEN who
needs a state-funded place can apply to their local authority.
All state-funded schools are used to supporting the needs of
children with SEN. With the actions of this Government, I hope
they will be even better at doing that in years to come. Parents
of children with needs that cannot be met by their current school
can request an education, health and care assessment, which can
lead to an education, health and care plan. As I have already
pointed out, if it identifies that a place in a private school is
necessary, that will not cost the parents.
Once again, noble Lords have rightly identified the considerable
contribution made to our education and creative sectors by music
and dance schools, and choral schools. The Government have been
engaged in discussions with schools providing that service. It is
because we recognise the enormous contribution made by the eight
schools in the music and dance scheme that we already provide
access to that provision for talented young people on a
means-tested basis. This allows low-income families to access
that specialist education, where they have the enormous talent
needed to do that.
The right way to manage this is to consider the support that the
department provides through our music and dance scheme, rather
than through any tax exemption, given the simplification in this
system that the Treasury has rightly set as a principle. I know
that the department will consider these issues following the
upcoming spending review, as will the Ministry of Defence and the
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office when looking at the
continuity of education allowances provided to eligible officials
and service personnel.
Once again noble Lords raised the extent to which pupils will
transfer out of private schools. There are always some pupils who
move between the private and state-funded school sectors.
Approximately 50 mainstream private schools close every year, for
a range of reasons. Where schools close, pupils may transfer to
another private school or move into the state sector. I am sorry,
but I fundamentally disagree with the analysis of my noble friend
; all the evidence appears to
suggest that the number of pupils who might switch schools
following these changes represents a very small proportion of
overall pupil numbers in the state sector, and any displacement
is likely to take place over several years. The IFS, by the way,
is sticking with its figure that there will be a small impact in
pupils moving.
Given that private schools have increased their fees— I made this
point in a previous debate—by 20% in real terms over recent
years, yet we have seen few students moving, it is not
unreasonable to suggest that there is an inelastic demand for
private schools, and that we will not see the scare stories about
pupils having to move which have been part of this debate. All
children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded
school place if they need one. I know that moving schools can be
challenging but, where that happens, local authorities and
schools already have well-established processes in place to
support pupils moving between them.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that Scotland will be
covered by the impact assessment.
Private schools will remain a part of our education system. Most
pupils who are currently privately educated will continue to be
privately educated. For the small number of parents who choose to
move their children from the private to the state sector, we will
make sure that there is a place for them. However, most children
are already educated in the state sector, and that is where we
must target our support and focus our efforts and resources. That
is what we will do.
|
