😠 Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

• The session was prompted by an e-petition (701268) signed by over 114,000 people, calling for the government not to apply VAT to independent school fees or remove business rates relief.

• John Lamont from the Conservative Party argued that the policy was ideologically motivated and would negatively impact vulnerable children and families who are not wealthy but have chosen independent schooling for specific educational needs.

• Several MPs, including those from Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Reform UK, expressed concerns about the policy’s impact on children with special educational needs (SEND) and military families, who might no longer afford independent schooling.

• Critics highlighted that the policy could lead to increased pressure on state schools, which might not have the capacity to accommodate additional students displaced from the independent sector.

• The government defended the policy, stating it was necessary to fund improvements in state education, and estimated it would raise £1.8 billion annually. They acknowledged potential school movement but believed state schools could handle the increase.

• Opposition MPs disputed the government’s financial projections, suggesting the policy might not raise the anticipated funds due to unforeseen costs such as increased state school expenditure.

• The debate touched on the potential closure of independent schools due to the new tax burdens, with concerns about the disruption to students if these schools close or if parents can no longer afford the fees.

• The government mentioned measures to support affected families, such as VAT exemptions for students with EHCPs and increased funding for SEND in state schools.

• Labour MPs argued that the policy was clearly outlined in their manifesto and was necessary to ensure better funding for the 94% of children in state education.

• The session concluded with disappointment from the opposition, particularly over the lack of government commitment to review the policy’s impacts, and a call for more balanced consideration of the effects on all families and children.

The session on the topic of VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief displayed a moderate level of disagreement among the participants. The following analysis provides examples and explanations to justify this rating:

1. General Opposition to the Policy: The majority of the speakers, particularly from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, expressed strong opposition to the government’s policy of applying VAT to independent school fees and removing business rates relief. For example, John Lamont (Conservative) argued that the policy was ‘deliberately divisive’, ‘ideological’, and ‘political’, resulting from ‘politics of envy and bitterness’. This view was echoed by several other speakers like Damian Hinds (Conservative) and Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat), who highlighted the negative impact on families and the educational system.

2. Criticism and Defense by Labour Members: Labour members, such as Alison Taylor and Dr. Scott Arthur, defended the policy, emphasizing it was clearly stated in Labour’s manifestos and necessary for improving state education funding. They argued against the exaggerated claims of mass exodus from independent to state schools and questioned the alternatives proposed by the opposition. This defense contrasts sharply with the opposition’s critique, creating a notable divide.

3. Disagreements on Impact and Alternatives: There were several confrontational exchanges, such as the intervention by Dr. Arthur (Labour) when questioning the feasibility of scrapping the policy without alternative revenue sources, and responding to John Lamont’s assertions with skepticism about the projected numbers of affected students. Similarly, Gregory Stafford (Conservative) challenged the rationale behind taxing the education sector specifically, to which the Minister responded by pointing out the lack of alternative revenue suggestions from the opposition.

4. Specifific Instances of Contention: Instances of contention include exchanges between Dr. Arthur and John Lamont over the number of students expected to move from private to public schools, and between Neil O’Brien (Conservative) and Alison Taylor over the financial implications and justification of the policy. These exchanges underscore the disagreement on operational data and its implications.

5. Ministerial Response: The Minister, Torsten Bell, acknowledged the concerns raised but maintained the necessity and fairness of the policy changes, emphasizing their role in funding improvements in state education. His response did not alleviate the opposition’s concerns, as evidenced by John Lamont’s closing remarks critiquing the government’s refusal to commit to a policy review.

Given these points, the session showed clear division on the policy, with strong arguments from both sides, yet the debate did not devolve into extreme confrontations. Therefore, a rating of 3 is appropriate, indicating a moderate level of disagreement.