Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Hacking and Baroness Smith of Malvern(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If my noble friend could imagine that she has not sat down, I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, tabled Amendment 295 but did not speak to it in the debate, and I am not sure that I heard any reply to it from my noble friend. This amendment is important because, once again, detailed information is being sought from parents and, if they are in breach of providing that information, it is stipulated 15 times that they are exposed to monetary penalty. Has my noble friend dealt with this? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can help here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, I can reassure my noble friend that I did cover Amendment 295 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. What we are talking about in these provisions relates to penalties on providers. We have moved on from the discussions that we were having about the requirements for parents to provide information. I hope that my noble friend will look back on what I said. I did provide quite considerable reassurance about both the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties would most certainly not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her tolerance and undertake to properly read the Hansard of today’s debate.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised this issue at Second Reading. I supported him then and I support him again now. It is quite unfair that a child who has been educated privately at home should be placed in a different position from state-educated children. All children who have been home educated should be encouraged to go through these exams and not face a financial penalty. This is a very simple measure, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to give it favourable consideration. It is a much fairer system and it encourages all home-educating parents to put their children through examination, so that the quality of their teaching can be tested.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together. That is what much of our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in this group that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of exam results for home-educated children.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, provided that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not want to make any more interventions, I will take this opportunity to close the debate.
Your Lordships heard that I was repenting; I pleaded guilty to overreach. I did not seek to press this amendment, but because an enormous number of amendments are listed after Amendment 333A, I felt it was right that all Members should have an opportunity to speak to any of the amendments in this group. Having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment and thanking my noble friend the Minister for her very careful and adequate replies.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I join my noble friend Lady Whitaker on removing the threat of imprisonment: it would be entirely inappropriate, and there are enough people already in prison.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child.
Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable.
Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action.
Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters.
Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school.
Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order.
Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction.
Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships.
Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents.
Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.
Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Right. I will turn then to Amendments 368, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. These amendments seek to amend the maximum fine for a breach of a school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents. However, a parent runs the risk of a fine only if they breach the order. The consequence of breaching a school attendance order must be brought in line with the offence of unauthorised school absences. This removes the perverse incentive for a parent to remove their child from school under the guise of home education to avoid higher school attendance fines.
Amendment 371, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the court to consider the best interests of the child when sentencing a parent for breaching a school attendance order. Courts in England and Wales must already consider the impact on the child when determining sentences, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that have not been addressed in the debate. As I did previously, I will write to noble Lords responding to those amendments. I hope that, given the assurances that I have provided, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Hacking and Baroness Smith of Malvern(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we have got to group 3, which is good. I start by addressing the Clause 30 stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Clause 30 sets out the requirement that a child who is on a child protection plan, who is the subject of a Section 47 inquiry or who is registered at a special school cannot be removed from school to be home-educated without local authority permission.
We have set out clearly those instances—my noble friend did not necessarily agree that it was clear, but I hope that I will make it clear now—where children will fall within the scope of Clause 30 and so require consent in order to be home-educated. Specifically, it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and they became a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority; the child is subject to child protection inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or there is a child protection plan in place. The intent of the legislation is that, if you do not fall into one of those categories, you do not need to seek the consent of the local authority in order to home-educate your child. There is a narrow and specific group of children for whom Clause 30 suggests that their parents will need to seek the consent of the local authority.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister. She has lucidly identified what we now know is the correct position and I am very grateful to her.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable and the children who attend special schools are likely to have the highest levels of need. It is necessary that local authority consent is sought in those scenarios to ensure that these children are safe and suitably educated.
Even then, Clause 30 does not mean that these eligible families will not be able to home-educate their children. We are simply requiring the local authority to take a closer look in those circumstances. It may, in any of those three categories, be wholly appropriate for those children to be educated at home, but it is also right, given the specific circumstances, that the local authority that has responsibility—or where those children live—looks at that case and gives consent for home education in those narrow categories of cases.
We want local authorities to know which children in their areas may be home-educated and to make an informed decision to determine what will be in the best interests of the child in those circumstances. Clause 30 is underpinned by a review process; I will return to that in a moment. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority and in a proportionate way.
I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments 203A and 204, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home-educate should their child attend a special school under arrangements of the local authority. The Government believe it is important to retain this requirement. We totally recognise that parents of children at special schools have their children’s best interests at heart, just like other parents. However, children in special schools often have very complex needs that would be difficult for their parents to provide for at home. The loss of the support the child receives in a special school may be a major upheaval in the child’s life. Clause 30 retains an additional check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of this support and that home education would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear that this is a different nature of concern from that represented by Section 47 inquiries or a child protection plan.
Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to specify a timeframe for the home education consent decision to be made. I wholly share the noble Lord’s desire for decisions to be undertaken as quickly as possible. We think that the current wording in the clause, “without undue delay”, ensures as prompt a turnaround as possible. If we had an arbitrary timeline for this process—28 days, for example—that would imply that every decision was as straightforward as any other. Timings are likely to be different, depending on the circumstances of the child. By necessity, because these are children who already have other needs and requirements, the process could be complex and will involve multi-agency collaboration and information-sharing to reach a decision.
Amendment 215A seeks to ensure that local authorities offer parents an information session on home education as part of the consent process. I agree it is important that the decision to home-educate is an informed one. But the duty to secure a suitable education rests with the parent, not the local authority. With this in mind, requiring local authorities to offer mandatory information sessions would not be appropriate. It is parents who should be taking responsibility for researching their educational choices. Parents should carefully consider their responsibilities and the financial implications of home-educating before requesting permission to withdraw their child from school. We will ensure that the department’s relevant guidance provides key information that a parent needs to consider when contemplating whether to home-educate. Local authorities and schools can signpost to this should they become aware of parental intentions to home-educate.
Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to provide a statement of reasons to parents when refusing a request for consent. As the noble Baroness suspected, it is the case that local authorities are already obliged to provide their rationale for such a decision. We intend to make this clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them.
Finally, Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looks to provide a tribunal appeals process as a review in the case of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant permission to home-educate a child. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary because Clause 30 already provides for a review process. Parents who disagree with the local authority’s decision to grant or refuse permission to home-educate their child can refer the decision to the Secretary of State for review. They will carefully consider the full facts of the case. Having done so, the Secretary of State has the power to either uphold the local authority’s decision, to direct the local authority to grant consent or to refer the question back to the local authority for review.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work.
I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly. In this area, there is considerable scope for consultation and engagement about how precisely that will work. I hope that answers my noble friend’s question and that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her flexibility on the notification period, which in the Bill currently is 15 days. It is very nice to hear that the Government and my noble friend can be more flexible about it and are prepared to discuss it. I thank her very much indeed for that. I gave a very strong indictment against new Section 426C—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Can I just clarify whether my noble friend is concluding the group or intervening on me?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does my noble friend want me to respond again? That is what I would like to know.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am getting up to thank the Minister for her willingness to consider the timetable for the notification by the schooling parent of any changes in the educational plan, which they will have had to give already in detail under new Section 426C(1)(e). I am asking her, as I did in my speech, whether she and the Government would be willing to look at the actual terms of subsection (e), which have been widely described as very onerous. I gave examples of that, such as the need to give details of Sunday schooling. I also pointed out that that type of information is not sought at all from parents with children at state schools. I remind her that, after the very successful meeting with the Minister, Stephen Morgan, on 17 June, I wrote a follow-up letter on 20 June, copying in my noble friend. I asked specifically whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed, with a schooling parent, to find a practical answer. I must suggest again that, in its present form, it is most onerous.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The questions that my noble friend asks are, I think, the subject of amendments in later groups, which is when I had presumed we would come to those details. I will stick to that, if that is okay.
Independent Schools: VAT Exemption
Debate between Lord Hacking and Baroness Smith of Malvern(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No—the noble Lord has had the opportunity to have his say, and I want to respond to as many of the points that have been made as possible.
Private education is not an option for most of those people and, unlike the last Government, we will not build public policy around the expectation that public services will fail our children. Most parents need local state-funded schools to support them in meeting these aspirations. It is therefore right for the Government to focus on improving those schools—a public good that will benefit all of us.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have identified the significance of education and the contribution that investment in that education makes. My noble friend Lady Ramsey identified the gap between that investment provided to our state schools and that provided to private schools: there was a 40% gap in 2010 and there is a 90% gap now. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said that we should spend more on state schools. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about the deprivation and impact on aspiration of those who do not get the education that they deserve, and argued for more investment. That is precisely what this Government want to do—but we arrived into government to discover a £22 billion black hole and, unlike the previous Government, we are determined to make that investment in our schools but make it on a sustainable basis whereby we can outline where that money is coming from. That is why ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but necessary decision. It will generate additional funding to help to improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people.
VAT will apply to tuition and boarding fees charged by private schools for terms starting on or after 1 January 2025. I assure noble Lords that the impact of those changes has been assessed and that the Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the Government’s costings for those measures at the Budget.
Several noble Lords have asked what the impact will be of introducing the change on 1 January. We are impatient in this Government to ensure that we can start funding the improvements that so many noble Lords have argued for—that is one reason. It is also worth while, when thinking about the impact of the changes, to recognise that, for many pupils, the change should not mean that parents will automatically face 20% higher fees—nor do we expect pupils to move immediately. Most of the analysis suggests that that will not happen to the extent that pupils move at all—and I shall return to that point.
The Government expect private schools to take steps to minimise fee increases, including through reclaiming the VAT that they incur in supplying education and boarding—so the estimate is that the real VAT impact will be 15%. We think that that will happen, because we have seen what has happened in recent times. There have been above-inflation increases in private school fees for very many years. There has been a 55% increase since 2003 and a 20% increase since 2010, and there has not been a large exodus of pupils from those schools, which of course suggests an inelastic demand for private school places. It is reasonable for the Government to model and think about future impact based on previous experience.
We have provided considerable information around the proposal—both in the technical note and the draft VAT legislation. The technical consultation remains open until 15 September, and I encourage those who are interested to contribute to that as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, raised a specific issue about the support to implement the VAT regime. The Government recognise that this will be the first time for many schools that they will need to register for VAT, and HMRC will publish bespoke guidance. It will also contact private schools directly with information about support sessions that will help them to go through this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised issues about what potential there is to raise revenue here. This will of course be part of the OBR assessment that will be published alongside the Finance Bill at the time of the Budget, which will enable us to consider the broad impact of this—not just the taxation impact but the broader cost impact as well. The IFS estimates that it will raise an extra £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion per year in the medium to long term. As I say, these points will be certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Treasury is doing an economic analysis of the impact of this policy change and the interaction with other behaviours that might come about because of the introduction of VAT.
While there will be more detailed information about the revenue raised by this measure, this seems like a reasonable estimate of the revenue that will be raised. Unlike some other noble Lords, I do not see that amount of money as being inconsiderable. Of course there is more that I would certainly hope that we as a Government will be able to find to invest in education, as previous Labour Governments have, but this is an important contribution to some very important changes that we wish to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about the devolution consequences of VAT receipts. I assure her that additional funding provided for schools in England will be matched in the devolved Administrations in line with the Barnett formula.
I move to the issue of special educational needs. Understandably, this has been raised by many noble Lords this afternoon, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in his contribution about the enormous significance of the independent special school that he identified, and the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton. Once again, I say that there is excellence in the private sector in independent special schools. Such excellence is the reason why, when there is a particular need for a pupil educated in the state sector to benefit from that excellence and its provisions for their education, health and care plan, that place is paid for by the local authority. The local authority will have the ability to reclaim the VAT placed on that fee, so there will be no impact on the parents of those children with the most acute special educational needs. I can also confirm, in answer to questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that further education institutions will not be affected by these provisions, and non-maintained special schools are exempt as well.
I can understand the concern of parents—given what I said previously about everybody’s aspiration—particularly where their children have special educational needs that have not been met or assessed through an education, health and care plan, in wanting to think about the best place for their children to go, but we cannot organise policy on the basis of the broken state of public provision for children with specific learning needs. This is a government failure long in the making. I share the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the way in which the current system is working. In fact, the former Secretary of State for Education, after 13 years of her party’s approach to special educational needs, rightly described this issue as “lose, lose, lose”. One reason for needing the additional investment that this provision will provide is to help begin turning round the special educational needs system, which I wholly agree currently fails too many of our students.
In response to those who have asked for further discussions about the position of independent special schools, we are happy to continue having those conversations. However, I reiterate that, for those children with acute needs who are being educated in independent special schools with an EHCP, there will be no impact on them from this VAT change. We will actively listen to the questions and concerns being raised and will meet with our colleagues.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the impact of these changes on state schools. The Government believe that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of these changes represent a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector. As I have already outlined, those parents paying to send their children to private schools have already experienced considerably above-inflation increases and have not chosen to move their children, but we will of course monitor local demand to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to increase capacity where required.
I take the noble Baroness’s point about the differential impact, potentially, on different parts of the country, and DfE officials will monitor that very carefully, but children move between the private and state sectors every year and local authorities and schools have processes in place to support their transition. In terms of places, of course we are going through a period of demographic change. Even if the pupil displacement is above the estimate of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggested that up to 40,000 might move over a period of time, that is still likely to represent less than 1% of the more than 9 million total UK state school pupils. The latest figures published showed that 83% of primary schools and 77% of secondary schools have one or more unfilled places.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Bull, about the enormously important contribution of Music and Dance Scheme schools. We can all see, in the talent of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the significance of those schools. We are continuing to engage with the schools currently within the Music and Dance Scheme project. As has already been outlined by noble Lords—and I wholly agree that, for the good of all of us, we need low-income families to be able to send their children to those schools when they have that talent—the children of parents who cannot afford the fees are funded by the Music and Dance Scheme. We will consider, in the light of the VAT charges, how and whether we can change that scheme to compensate for the VAT issue. We are willing to carry on talking, as we have done, to representatives from the Music and Dance Scheme schools about the impact of this change of policy. The same goes, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised, for the dance and drama awards, where we will also continue having discussions that we have already started with the schools in that category.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised the issue of military families. I reiterate that the Government recognise the enormous sacrifices our military families make; of course, that is why the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide the continuity of education allowance to eligible officials and service personnel. It is also worth pointing out that very many military personnel send their children to state schools and want to benefit from the improvements that will happen in those state schools. However, the Government will monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families. The upcoming spending review is the right time to consider any changes to this scheme, but we will continue to look very carefully at that.
Several noble Lords talked about the contribution of private schools, and the defence was that because they contribute through partnerships with state schools or by providing bursaries, we should not interfere with that. I welcome the contributions private schools make to cross-sector partnerships, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton; I hope that will continue. Certainly, for schools with charitable status, as charities, and in line with legislation passed by the last Labour Government, they must continue to demonstrate public benefit. I hope they will continue to do that through the provision of a small number of means-tested bursaries and through partnership with local state schools. I think they will continue to demonstrate their broad public benefit through those wider contributions.
On the legal position, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—channelling the noble Lord, Lord Pannick —and my noble friend Lord Hacking, I am not going to speculate on the outcome of the ongoing technical consultation. However, legal considerations have been incorporated into the process, as is standard for all legislative changes, and we are confident that the measures are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
I know I have not managed to cover all of the wide range of issues that have been raised, and I undertake to write to noble Lords, but I assure the House that private schools will remain part of our education system. The choice to send your child there will remain. However, most children are educated in the state sector and that is where we must target our support and resources most. We will work closely with schools and local authorities to make the implementation of the new tax rules as smooth as possible. I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
These are therefore imaginary words being used in the House of Lords. My noble friend was kind enough to mention the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I would be very grateful if she could send a letter, particularly to myself and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the advice the Government are receiving relating to that very important issue. I remind her that it was a Labour Government, in 1998, who brought that provision into our law under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right, and I am very proud of that. Our position, as I said, has been tested in the legal advice in the consideration of these changes. Our view is that being charged at the standard rate of VAT paid by millions of businesses across the UK is not discriminatory and is clearly proportionate to the objective of better funding for state schools. To the extent that I am able, I will certainly ensure that I write further about that issue to my noble friend and to others.