Holly Baines from the communications team analyses the impact of Labour’s proposed VAT and prevalent MP concerns about its implications
On Wednesday, both a Westminster Hall and a House of Commons debate saw Labour’s proposed VAT on independent schools face strong opposition from every party represented.
Highlighting Labour’s determination to implement this VAT regardless of opposition, only three Labour MPs attended the Westminster Hall debate and the Treasury Minister, not the Education Secretary, was present to address the concerns and questions raised. The Education Secretary was also absent from the debate in the Commons.
However, MPs from other parties were united in arguing that this policy and its hasty implementation in the middle of a school year would not only severely affect the education of those currently in independent schools but would also have a significant negative impact on students in state schools.
Furthermore, MPs raised concerns that this policy is essentially a breach of religious freedom. Imposing a tax on independent education will impact numerous small Christian schools that provide children with low-cost access to an excellent biblical education.
Choosing education that aligns with pupils’ and parents’ religious convictions is a legal right. By implementing a 20% rise in costs, this policy will effectively nullify this right and disproportionately penalise low-cost Christian schools and low-income Christian families.
These small schools will be forced to close or lower the quality of education, and families under financial pressure will be forced to send their children back to state schools instead of being able to choose a biblical education for them.
With the support of Christian Concern, a group of Christian schools, parents and pupils are pursuing a Judicial Review of this policy, stating that it is in effect discriminatory and a breach of human rights.
Independent education is a human right based on religious freedom
Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist) raised the question of religious schools and argued that sending children to an independent school is “not a status symbol, as many believe, but a human right based on people’s right to their faith.” He further warned that “the Government will massively overstep if they use a massive, sweeping brush to address something that requires a fine brush.”
Robin Swann (Ulster Unionist) also argued that “Adding this VAT fee to a religious-based school deprives the protected characteristic of religious belief… [and] may well be an infringement of parents’ religious freedom and liberty.”
He referenced the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” (Article 2, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
Later in the Commons, Damien Hinds (Conservative) expressed the conviction that “Parents are the first educators of their children. The state sets an expectation of a suitable education for all children, and beyond that, parents should make the choice of what is best for their child. Parents might decide to opt out of state education for any one, or many, of several reasons—quite often simply because they have found the school that they believe is right for their child, and where their child is most happy.”
Parents and children have the right to access education that supports their convictions, and these MPs argued persuasively that the proposed VAT would remove that access for many and therefore be a breach of those rights.
Policy will destroy a ‘British success story’ and increase financial strain on families
Opening the debate, Bradley Thomas (Conservative) urged members to remember that “It is in everyone’s best interests that children are well educated so that they can make an engaged and positive contribution to our society.”
He stated, “Independent schools should be seen as a British success story, both culturally and economically, instead of being discouraged and punished with the imposition of an education tax for socialist ideological principles. Most importantly, the human impact of the policy is stark. The failure of this education tax will not just be academic or financial; it will have a serious impact on families.”
Several MPs echoed this concern that education should not be taxed, arguing that no developed country puts a VAT on the purchasing of education.
In a second debate in the Commons, Damien Hinds (Conservative) declared “It is a long-standing principle that you do not put tax on learning—a principle all but universally observed around the world.” He also cautioned about the wider implications of taxing education: “The principle of no tax on learning is a fast one, and once we loosen it, we do not know where we will go.”
Highlighting how this tax would disproportionately affect children from lower-income families, Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat) stated: “The parents who have contacted me in desperation over this proposed change are not wealthy. They are scraping together the fees so that their children can attend a school where they can thrive…those parents are already paying income tax to cover an education that their children do not receive.”
There was much support for the idea that this “policy is simply unworkable” (Conservative MP Aphra Brandeth) and that it would impact “hard-working families” who already “sacrifice huge amounts to put their children into independent schools” (Conservative MP Neil Hudson).
In a passionate speech, Richard Tice (Reform) stressed the additional impact this policy would have on children already in state education: “This is about the education not just of those at independent schools, but of the hundreds of thousands in the state system. Their education will also be damaged because of the capacity crisis. Class sizes will grow. There is an SEN crisis everywhere. Local authorities are in panic; headteachers are in panic; parents are in panic and, most shamefully of all, children are panicking.” He concluded that implementing this VAT would be “damaging to the education of children” and “is an economics of utter tomfoolery and madness.”
Alison Griffiths (Conservative) also warned, “Far from improving the education system, the policy will add stress to state schools already grappling with limited resources and overcrowded classrooms. It is a tax on aspiration, which disproportionately impacts hard-working families already making sacrifices.”
VAT would heavily impact military families
There was also nearly unanimous recognition of the reality that military families would be severely disadvantaged and penalised for serving their countries: “Those families already report that they are struggling with fees because of the increasing gap between the continuity of education allowance paid by the Ministry of Defence and the rising cost of private education, and adding 20% would widen that gap further still. Many families would reach their tipping point and be forced to withdraw their children from their current schools, with all the attendant risks.” (Liberal Democrat MP Al Pinkerton)
Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative) took the argument further, warning that this policy not only disproportionately affects service personnel, but also could pose a threat to national security: “If the Government fail to grip the situation, the cost of a suitable education for many armed forces children will become unaffordable. Many parents will be forced to withdraw their children from the school they currently attend and, in the worst-case scenario, many will make the decision that service life is no longer compatible with their family and leave, risking our national security. By failing to act with competence, the Government are failing to uphold the contract between the state and our armed forces.”
SEND students will be put at a greater disadvantage
During both debates, there was also deep apprehension about the implications this tax would have on families supporting children with SEND.
Caroline Voaden (Liberal Democrat) brought to light the reality that “For those families, the tax change is a regressive step that will force them into an impossible situation and have a devastating impact on children who have already had a difficult start in life—many of whom have experience of the care system, our failing mental health system and a state school system completely unable to cope with all their additional or complex needs.”
Further highlighting the detrimental ramifications for those already suffering from a lack of educational support, Graham Stuart (Conservative) argued, “It is children and families like that who will be the victims of this spiteful policy.”
Back in Westminster Hall, Jerome Mayhew (Conservative) said, “The policy feels rushed” and cautioned that “it is vulnerable children in our society who will pay the price of these internal Labour politics”; Iqbal Mohamed (Independent) also agreed that “If enacted, the policy would be hugely damaging to those families’ financial situation and their children’s education.”
Echoing these concerns, Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat) said that for families and children with SEND, “private provision [of education] is more than just an alternative to the state sector; it is a crucial lifeline for children who struggle in mainstream education or who cannot secure one of the limited places in a special educational needs school … Families with children with special educational needs already face significant financial strains, and an additional 20% will be the tipping point that forces already stretched families to withdraw their children and turn again to an overstretched county-run system.”
As consistently highlighted throughout the debate, this policy will have a hugely detrimental effect on the education of SEND children. Labour’s refusal to reconsider its policy ignores the inevitable damage caused to these children’s futures, well-being, and ability to thrive in a school that adequately supports them.
VAT policy rooted in ideological dogma not genuine concern for children
Overall, there was consistent opposition to the Labour VAT policy, with many MPs voicing the belief that “It is a policy of envy—the Labour Government want to drive pupils away from the independent sector and into state schools. That means less choice for parents and bigger class sizes, reducing the quality of education for all.” (Conservative MP Blake Stephenson)
Others such as Conservative MPs Mims Davies and Neil Shastri-Hurst sympathised with this view, stating “the heart of this policy … is stoking division, creating harm to aspiration, and stopping the sharing of facilities and opportunity” and reiterating that it “lacks nuance in its pursuit of an ideological desire to level down rather than lift up the standard of education across the board.”
During the Westminster Hall debate, Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative) concluded the policy would effectively “level the playing field but, sadly, that level is likely to be lower and not higher.”
Highlighting how Labour’s ideological motivation overrides the practical impact on children, Andrew Snowden (Conservative) warned in the Commons “This policy is fighting the class wars of the past with the future of the children of today.”
On a similar line, Peter Fortune (Conservative) reminded members that this policy is fundamentally a continuation of the Labour war on independent and religious schools: “Remember, in 2019, it was the Labour party that voted to abolish independent schools. Instead of the complete destruction they desire, the Government have settled, for now, on taxing these schools to the brink by imposing VAT on fees and removing their charitable status … This is ideological, not practical. It is knocking people down, not lifting our country up. Worst of all, it is ill-considered.”
In the House of Commons debate, Alicia Kearns (Conservative) reiterated the prevalent view that “This is a cruel, vindictive policy” while Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat) urged members to “Let us support investment in our education, not penalise it.”
Ben Spencer (Conservative) called for the Secretary of State for Education to “abandon this ridiculous policy”. He also voiced strong concern about the lack of an impact assessment and denounced the “egregious” mid-year application of the VAT and the harmful impact it would have on students.
In an excellent summary of the consensus of views from those opposing the implementation of a VAT on independent schools, Nigel Huddleston (Conservative) urged the Government in the Commons to reconsider: “This is a rushed and ill-judged policy that will not raise the money the Government assumed it would, undermine the viability of many independent schools, put immense pressure on the state school system and put in jeopardy the education prospects of thousands of students, including many with special needs. We implore Ministers to reconsider.”
Labour will not back down, despite opposition and concern
Despite the strong opposition and deep concerns presented by MPs in both debates, Labour confirmed that it will continue to pursue implementation of its VAT plans.
In the House of Commons, Treasury Secretary James Murray ignored the gravity of the implications presented and defended Labour’s desire to “improve state education across this country to make sure that the aspiration of every parent in our country to get the best possible education for their children can be fulfilled.”
In Westminster Hall, he also said: “We want to get on with these important changes right away, and to do so, they must be paid for … We believe it is the right decision and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding we need to deliver our priorities for state education in our country.”
As revealed throughout the debates, despite Labour’s claims to the contrary, this policy will not benefit or support students but will cause a myriad of further problems for the education sector, both independent and state schools, and hinder children’s access to quality education.
More importantly, it poses an existential threat to our small Christian schools and will hinder Christian students from accessing education that supports their faith instead of dismantling it.
