Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I will make a short statement on the House’s sub judice resolution. There are legal proceedings active in relation to the policy of applying VAT to private schools. However, Mr Speaker issued a waiver on 5 February to allow reference to those cases, now and in future proceedings, on the grounds of national importance. For the record, I point out that my daughter is a teacher in a school affected by the VAT on fees.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. The petition is on an important subject and has gained over 114,000 signatures in two months. The lead petitioner, Hugh Beckinsale, is in the Public Gallery today with his daughter Amelia—someone who will be directly impacted by this policy decision. The petition has a straightforward ask of the Government: do not apply VAT to independent school fees or remove business rates relief.

The petition states that

“the Government needs to understand that not all independent school parents are wealthy, appreciate the benefits of independent schools and do better due diligence… We think this policy will split children from established friend networks, familiar environments and place the burden and cost on public schools.”

I will build on those points throughout the debate, but those succinct statements go straight to the heart of the issue. I commend the petition organisers on being so direct and clear.

I will turn to my own view on this issue. The topic is divisive; usually, that would cause a Government to approach it with caution, respect and careful deliberation, but this Labour Government have taken the opposite approach. They have been deliberately divisive, because their goal is not to improve education for all or even some young people. The decision was taken for purely political and ideological reasons. It is a direct result of the politics of envy and bitterness that extreme elements of the Labour party subscribe to and champion. It will do damage to young people, directly and indirectly, but the Government are not listening or even pretending to listen.

In truth, Labour Ministers do not care about the negative impact of the policy, and they have not considered what may happen as a result of it. As the Independent Schools Council has made clear, independent schools were shocked at the rushed nature of the introduction of the policy. In my discussions with representatives of independent schools, they have said that it has not been well thought through.

Before I turn to the negative impact that the policy will have, I will briefly mention my constituency in the Scottish Borders. We are lucky to have excellent schools in the state and independent sectors across the Scottish Borders. St Mary’s in Melrose is the only independent located in my constituency. However, many of my constituents send their children to independent schools in Edinburgh, East Lothian and across the border to Longridge Towers school near Berwick-upon-Tweed. St Mary’s school was founded in 1895, and has been providing an extraordinary educational experience for boys and girls between two and 13-years-old. All those young people will be directly affected by the policy, so I have received many letters and emails from concerned parents and teachers.

As a result of the lack of care when this policy was brought in, Labour has created serious issues that will impact pupils, parents and the public purse. First, the policy will burden parents with huge costs when bills are already high; they have already been taxed on the money that they earn, but they will now be forced to pay tax on it again. As the Independent Schools Council has stated, this policy is

“a blanket tax that assumes independent schools are a stereotype”.

It assumes, wrongly, that all parents who send their children to independent schools are immensely wealthy and can afford to pay more and more.

That was also noted by Matthew Dent, who is the public affairs and policy officer at the Independent Schools Council. He highlighted that the policy treats everyone who sends children to independent schools as wealthy, as well as the fact that it is simply not realistic to raise taxes by 20% with no warning. That is a good point: there are few other instances in which the Government would even consider introducing a 20 percentage-point tax rise in a single year.

The second issue that Labour has created is the impact on vulnerable pupils, who seem to have been neglected entirely. There seems to be no recognition from the Government that independent schools do not cater exclusively for wealthy children, but for young people who may need extra support. As the Independent Schools Council’s chief executive, Julie Robinson, has said, the policy will,

“cause huge disruption for thousands of families and children, especially those in low-fee faith schools, specialist arts education, single-sex schools, or those who need special needs support.”

The Scottish Council of Independent Schools has also endorsed that point, saying:

“Pupils with additional support needs will be affected the most by disruption to their education.”

The policy will also have an impact on people on the margin of being able to afford independent schooling for their children. The ISC claims that around a third of independent schoolchildren are not paying full fees; they are there because of special needs or academic excellence, not because of how rich their parents are. In fact, in most cases, money cannot buy a place at a top independent school—only merit can. As the SCIS highlighted, children in receipt of fee assistance will be the most at risk of being forced out of independent schools. It stated that the finances of those families have

“already been rigorously means tested and assessed as at the limit of what they can afford therefore we know they cannot pay any more. Being forced to move school will be particularly detrimental to children with additional support needs.”

None of that seems to have been properly, or even slightly, considered by this Labour Government, who charged ahead with this policy at breakneck speed. They did not sit down to have discussions about the impact that the policy would have on vulnerable children; they charged ahead, because this is an ideological and political move. It is not meant to help the country; it is intended to appease the left-wing fringe of the Labour party.

The third problem is the dreadful consequences on some young people who will be forced to move school. The policy could be devastating for those who will have to start again somewhere new. Students forced to move schools may be ripped out of a friend network or taken out of the stable set-up that they are used to. They may be forced, through absolutely no fault of their own, into a very different learning environment. Have the Government not made any assessment of the emotional and mental health damage that will cause to our young children, or do they just not care?

To make matters worse, that could happen to those young people at a critical moment in their education—for instance, in an exam year or when they are about to choose subjects that will influence their later career. How can it be fair to inflict that on young people? What have they done to deserve such upheaval? Why could this policy, if it had to be brought in, not have come through with a delayed introduction period so that parents could, at least, plan with a bit of warning?

It is clear that this policy is not an attack on wealthy parents but an attack on vulnerable children. As I have also already noted, many of those young people will have additional support needs and may not be well suited to a sudden change of environment. It is estimated that, in Scotland alone, 6,000 pupils will have their learning disrupted by being forced out of the sector. That is 6,000 young people in Scotland who will suffer for no good reason. What the Government are inflicting on young people is wrong, but they seem to neither listen nor care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

It is important to remember that, although there is uncertainty with the number, and the revenue could be slightly lower or slightly higher—we do not know—the policy will none the less generate revenue. I spoke to the principal of an independent school in my constituency last week, and she outlined some of the challenges that she faces because of the policy, but the challenge that we face is that if we cancel the policy today—I know we cannot—the revenue that it generates will have to be found somewhere else. I ask the hon. Gentleman: where should we find that revenue? Perhaps we can find that money from public services in his constituency.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.

[John Lamont]

The last Government increased revenue expenditure in our schools during our time in office. If fewer pupils go into the independent sector, the Labour Government will have fewer opportunities to charge VAT, so the policy will not raise the anticipated revenue. I am intrigued to know whether, in the discussions that the hon. Gentleman has had with the multiple independent schools in his constituency, a single one indicated any support for the policy. I am more than happy for him to intervene again if he can name one school in Edinburgh that supports the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should, bob if they wish to take part in the debate.

Income Tax (Charge)

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I am afraid that, for those of us who can remember the 1970s, we appear to have gone back in time, with a Labour Government increasing borrowing, increasing spending and, of course, increasing our taxes. There was a little improvement during the Tony Blair years, as he seemed at least to recognise that we have to create wealth before we can spend it, but this Budget clearly indicates that the Government have failed that test. Budgets often unravel in four or five days; this one unravelled in four or five hours. Many hon. Members will have read the article in today’s Times by Sir James Dyson. Hopefully Labour Members will take note of his comments. It is clear that the Government are set on a course that will most certainly not deliver on their growth agenda.

My constituency is very industrial and takes in the south bank of the Humber, containing two oil refineries, chemical industries, logistics and much more. It also contains the largest port in the country by tonnage, Immingham, and I cannot fail to mention the port of Grimsby; I only have one ward of Grimsby in my constituency, but Grimsby was the world’s largest deep-sea fishing port and is now still reliant on fish supplies, as thousands are employed in fish processing.

Grimsby is also a major centre for the renewable energy sector. As we transition towards clean energy production, we have developed a network of training and skills institutions to prepare the younger generation for jobs in that sector. However, I must offer a word of caution: Ministers should have less zeal and more realism in trying to meet stretched targets.

We have a large rural hinterland where people toil to put food on our table. It is a constituency where tens of thousands work hard for a living. Today’s debate is about protecting working people. The working people I represent are resilient and self-reliant, but they do expect some support and protection from their Government. What they want are good public services in exchange for their taxes.

We have had a large tax hike on businesses, and we know that many parts of the health sector will have to pay enormous increases in employer’s contributions. Hon. Members across the House will have heard from doctors, from pensioners, from GPs and from farmers who are desperately concerned about what is coming. I urge the Government to protect jobs and reverse their damaging proposals. Only then will they truly be able to say that they are protecting working people.

Health and Disability White Paper

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on the fact that disabled people contribute so much to our workplaces, and I want to extend their contribution further so that we can unleash the potential in our society. With the right help and support, we will build on the successes that we have seen in getting people into work. The target of getting 1 million more disabled people into work was met five years early, but that is not the end of the story.

We need to continue to move forward, which is why the hon. Gentleman is right to also touch on the support that we have in place and our work with employers. Access to Work is an important part of that, because it supports the physical things that people need in workplaces to facilitate employment opportunities. Another area that I am passionate about and want to look at closely, and relates to what the Chancellor said yesterday about occupational health, is what more we can do to improve soft skills for employers to ensure that they have good-quality workplace conversations to best support those who are coming to work for them, and those who work for them already.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The report points out that autistic people are the least likely of all disabled people to be in work. It goes on to reference the nine local authorities where there has been a pilot, which is to be extended to a further 28. Does that 28 include the nine? Can the Minister outline the criteria for local authorities to participate?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am happy to provide further detail for my hon. Friend separately. We recognise that there is real value and opportunity in having locally led and locally initiated employment opportunities and support that are tailored to meet localised needs on the ground and that work closely with the health system. That is reflected in our announcements. We need to take that forward in a joined-up way and work across Government. There is a real determination from not just Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions but the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care—this is a cross-Government effort. I am happy to provide him with more background about the work that we are doing.

Kickstart Scheme

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I was in Northern Ireland last week meeting senior people from the Department for Communities as part of a fact-finding mission. Our officials are in regular contact, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a devolved matter. If the Department for Communities would like our help as part of the mutual relationship that we already share, we would be happy to support, but it is important to state that this is devolved, and we absolutely respect that.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Three jobcentres serve my constituency: in Barton, Immingham and Grimsby. I visited the Grimsby site a couple of weeks ago, and the staff there are enthusiastic about the work they are doing to encourage young people. One thing that cannot happen under the present arrangements, of course, is the usual programme of job fairs and similar group undertakings. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that we need close links between jobcentres and further education colleges, for example, in order to encourage our young people into this scheme?

[Dr Coffey]

There are usually already very good relationships between colleges and jobcentres. There are actually some virtual job fairs happening already; there is a particularly big one in London today focused on accounting. That is the not quite the new normal, but it is to try to engage a wider group of people. I will ask the local area manager to follow up with my hon. Friend to make sure that he is fully aware of all the virtual job fairs that are available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are a Government who listen. Let us look at the improvements that have already been made to UC: increased advances, of up to 100% of a full monthly payment; cutting the taper rate, so people keep more of their salary; increasing the amount someone can earn before their UC is reduced; scrapping the seven-day waiting times; introducing a two-week overlap of housing benefit; and, as of July, we are introducing a two-week overlap of various legacy benefits. There are lots of improvements to be made. They do, of course, require Treasury approval, and I am looking at these in a lot of detail.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), I recently visited one of the jobcentres that serves my constituency—it was in Grimsby and, along with the ones in Immingham and Barton-upon-Humber, it serves Cleethorpes. The staff there do an excellent job and they are very positive about UC. Will he congratulate the staff and do what he can to reassure those who are having problems transitioning to UC that the Government will be working to solve any of the existing problems?

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for visiting the jobcentre, and he describes the same feedback that my Front-Bench colleagues and I receive when we visit jobcentres. UC is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit, which reflects the rapidly changing world of work. Conservative Members believe that work should always pay and that we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need help and is fair to everyone who pays for it. I can certainly thank the staff at that jobcentre for all the work they do.

Severe Disability Premium

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are all keen to bring forward those regulations, but I remind the hon. Lady that where under the legacy benefit an ESA claimant would expect £167.05, the equivalent under universal credit will be more than twice that: £336.20 a month.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Hon. Members of all parties have had experience of the problems that our constituents, particularly our disabled constituents, face with the transfer to universal credit. However, we must not lose sight of the successes. Yesterday, the Grimsby Telegraph carried a report in which Mr Mark Coad said that, following the death of his partner,

“I signed up for Universal Credit, and it has been one of the best things that I have ever done, because it not only got me back into work, but provided me with some support mentally, as it forced me to get out of the house and stop wallowing in my grief.”

Does the Minister agree that we must focus on the successes and ensure that all cases have an equally successful result?

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend raises an important broad point: universal credit offers personalised, tailored, bespoke support, for the first time. If hon. Members visit their local jobcentre and talk to staff, particularly to experienced staff, they will hear how for the first time they feel empowered to make a real difference to people’s lives.

Universal Credit: Managed Migration

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As I said yesterday, I know the right hon. Gentleman takes these issues extremely seriously, but so do we. That is why we introduced a change last year to ensure that advances of up to 100% are available on day one. Some 60% of those who come on to universal credit now take advantage of those advances. There is also the two-week run-on for housing benefit and, as he knows, we set out in the Budget further measures, which will come into place in 2020, when those moving across from out-of-work DWP legacy benefits will also get run-on.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

We must not lose sight of the fact that inevitably there are problems during the transition phase, but I draw the Minister’s attention to an email I received yesterday from Brian Herzog, one of my constituents, who wrote that

“my mental health did a complete nose dive and it was Universal Credit that saved me in so many ways.”

He added:

“Please trust me…it’s a great system. I’d be happy to be used as an example of why it does work”.

Well, I have done that. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to ensure that the transition phase moves smoothly and to support the staff who do an excellent job of delivering universal credit, but we must not lose sight of its successes for the vast majority?

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend, who works incredibly hard for his constituents. He is right to highlight that universal credit works extremely well for the vast majority of people, and of course we wish his constituent well, but I accept that we need to get this right for everyone. That is why, when it comes to managed migration, we will have a test phase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

These are precisely the things that have been considered in bringing forward universal credit. What support are we giving? The extra childcare support. What is the extra support? Tailor-made career advice and support. We all need humility, but, equally, we all need to hand out and deliver the correct facts to people, not embellish them, resort to sound and fury or drama, or provide obviously incorrect information, as the UK Statistics Authority has levelled against the Labour party.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last month, I visited Grimsby jobcentre, which serves my constituency, and it is very clear that the staff are handling the changeover to universal credit very efficiently. Will the Secretary of State join me in complimenting the staff, including the work they do in motivating claimants and improving their self-confidence so that they can seek employment?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I have actually met the tremendous work coaches in his constituency. I go out to speak to work coaches all the time, and they are saying to me that the change we are delivering through universal credit is the best thing they have ever delivered. The support they can give—[Interruption.] Rather than Opposition Members laughing, they would be well advised to come and join me or others in meeting work coaches. I will tell them how we know this is working: if it were not working, we would not have an extra 3.1 million people in work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There is a clear and coherent message from this Government. We have seen significant increases in the number of disabled people in work, which is good for disabled people, but it is also good for the economy as a whole. That continues to be our message, and that is why we published our “Improving Lives” document. We will continue to work to improve the opportunities for disabled people in the labour market.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

3. What progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of his Department’s report, “Improving Lives: Helping Workless Families”, published in April 2017.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)]

“Improving Lives: Helping Workless Families” aims to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children and is making good progress. For example, from next Spring, Public Health England will run a trial of individual placement and support, and our vital work on reducing parental conflict was boosted by the Chancellor’s announcement of £39 million in the recent Budget.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the Minister for her reply. As she will know, working households in coastal communities such as Cleethorpes face particular difficulties. There is much low-paid work, but not much to encourage young people to stay there. What additional support can she offer to those sorts of communities?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Government are committed to supporting coastal communities, such as those in his constituency of Cleethorpes and my constituency of Gosport. That is why I am pleased that the claimant count in his area is already down by 49%. Last March, we saw 248 families in north-east Lincolnshire achieve significant progress through our troubled families programme, and I know that the Secretary of State was impressed when he visited my hon. Friend and saw a programme that is helping troubled youngsters. More widely, the council was awarded a Coastal Communities Fund grant in April worth £3.8 million towards a scheme to enhance Cleethorpes’ role as a high-quality place to work, live and visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for voting for the Bill on Second Reading, and for his generally constructive approach to it. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the transparency agenda is part of a much broader agenda, and the Government will make a proposal very soon.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am currently dealing with two constituency cases in which old people have been robbed of their life savings. In both cases, they have been disappointed with the police response. Will the Minister’s cross-departmental work include contact with the Home Office and individual police forces to ensure that more work is done to address this?

[Richard Harrington]

I can confirm that the police and anti-fraud authorities are involved in this cross-governmental body.