Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious of time, but I would love to have a wider discussion with you on that point, because I think that the net impact of private fee-paying education in Scotland is a contested space. Obviously, I come at it from a different perspective, but it is a helpful discussion to have. I am conscious that we probably do not have time for that this morning, so I will ask just one final question.

I think that John O’Neill mentioned parents’ choice and not inflicting harm on children as a result of choices made by others. There is a fair argument to be made there but, ultimately, the underlying philosophy of your sector is that parents should be allowed to make choices. As adults, though, we make choices, recognising that there are risks attached to any choice. A parent may choose to send their children into a form of education that is dependent on ability to pay, while the alternative is state school. I recognise that there will be some people for whom that alternative has not worked but, for the vast majority, that alternative of state education is not dependent on the person’s life circumstances; the state will continue to educate their child no matter what. If the parent has chosen to take an alternative path, should they not just accept that there are risks attached, and that circumstances can change?

You have mentioned a couple of times that, with regard to the previous decision in Scotland, you do not believe that the UK Government took into account non-domestic rates and charity relief. That brought back to mind a debate that I had with Lorraine Davidson’s predecessor, John Edward, on Radio Scotland. Has the sector reflected on the fact that a lot of the warnings that it made at the time just did not materialise? That is where I am struggling.

Now that the policy has been in place for some time, you are able to come and show us a reduction in your roll, but when I think about a lot of your projections at the time—for example, the 20 per cent figure—and the weight that was put on what would have been a significant impact, and I think back to the debates that I had with John Edward and the claims that were made about the catastrophic impact to your sector as a result of the NDR changes, the fact is that that impact did not really happen.

Lorraine, if I picked you up right, you said that your expectation is that, in the next financial year, or the next school year, the policy will cost more than it saves or generates. What is the working behind that? I take on board your point to John Mason about the UK Government’s figure of £1.7 billion or £1.8 billion being the projection for 2029-30, but the expectation for 2026-27, which is the imminent financial year, is that the policy would raise £1.5 billion across the UK. How have you worked out that there would actually be a net loss in Scotland?

That would be useful. I have not looked at that report today, but my recollection from looking at it previously is that they had not laid out all their methodology.

I could be wrong about this specific point, but one question that occurred to me goes back to John Mason’s point about falling school rolls in the state primary sector because of demographic changes and a lower birthrate. I am not sure whether details such as that are being considered. It is true that your school rolls have fallen disproportionately more than would be the case purely on the basis of the falling birthrate, but that is part of it and I would want to ensure that such figures were extracted before any conclusion was reached.

You mentioned bursaries. My understanding is that, UK-wide, only 1 per cent of children in fee-paying schools are on a full bursary. What is the equivalent figure for Scotland? Bursaries vary massively from a small discount to 100 per cent. What share of your young people are on a full bursary?

That is a good point to end on. I agree with you absolutely on that point. I support the policy, clearly, but I cannot for the life of me understand why there was not a managed transition and engagement with you. That boggles my mind—I do not get it. I agree with you and you have every sympathy from me on that point, which is probably a good place to end.

Are we talking about 2 to 3 per cent higher, or 10 to 15 per cent?

In that case, it is not only for the elite, but it is, overwhelmingly, for by far the most privileged people. You are right—it is not just privileged people from Scotland; there is a significant international cohort, too. You make the point that there is a benefit to the local family from the fishing community, but they would benefit—and they will now benefit—from VAT being paid, because that money goes into the public services that they will use disproportionately, and far more than the most privileged families will.

11:45

Part of the reason for that is that that is just not how the public finances work. The money is not hypothecated in that way. However, we could pick out any of a number of new interventions that have been made that disproportionately benefit the most vulnerable children in our society and are roughly cost equivalent to the money that has been recouped through the VAT that we are discussing. For example, in the past year, an additional £15 million of ring-fenced money went into ASN staffing in the state sector. We could pick any of those examples and say that it is roughly cost equivalent, and that would be legitimate.

However, on your point about what privilege is, are you suggesting that the majority of families who send their children to fee-paying schools in Scotland are not privileged?

Is the Scottish figure equivalent to the UK-wide figure?