Contribution
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, although I probably cannot match his passion and clarity. I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Lexden on securing this debate. As someone who benefited from an independent school education as a scholarship boy with parents on the staff, I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
It seems incredible that almost two years have passed since we last debated this issue in this House and since I pleaded with the Minister to urge the then Secretary of State and the Chancellor to take the SEN and disabilities of the 99,000 pupils without an EHCP into account and exempt them from the extension of VAT to independent schools. I said that they and I looked to this Labour Government to show them some understanding and compassion and to give them hope. But hope there has been none. Instead, the policy was implemented regardless of the harm caused, especially to those pupils and their families. They were simply collateral damage in the wider ideological and, to quote my noble friend, dogmatic crusade against the so-called privileged class. No matter that many attended independent schools only as a result of huge sacrifices made by their families and at a time when the system underpinning state SEND provision is on the verge of collapse.
In a series of Questions for Written Answer two years ago, I asked the Minister, among other things, what measures had been put in place to support children with autism and neurodiverse conditions, as well as their parents, who are required to move schools as a result of the education tax; what assessment the Government had made of the capacity of local education authorities to accommodate and meet the needs of children with autism and neurodiverse conditions required to move schools; what processes the Government had put in place to evaluate the impact on their mental health and educational attainment; and what stakeholder groups had been involved in developing such processes and at what intervals the evaluations would be conducted.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those questions today, as I am afraid that her response almost two years ago came nowhere close to addressing any of those points. The pupils with SEN and disabilities and their families still deserve answers. What she did say in response was that the Government did not anticipate that the VAT change—the education tax—would
“prompt notable movement into the state sector and any movement is expected to take place over several years”.
Listening to what has been said in today’s debate, I am not sure that that has been borne out. According to the latest DfE figures, as we have already heard, the number of pupils in the independent sector has fallen by 33,231, or 5.6%. To put that in context, it is already greater than the total movement into the state sector that His Majesty’s Government projected by 2029-30.
These figures are not just notable; they are unprecedented. I think it is fair to say that the Minister’s Answer to my Written Questions has therefore failed the test of time. Can she say whether the original cost-benefit assumptions and forecasts cited by Ministers—including, as we have heard, the then Prime Minister—as justification for the punitive education tax still stand? If they do, where is the monitoring and evaluation of the assumptions and forecasts to back them up? I am sure we all look forward to seeing the results of the evaluation, which the DfE has no doubt carried out in preparation for today’s debate. I would be grateful if the Minster would confirm that she will write to me to say when the results of the evaluation will be published and place the findings in the House of Lords Library.
Unless and until the Minister does so, she should not be surprised if we reiterate the simple point that the education tax is not only disrupting SEND provision but undermining the Government’s ability to fix the SEND system, which is bankrupting local authorities as we speak. Surely, an unintended consequence of the policy is that more families are understandably seeking an EHCP for their child, thereby exacerbating pressure on the state because the state has, bizarrely, made private and independent school provision less affordable. How does that make sense?
This counterintuitive policy reminds me that, however much I respect individual Members on the Labour Benches, and I do, I could never subscribe to socialism. This policy demonstrates that deep within its soul lurks a self-righteous spite and envy that blinds it to the tragic consequences of its actions. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of pupils with SEND attending independent schools. They and their hard-pressed families deserve not just an answer but a rethink. I hope the Minister will show that the Government are listening.