Baroness Barran (Con)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 57, I also speak to Amendments 58 and 68. Amendments 57 and 58 are linked and refer to the same part of the Bill. The second definition of an independent school refers to an institution that is “wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19”, which to me seems a definition that could be made clearer. My Amendment 57 is a probing amendment that seeks to understand whether an institution providing foundation courses required before university would be captured under this definition. It would, after all, be providing education suitable for those under the age of 19 but over compulsory schooling age. Indeed, there are further education colleges that provide such foundation courses and, if they were to be captured by this, it would be counterproductive. Of course, foundation courses tend to charge a fee but, despite that, they are not similar institutions to independent schools—or private schools, as I know the Minister would prefer us to refer to them. I would be concerned that, if they were included, it would have the potential to reduce access to universities for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this is not the case. Amendment 58 refers specifically to the use of “wholly or mainly”, which the Minister referred to briefly in his earlier remarks. Can he clarify what this means in a numerical sense? My assumption is that it would be 50%, as it is for pupils with an education, health and care plan—the Minister is nodding encouragingly—but I would like to put the question to the Minister to confirm the criteria that the Government are planning to use. If it is different, what will it be and who would make that judgment? I wonder whether the Minister could give a couple of examples of institutions that might fall either side of the “mainly” line. If there are no examples to give today, perhaps he could write to me. Amendment 68 seeks to protect private schools with a nursery attached from this change to the legislation. Early years providers are not included in the general definition of a private school, as the noble Lord just said in his remarks on the earlier group, but there exist a substantial number of nurseries attached to existing private schools. I hope that the Minister can see that it feels very illogical to exempt stand-alone independent nurseries from this tax but not those that are part of a wider school. Our amendment suggests exempting schools that have an in-house nursery altogether but, at a minimum, perhaps the Government would consider exempting that part of their property that relates to nursery provision. Have the Government considered this and, if not, will the Minister undertake to do so before the Bill returns on Report? Although the amount raised is small, this opens the door to the concept of taxing early years education specifically, which is a very concerning precedent to set, especially when it is a sector already suffering the potential costs of the employers’ national insurance increase. It feels counterproductive to do this at a time when the Government are clear in their commitment to encouraging early years education and giving children the best start in life. I look forward to the Minister’s response.