Question follow-through · 107575
Further Education: VAT
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the exclusion of Further Education Colleges from section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 on economic growth.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Treasury
- Tabled
- 21 Jan 2026
- Target answer date
- 26 Jan 2026
- Answer
- 28 Jan 2026 · 7 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
21 Jan 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the exclusion of Further Education Colleges from section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 on economic growth.
26 Jan 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
28 Jan 2026
Answer published
Further Education (FE) funding is vital to ensure people are being trained in the skills they need to thrive in the modern labour market. The 2025 Spending Review provided an additional £1.2 billion per year by 2028-29 for skills and £1.7 billion of capit...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.