Independent School Fees: VAT

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered independent school fees and VAT.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson—I think for the first time. I put on the record my thanks to the Independent Schools Council and its superb chief executive Julie Robinson, not only for the tireless campaigning that it does for the independent education sector but for its work as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on independent education. I have been the chair of that group since founding it in 2017, after moving from being an MEP to an MP. A number of independent schools serve my constituents, including Quinton House, Bosworth School, Northampton High School for Girls and OneSchool Global.

More than 600,000 children are educated in the independent schools sector in the UK, saving UK taxpayers more than £4 billion each year because those pupils are not educated in the state sector. In addition, the independent sector has a total economic footprint that amounts to £16.5 billion, supporting 328,000 jobs and £5.1 billion in tax revenue. Why is it that the sector often gets bad press, despite its contribution to society both economically and educationally? For many people, when they hear the terms “independent school” or “private school”, they immediately associate them with elitism, isolation and privilege. Nothing could be further from the truth. Independent schools today are modern, diverse and inclusive places that often provide education and specialist provision where the state sector does not go. Furthermore, independent schools are more connected to society now than ever before, working with the state sector in partnerships and widening access through bursaries.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. Our independent schools do vital outreach work with access bursaries and access to sports facilities. Many hard-working families up and down the land make huge sacrifices saving to send their children to independent schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that the short-sighted Labour policy on VAT on independent schools will compromise these schools, force some parents to take their children out of them, and ultimately put more pressure on our local state schools?

[Andrew Lewer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is indeed the major thrust of what I have to say. As chair of the all-party group, I am delighted every year to sponsor the Independent Schools Council’s annual “Celebrating Partnerships” report, which gives parliamentarians and stakeholders from across the sector the opportunity to come together to celebrate the fantastic work that the independent sector does in partnership. Three quarters of independent schools are now in partnerships with state schools. That is not the old swimming pool every other Tuesday afternoon for an hour or two; they are embedded, mutually beneficial partnerships.

Given how influential and impactful the sector is for wider society, it is in disappointment that I stand in opposition to the Labour party’s policy position on independent education—the introduction of a 20% VAT fee on independent school fees. I urge the current Government and my Conservative party colleagues to be robust in their stance of not imposing VAT on school fees. I look forward to the Minister’s analysis of that, but given that the Opposition are currently well ahead in the polls, and it is at least possible that they could form a Government in the next Parliament, it is important that this debate has been granted. It is important that we take the time to scrutinise what I believe is an ill-thought-out policy. Although I welcome the fact that Labour’s plans for independent education under the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) are not as draconian, undemocratic and questionable in law as they were when he served in the shadow Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—when it looked like the party was trying to abolish the sector entirely—they are still very worrying indeed.

The principle of parental choice is supported by article 2 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It says that

“the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

However, is that right to choose being assisted, if said choice is made increasingly difficult by a huge tax rise? I do not think it is. It is also a fundamental principle that we do not tax the supply of education, and the Value Added Tax Act 1994 exempts education, including nurseries and universities, alongside independent schools. That principle is international in scope and the UK would be an outlier if Labour abandoned that policy. For example, EU nations, Australia and the USA do not apply sales taxes to education.

Beyond the core principles, there are many reasons why the policy could be harmful and doomed to fail. First, parents residing in the UK who make the decision to send their children to independent schools already contribute to the state education sector by paying their fair share of taxes. I have made that very clear in the Main Chamber when debating this subject, and the repeated use of terms such as “tax breaks” and “tax reliefs” should be avoided. Independent schools are taxed in the same way as other education providers and charities, and they provide more than £5 billion in tax annually, which is more than three times what Labour thinks it will raise from VAT. UK parents who pay school fees do so from already taxed income.

Now that the Labour party has put this policy forward, I am sure we will hear today that it has done so because it believes in educational excellence for everyone and not a reserved few. However, by introducing the policy a Labour Government would simply make independent schools even more elite than Labour already perceives them to be by pricing out hard-working parents who can just about afford to pay the fees to invest in their children’s futures. Those who can easily absorb the 20% will do so, and perhaps that is what the Labour party wants: to make private schools more elite so that it is more difficult for politicians like me to make the case for them.

I will use the jacuzzi and private jet analogy to demonstrate my point. Many of us will never have a jacuzzi in our gardens, but could probably afford to install one if we chose to do so. On the other hand, a private jet is, for virtually everyone, an unobtainable fantasy for a distant elite with no connection to our lives. That is what Labour wants independent education to be—the private jet, not the jacuzzi. Of course, that is purely figurative as a parallel and not related to the crucial importance of educational choice.

It has been said that these are not issues we should worry about, and that independent schools can simply absorb the VAT increase so that they do not pass it on to parents. That is a naive view, with many independent schools up and down the country being very small, operating on tight margins and unable to do that. A quarter of all schools in the Independent Schools Council have fewer than 155 pupils. They are not wealthy institutions that are able to absorb VAT.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Several headteachers of independent schools in my constituency of Woking have come to me and said that they are worried that many parents will not able to afford to keep their children at their schools with the VAT increase, and one or two are worried about the future of their schools. My hon. Friend has had conversations with the independent sector and the groups representing it; has Labour taken into account that there might be a massive increase in students having to go to the state sector due to schools closing, which would completely kibosh any potential financial gains it is claiming?

[Andrew Lewer]

It would. My hon. Friend’s point leads me nicely into my belief that the naivety of Labour’s position is underlined by a hidden agenda to have smaller schools in the midlands and the north closed and absorbed by the state. Underlining that is perhaps the fact that the shadow Education Secretary, since taking up her post in 2021, has not visited an independent school with at least the aim or willingness to discuss the impact of her policy. My hon. Friend has spoken to people in the sector, as have I and many other people here.

The unwillingness to engage speaks volumes. Who would propose massive changes to the chemical industry or the high street retail industry without taking the trouble to speak to people involved in that sector to assess the impact? It is quite unthinkable. I also question why the policy is aimed only at taxing the supply of children’s education, which is arguably the most pivotal, and not at education for adults via universities, for example, or other forms of education such as private tutoring, which is the alternative private education leg-up provision of extra advantage that many on the left as well as not on the left utilise. There are no plans for VAT there; I wonder why.

Perhaps most important of all is the effect that the policy would have on independent schools’ ability to operate. If independent schools cannot absorb the VAT increase or parents cannot afford the fees, many of them would have to close. That would be disastrous for two important reasons. First, we would see the children go into the state sector, increasing the burden on other children and teachers. The Opposition believe that that can be offset by funds raised by the policy, but we are yet to see any consensus on the true impact.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that the policy will raise half a billion pounds less than Labour has committed in spending pledges. The education specialist think-tank EDSK puts the likely revenue even lower, leaving Labour more than £1 billion overdrawn on its spending plans. Most worrying is the IFS finding that the evidence of impact on children and families is “quite thin”—alongside 30-year-old data, it relied on the experience of Catholic schools in America—so it is tax first and repent later.

I am sure we will hear that this is a bogus claim and that there might not be a mass exodus, and that might be evidenced by the fact that as inflation has risen and independent school fees have gone up, we have not seen many children leave the sector. However, the ISC has found that 20% of parents who currently send their children to independent schools say they will be priced out and have to educate their children in the state sector. Those are the parents who will be making a difficult choice and might be forced into pulling their children out of the schools they have been educated in, and when they are at a key stage in their education. Perhaps most strikingly, the Baines Cutler report has calculated, using real data from schools and parents, that the predicted income-related drop-off if the policy is enacted would be nearly 100,000 children—one sixth of all the children educated in the sector who need somewhere to be educated.

Even more crucial is the impact on independent schools that provide specialist provision where the state sector does not go—independent specialist schools with small budgets that educate children with particular needs. Department for Education data shows that there are more than 100,000 pupils receiving special educational needs support in independent schools, some with education, health and care plans and some without. Moreover, many independent schools provide specialist faith schooling or provision for military families—something I saw the benefit of in my own education.

When it comes specifically to special educational needs and disabilities provision, what we will see is that parents who can no longer afford to pay the fees will seek out an EHCP if they do not have one, which will lead to more pressure on families, on local authorities at tribunal and on local authority budgets. I am interested to know whether there has been any realistic impact assessment of that.

If schools were to close as a result of the policy, the children would not have the provision they need. It will very much be the case that the schools will have to stop the excellent partnership work they do in order to cover their costs, or reduce their offer of bursaries to disadvantaged pupils, thereby reducing social mobility and making these institutions even more elite. That is the point. Such a regressive tax will seek to harm independent schools on the tightest of margins.

Even if the policy’s impacts are not seen immediately, I fear that the long-term negative consequences will be dire. It is the schools that Labour are not thinking about that will be hardest hit—small faith schools and special needs schools. That capacity sees some special needs support for 96,000 children who are not on an EHCP. Labour has exempted the EHCP pupils from VAT on fees, but not other students with special educational needs. That is 96,000 children facing disrupted education, with state provision further stretched and worse for all those who need it. Families are therefore incentivised to apply for EHCPs. Labour should exempt all pupils with special educational needs from VAT on fees. If it does not, the pressures will be laid at its door.

Similarly, small faith schools up and down the country could not be further from the stereotype that has been presented. They often charge low fees—often lower to the taxpayer than the cost of local state schools, because they are supported by local congregations and voluntary efforts. They are frequently very small, they cannot absorb VAT, and their families and supporters cannot find 20% more at a moment’s notice. They will face deficit and closure, and will be harder hit than the better-known schools that I am sure many have in their heads when proposing this.

There is a slow-burn issue as well, whereby parents perhaps persist for an extra year or two for a child who is in the middle, but then decide not to go ahead for a child who has not entered the system yet. There is also a danger of smaller schools becoming insolvent—having to assess that the increased risks of becoming technically insolvent prevent them from struggling on and pushing through. This needs to be considered in the round and not just as a standalone. Given that we have heard hardly anything else about supporting education from the Labour party, I am not sure voters are being presented with very much.

To conclude, independent schools play a vital role in educating our children. They provide specialist provision and excellent partnership work. The Labour party wants to pull all that up and put it at risk, for the sake of raising a questionable £1.5 billion, which is not enough to offset the damage it will inflict. I hope those listening who are in positions to influence this will take these points away. I look forward to the Treasury Minister’s further thoughts about the VAT details. We need to ensure that this ill-thought-out policy does not put unnecessary strain on hard-working families who want a better future for their children.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewer]

I want to express my sincere thanks to so many colleagues. I had thought about having an Adjournment debate on this subject but I am so pleased that, rather than standing in the Chamber talking to myself, I have a large number of people in Westminster Hall to take part in the debate and make such useful and constructive contributions.

The proposed policy fails on the principle of freedom of choice and the principle of education being free of VAT. The idea of saying, “Well, we don’t want VAT on education apart from on the bits that don’t we like—apart from on the bits that we can give a bit of a class-warrior go at,” also fails in practice. For every report in one direction, there are others: the EDSK report and the Baines Cutler report are both independent and carefully researched reports that prove that this money, which has been spent dozens of times already, does not actually exist in the first place.

To me, the issue feels like the current Leader of the Opposition’s version of foxhunting. He needs to come up with something red-meaty to throw at his left to say, “Look, we’re still socialists and we’ll bash the rich and the elite.” Tony Blair did it with foxhunting, and now it is independent education. The difficulty is that this issue is so much more profound and more damaging than even that issue, which did cause problems for rural communities. This is much worse, much more broadly based and much more damaging.

I am delighted that so many colleagues have been able to pick up so many key points. The point about special educational needs that was made by several colleagues is particularly potent, and I shall certainly try to take that up in my ongoing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on independent education.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered independent school fees and VAT.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

[Andrew Lewer]

[Jesse Norman]

Black History Month

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for securing this debate. Every Member of this House was rightly appalled at the footage of George Floyd’s death and the subsequent examples of racial injustice in the United States that reignited the debate about race relations in America and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. I am glad that we are engaging in that conversation in the round, but I am wary of the growing trend of adopting a whole ideology of a country that has a different history of race and race relations from our own.

The role of Britain and the Royal Navy in abolishing the slave trade is—I thought until I arrived in this debate—incontrovertible and clear. Britain has welcomed people of all ethnicities from around the world and has a history of tolerance and accepting other cultures, much more so than many other countries. That is not to say that atrocities and injustices have not been committed. It is right to acknowledge the past wrongs that ethnic minorities have faced in our history much more than those imported from the USA. However, that is a history, and throughout any history, it is possible to identify abhorrent views and actions.

As I give this speech, my hon. Friend the Minister is sitting at the Dispatch Box. She is an accomplished lawyer, Minister and the daughter of Nigerian immigrants. We have one of the most diverse Governments in memory and, indeed, in the world. My concern is that we will turn into a country of identity politics based on race and colour rather than merit and character. We have seen that shift in the United States, and I strongly believe that it should not be encouraged in the United Kingdom.

An example of that shift can be seen in the teaching of critical race theory in the United States, and now even in some schools in the UK. That is a dangerous and divisive ideology that should not be adopted in educational theory. It creates a system where people are identified solely by their race and starts from a premise of identifying them as victims of oppression. I encourage all hon. Members to read black professor Thomas Sowell’s work on the subject.

Similarly, unconscious bias, and especially the so-called training about it, is not at all uncontroversial and often rests on pseudo-scientific assertions, much as phrenology and eugenics did in their time. It is time for that and the potential for damage to race relations that arises from it to be challenged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) suggested that if we celebrate Black History Month, we focus hard on black British history, but also go beyond that to greater diversity. In that spirit, I am pleased to turn to a patriotic black role model connected to my constituency. On the centenary of the first world war, I wrote a piece for local Northampton magazine about Walter Tull, a famous black footballer who played for Northampton Town and Tottenham Hotspur and served as an officer in the footballers’ battalions on the fronts in Italy and France.

Walter Tull was the first player to enlist from Northampton Town. He fought in the battle of the Somme, and he was one of the first mixed heritage officers in the regular British Army. His fellow officers spoke about his leadership and bravery under fire and recommended him for a Military Cross. He died in action in 1918. Even today, he is well known around Northampton and celebrated as a local hero.

Walter Tull is one of many examples of black British men and women who have contributed so much to our country’s history. They should rightly be recognised in our national consciousness and history, but not just because of the colour of their skin. They should be celebrated because of their actions, their strength of character and their contribution to our nation’s identity and history.

Many of the references to the United States are of great concern. We must not simply be led by what goes on in the United States, but look to our own history. Nevertheless, there are huge and wonderful examples to be taken, and no greater than that of Martin Luther King. I am pleased to say that he was offered, accepted and came in person to receive an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University, my old university, in 1967. His chief of staff, Dr Wyatt Tee Walker, was one of the most ardent critics of critical race theory. No one did more for race relations than him, yet no one was more strident in their opposition to critical race theory and its child, unconscious bias training.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this private Member’s Bill and, indeed, to follow its promoter, whom I congratulate on a carefully crafted speech, with much passion in it. There are obviously some things one could take issue with, too, not least the Government’s record on carbon in the economy. Indeed, concerns about the feasibility of current targets and their cost—especially for those on lower incomes—in an already coronavirus-battered economy are well worth raising.

As we have heard, the Bill in essence seeks to enable co-operative and community benefit societies to raise external investment capital for environmental and sustainable purposes. On the surface, that is a sensible suggestion, and in general terms I—and I am sure many colleagues—support some of the objectives that aims to achieve. I am sure that several of my colleagues will make further good and detailed points on the purpose and key provisions of the Bill, but I will give some thoughts as a starter.

I am standing in an unusual place for me, away from the customary 2017-2019 naughty corner, and speaking on this topic is out of my comfort zone as well, but, having looked into it, it is well worth unpacking in debate. Indeed, some interventions have already revealed that to be the case. Co-operatives and community benefit societies are great means of facilitating business with a mutual and social purpose, democratic ownership and governance. The Government have always been supportive of that ethos, changing the law in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to reduce some of the legal complexities and cut red tape on how co-operatives operate. It is encouraging that, since then, the co-operative movement has continued to be successful, generating more than £130 billion of income each year for the UK economy and employing more than 230,000 individuals. I have a personal connection: my dad worked for the Co-op in Manchester and the family is a chapel and Methodist family.

It is important to point out that from day one the Government have had a major focus on climate change and encouraged support for many green industries and green initiatives. In fact, as many colleagues regularly mention, the UK was the first major economy to enshrine into law a commitment to hit net zero by 2050 and to introduce a landmark Environment Bill, which places environmental ambition and accountability at the heart of all Government policy and holds subsequent Governments to account if they fail to uphold their environmental duties. Just last year, the Government published a green finance strategy detailing how they intend to support green financial services, accelerate investments into the UK’s clean growth and encourage a clean global finance market.

A 42% reduction in carbon emissions has been achieved while simultaneously growing the economy by two thirds to the end of 2019, which is the strongest record in that regard among the G7. That trend has the potential to continue, with recent announcements from the Chancellor that the Government intend their rebuilding of the economy after coronavirus to include releasing £3 billion into green investment programmes and to jointly fund a £40 million venture capital fund for green start-up companies, to encourage a new generation of a clean and low-carbon technologies.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the very welcome reduction in carbon in the UK economy over the past 20 years. Some of that has been achieved by offshoring carbon emissions to third countries, which is then reimported. Does he agree that an effective way of dealing with that would be the introduction of carbon border adjustment payments?

[Andrew Lewer]

A more general answer to that extremely specific question is that it is important to have realistic goals and targets in country, so that those sorts of ways of trying to get around things are avoided. That is why commitment and passion need to be mixed with pragmatism and realism in seeking targets that are actually achievable.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from that point, does the conversation that just took place not highlight the fact that there is little value in the UK reducing our carbon emissions to zero if we do not take other developed countries around the world with us? This is a global problem, and the UK eradicating carbon emissions in isolation from everyone else will have little impact globally.

[Andrew Lewer]

That does indeed highlight the importance of leading by example, so long as that example is a significant carbon reduction coupled with a successful economy, rather than wholesale carbon reduction done in a way that leads to economic problems, which would lead to other countries deciding not to follow the example for obvious reasons.

[Anna McMorrin]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, but does he not agree that the Bill actually does what he describes? It builds in the opportunity to build renewable or sustainable environmentally friendly projects across the board from the ground up. Sustainability covers a wide area in Wales, as defined by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewer]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I will say several things in support of the principles underlined by her and which other colleagues have touched on.

While the Bill seeks to add to the track record of this Government and previous Governments, there are several issues within it that that cannot be ignored. Some of those worry me, and although I see elements of merit in the Bill, I am hesitant about it for reasons that I will address, dealing with some of the specifics rather than only outlining problems overall for the sector, which may lead to the Minister’s scribbling out too much of his speech.

As I mentioned, co-operatives and community benefit societies add to the diverse make-up of the UK economy and are in many cases successful, with more than 72% of co-ops still flourishing after a difficult first few years, in comparison to 43% of companies overall. Those businesses are therefore a cornerstone of the UK’s economy, particularly its social economy, and have the benefit of helping to push sustainable economic development and investment in green sectors. That should be celebrated and encouraged. Many across the House will share their ambition.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend outlines some of the benefits of co-operatives. Is he aware that in many countries the banking sector is largely provided through co-operatives, including Germany and the USA, and that those banks provide much more sustainable long-term thinking and patient capital to help small and medium-sized enterprises through financial crises? If the Government decide to lead us down that route in terms of diversifying our banking sector, would he support that?

[Andrew Lewer]

I think that business models that are rooted in their communities and have the wellbeing of those communities at their heart, while enabling individuals to be enterprising within them, are very beneficial, particularly in having the value of local knowledge of what will be a success, rather than simply a balance-sheet approach.

Investment in emerging green markets and technologies, in line with Government green investment strategies, can be beneficial and should be encouraged, but they are not without their own risks, and that is one of my worries. Investors must be aware that there are risks associated with green shares, as there are with any shares. My worry—and that, I believe, of some of my colleagues—is that the well-intentioned ethical ambitions attached to this instrument may expose them to risks that they may not have foreseen. I am concerned that the Bill exposes the co-operative sector to the unintended risks of being exploited as investment vehicles, rather than purpose-driven organisations. There is a balance to be struck there.

As with many of these societies and co-operatives, people have saved up for years to invest their savings in capital, and I want to ensure that they do not underestimate the associated risks of green shares proposed by the Bill. Just because it has the word “green” attached to it does not mean that it is a guaranteed way of making money or is a sensible investment. Although it is probably a slightly politically incorrect cross-reference in the context of this debate, I am reminded of the car industry. People often muse, “If only I’d invested massively in the car industry in 1900, I’d have made a fortune.” Actually, nearly all the car companies that were founded in 1900 led to a loss for their founders, because only a few of them prevailed. Although the overall concept of investing in the automotive industry in 1900 was good, it actually led to a lot of people losing a lot of money.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the labelling of something as green? We might think particularly about electric cars. We have to be aware that when mining and other processes take place for the batteries and other components in an electric car they can in no way be seen as environmentally friendly or green, even though the car is labelled as such.

[Andrew Lewer]

That is absolutely true. Although, of course, there are some things that are labelled green in which I have complete confidence, others cause serious concern for the reasons outlined.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend is being very generous. I cannot miss this opportunity to highlight the potential of lithium extraction in Cornwall being linked to geothermal energy, which will in itself be totally sustainable and carbon neutral. These are the ways in which the UK is leading the world in green technologies, which will help the UK to be a world leader in these things.

[Andrew Lewer]

My hon. Friend’s commitment to his constituency and to this particular area is well known, and that was a well-chosen opportunity.

Another of my worries is that the Bill does not achieve what it sets out to. There are concerns that it could reduce the ability of co-operatives and community benefit societies to invest in green sectors. In its current form, the Bill would restrict rather than extend societies’ potential to take on mission-aligned investments for environmental purposes. If the intention is for more societies to raise more capital for environmentally beneficial activities, the legislation should provide capital-raising options that are useful for many societies in many contexts, rather than the limited number of circumstances to which the Bill limits it.

I am also aware of concerns that green shares—the main aim of the Bill—might unintentionally create a capital instrument with similarities to a mini bond, as has already been touched upon. That is something else that causes some difficulties. When Her Majesty’s Treasury’s review into regulatory arrangements, which includes mini bonds, is completed, the Government will need to carefully consider its findings before passing legislation that would in essence create capital instruments with similarities to those mini bonds.

Having been drawn in two Prime Minister’s Question Times in a row—this week and last week—and been drawn first for both private Members’ Bills today, I will not push my recent considerable luck any further, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will conclude. I am persuaded that the proper and right way to push towards the development of further green financial instruments is through a full consultation, which would give all parts of the sector a chance to put their views and the Government the chance to listen before considering introducing similar draft legislation. In some respects, I support the main ambition of the Bill, as do many of my colleagues, but in its current form, without extensive engagement with the sector, and for the reasons outlined in my speech and in some of the interventions, there remain some unanswered questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wise comment. We very much share his views. Local authorities are crucial to delivery of a whole range of the support that we are now giving, and we will be very much acknowledging their role. We will also be supporting them, as he will know, through the business rates process and the hardship fund.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the socioeconomic effect of raising the Rent a Room Scheme threshold to £7,500.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

As my hon. Friend will know, Rent a Room relief has been a feature of the income tax system since 1992. In 2016, the Government raised the threshold to £7,500. That was designed to deliver the Government’s objective of supporting individuals’ living standards and freeing up space in the housing market. It also reduces and simplifies the tax administrative burden for those affected and has taken some taxpayers out of self-assessment entirely.

[Andrew Lewer]

Given that some 37% of homes in the country are under-occupied, my right hon. Friend will realise that encouraging more owners to take in lodgers could provide affordable housing to thousands more people. Will he please look to review whether there should be a higher level, perhaps £9,500, for live-in landlords with two or more lodgers, and would he be willing to have a virtual meeting with the Lodger Landlords Association at an appropriate time?

[Jesse Norman]

I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. In 2016, as I have mentioned, the Government raised the threshold. In 2018, the Government consulted on the scheme and there was consensus among the respondents that the relief provides an effective incentive for people to make spare rooms available for rent. Of course, I take his point and he has put it squarely on the record. As with all tax policy, we will look at this and other measures and keep them under review.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

Although I am a former MEP and a current member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have not consumed huge amounts of Chamber time talking about Brexit, largely because most of my constituents in Northampton South are, like me, just keen that we get on with it, and also because esteemed colleagues have said, in every variant imaginable, most of the things that I would have wished to say. However, as we reach this most critical of all critical moments, it is important now to be on the record, and my themes are principle, pragmatism, simplicity and complexity.

Many colleagues here pride themselves on their pragmatism and, indeed, have cited pragmatism as their overriding reason for supporting the withdrawal agreement. I recognise pragmatism as being of value as a means to an end—as a means for a person to achieve their objectives and their principles. What I do not recognise or accept is this concept that has captured some people of pragmatism being a principle. It is not. If being pragmatic defeats the principles that we seek to uphold, then it takes on a much less healthy character. That is the problem with this deal; it offends against some of the key principles that I and many others in this House hold dear. One of the most important of those is the Union. What higher principle can a lifelong member of the Conservative and Unionist party have than that of protecting and strengthening the Union? This deal would create a border down the Irish sea, separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. To quote the Attorney General:

“for regulatory purposes GB is essentially treated as a third country by NI”.

It probably does not surprise DUP colleagues as much as it surprised me that a Conservative Government should be seeking to do this—that little bit of distance lending perspective—but I think it is crucial that Conservatives do not do this. The pragmatism? Well, that goes together quite nicely with this issue, because if we do pursue this deal, we will lose the support of the DUP altogether and then we cannot function as a Government.

Beyond the referendum is the manifesto that I and all Conservative colleagues were elected on, particularly page 36, which said that we would be out of the single market, the customs union and the European Court of Justice. That is one of my key reasons for not supporting the deal. My contract with the electorate is tied to the central concept in democracy that we mean what we say and we do not contribute to the growing sense of cynicism in public life. I am not going to say to my constituents, “I only said those things to you to get elected.” It seems like a straightforward principle to me.

The EU is like an onion; every time people get towards a clear view, there is another layer that an expert or someone involved in the Commission can unpeel to challenge people with a different view. It is right that we have explained much of that complexity in these huge debates in the Chamber, but it is more important for my constituents in Northampton South to have some simplicity. And here it is. The referendum result was leave. We were elected on a manifesto that made it abundantly clear what kind of leave we would undertake, and we formed a Government on that basis. This deal is not that leave; the indefinite backstop, the border down the Irish sea, the ongoing role of the ECJ are only the most prominent reasons why it is not. If this deal goes through, we lose our majority with our DUP friends. Simplicity, principle and even a good dose of pragmatism—all good reasons for saying no to this deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Lewer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady should acknowledge that the NHS has been rated as the best healthcare system in the world. We recognise that there are extra demands on the health system and that is why we put in an extra £6.3 billion of funding at the Budget.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

T6. What progress has been made in reducing the level of corporation tax evasion?

[Mel Stride]

I am delighted to inform the House that considerable progress has been made in reducing the level of tax evasion, avoidance and non-compliance in the corporate sector. We have been at the forefront of initiatives launched with the OECD—the base erosion and profit shifting initiative, the profit diversion tax we brought in in 2015—and, as a consequence of clamping down in this area, we have brought in £53 billion from big business since 2010.