Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and to see the newly minted Minister in his place—I think it is the first time I have been in a debate with him. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who was the Secretary of State; I sometimes see him on the District line, because we head the same way.

I rise to speak on behalf of constituents who have contacted me about this issue—in my inbox, in person at the advice surgery I do every Friday, and on the doorsteps when meeting and greeting voters in the recent general election. This issue comes alongside an array of others raised by mums and dads. I am familiar with the arguments and have read the Government’s response; it contains very compelling figures—94% of schoolchildren in the UK, including my own, attend state schools. I also know that the policy polls very well. However, there is also that 6%, and 14 of those private schools are in the constituency of Ealing Central and Act; in 2023 there were 15, in fact, but one has closed its doors since then. I want to vocalise some of their concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Fourteen is a higher than average number of private schools in a constituency, and the petition was signed by 821 people in the constituency—although that is not even in the top 10. The heat map shows that the top 10 seats all have more than 1,000 signatories. I think two of those constituencies are in Surrey, but the remaining eight tend to have a W, NW or SW postcode. What I am trying to say is that the distribution of the signatures and the schools is a fairly west London-type phenomenon. In fact, if we look at the 650 constituencies across the land, the first one on the list is single digits; it is a seat in Wales starting with A—Aberconwy, or somewhere like that. This is not a phenomenon everywhere, but in west London it is not that unusual.

The high school of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) was not very far from my high school in my constituency. I was a Notting Hill girl, and I know that he was a St Benedict’s pupil back in the day. The prep school of the Minister who is often sent to respond to this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who is my neighbouring MP—was Durston House, and it is in my seat of Ealing Central and Acton. We should not demonise these parents. In some senses, they are people who I have grown up with and live alongside, and they do have genuine concerns.

As a parent, I would never dream of going private, but I can understand and accept that people do. I went to school in the 80s—the dark days of Thatcherism—before the Labour Government reforms that made excellent state schools in my constituency. My parents chose to put me in the state sector for primary school, at Montpelier primary, and as a parent myself, I have benefited from Gordon Brown’s reforms. The child trust fund came to maturity for my son recently; it did go up in the end—it was the one that could go up as well as down. I have not used the private sector as a parent—as a child I did, but it was not my own choice. I completely appreciate that people, like my own parents at the time, make enormous sacrifices to send their children to independent schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) said. I have heard people say on the doorstep, “We have the worst car. We never go on holiday.” That was me in the ’80s.

I want to point out some unintended consequences of the policy to the Minister aware. These are people who consider themselves to be working people. The strapline of the Labour manifesto was “No taxes on working people”. We should be careful with our rhetoric sometimes and not seek to—[Hon. Members: “Come over here!”] Hang on—let me carry on.

The first unintended consequence—or commonly misstated thing—is that pupils with an education, health and care plan still remain eligible. It is impossible to get one in west London. We have all taken on new wards in our boundaries, so now I do not only represent Ealing borough but a bit of Hammersmith and Fulham too. A head from one of primary schools was saying that they have a large percentage of special educational needs and disabilities pupils. The wards that I have inherited are from the north of the borough—Shepherd’s Bush way. Apparently, by the age that a child goes to school and those issues show up, it is kind of too late. A sharp-elbowed, middle-class parent from the south of the borough might have had their child assessed privately at a very young age, ensuring they have support all the way through, but by school age, there is a waiting list of many years to get the assessment and then it is potluck.

The problem is that the words “private school” imply a whole load of things—but they are not all Eton. Some of the comms around this policy have not been done very sensitively. I know that offence was taken at a comment about how they all have astroturf pitches, swimming pools and embossed stationery; that did not go down well with parents and heads in my constituency. They are not all like that. There are smaller SEND schools and smaller faith schools—what I am trying to say is that they are not all Eton, and some of the comms are based on a caricature. We should be careful about what we do in that regard.

One parent, Matthew, forwarded me a missive from the private school that his boys are at, which read:

“For music lessons with peripatetic teachers employed by the School…VAT will need to be applied at 20%.”

He continued:

“Traditionally the tax system has been a way of discouraging people from picking up bad habits like smoking and drinking. Not from picking up a trombone”.

It seems as though people are capitalising on the policy, and then other things are coming in through the back door.

I have been replying and trying to sound sympathetic to these parents. My constituent also said:

“you referred to a consultation…on the VAT proposals—yet like most government consultations, what was passed didn’t seem, in any significant way, different to what had been proposed.”

Maybe that is a lesson in life for all of us: if we put something out for consultation, we should make it look like we listened, because he is saying that it came back exactly the same.

The right hon Member for East Hampshire raised that elitist private schools such as Eton have actually done quite well out of this policy, because they can cash in on windfalls from the new VAT rules on independent schools—they can claim it back on capital projects, such as buildings and land acquisition, over the last 10 years. All the VAT on costs, which is now 20%, is recoverable when factoring in non-business use, so the policy will basically hand money back to schools such as Eton from Treasury coffers. Surely there is a loophole there—an unintended consequence—that needs to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister.

There are long lists of such things. The Times says:

“Eton spent more than £20 million on a sports centre in 2023 and Winchester College’s”—

where I think our former Prime Minister went—

“accounts from the same year said it spent £15 million on capital expenditure”.

It also says that Radley College, in Oxfordshire has a 20-acre solar farm and 40-acre woodland, and that Charterhouse in Surrey

“built two boarding houses in 2021 and is developing a theatre and lecture theatre”

Again, costs can come back for the big boys, but not for the little ones.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

As the MP for Windsor, Eton is in my constituency. I appreciate, as the hon. Lady says, that not all private schools are Eton, but I point out in its defence that the sports centre she mentioned is used by local schools and community groups, and that Eton does an awful lot in my community. I accept her point that Eton is not among the schools that we necessarily want to focus on in this debate, but I suggest that some of those points are a bit unfair.

[Dr Huq]

It is interesting to learn that—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way on Eton?

[Dr Huq]

I am not finished addressing the first point. Can we do this sequentially? I will respond to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) first and then I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

It is interesting to learn that, but my point is that such schools are still going to be quids in after this.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Member give up on all this stuff about Eton? I speak as a mother of two Old Etonians. I was a single parent; I worked three jobs. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said there is more money from Old Etonian parents, but there certainly is not—not from this one. Eton hands out completely free fees to 100-plus boys a year; they do not even have to pay for their pencils. When it comes to things like Dorney Lake and the sports centre, it hands that back a thousand times to local communities across the country. Give it up!

[Dr Huq]

I do not know how parliamentary that language is. I am not going to join in the praise of Eton, particularly because I think the hon. Lady may have been an atypical parent. I imagine that some parents there would be able to bear a 20% increase, and for a school that is clever with its accounts, these things may just be a rounding error. I am talking about smaller schools for which that does not apply.

It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) here. I have a massively remain constituency, with 72% of my electorate voting remain, but, perversely for Reform, it is leaving the EU that has made this policy possible—it is a Brexit benefit. If only we had never left the EU, this would not be happening.

Usually education is not a taxable luxury good, and there is a fear that if this increase happens, what could be next—nurseries or universities? I used to work in that sector. There is a slight worry that there is a loophole, because the policy contradicts the EU’s VAT directive that specifies there should be no VAT on any form of education. In Greece in 2015, the left-wing Syriza Government wanted to introduce VAT at 23%. They had to abandon that for a slew of different reasons, including because it was contrary to the EU’s VAT directive.

University tuition is zero rated, and there is a worry among my friends in the sector there, who say, “You’re lucky to have got out when you did, because they’re closing so many university departments in the UK.” What could be next? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that nurseries and universities are off limits.

We have heard all these things—that schools are going to close—and we have heard a lot of catastrophising, but it remains to be seen whether those things will come to pass. One of my schools went in 2023. My worry is that this policy will make an elitist system more elitist. The Government say in their response:

“Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision”,

but when growth comes, is there a way of undoing it? It was a very clear policy in many manifestos, so I understand that it will not all be undone, but let us think a bit creatively.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What does the hon. Lady expect her Government to do if they will not give way on this point?

[Dr Huq]

I would suggest implementing it in a slightly different way, based on turnover—so doing it for the enormous schools that can afford it, but not for smaller ones that have been caught in the trap.

There is also an argument for looking at grammar schools, which are a legacy from many years ago. We do not have them in my area, but when I was the Labour candidate in Chesham and Amersham in 2005, they came up as a hustings issue. The argument that the Labour party always gave me in those days was that we respect parental choice. At times, the Conservative party has flirted with bringing back more grammar schools, but they are even more elitist in a way because they take state funds for private school-type facilities. Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham was way bigger than the school I went to; I felt very small when I went there. Perhaps something could be done about the grammar school system, because that is an inegalitarian one.

I wanted to vocalise some of the concerns from my electorate and remind hon. Members that one size does not always fits all. In this case, that is far from the truth.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). I feel as if the speakers so far have been talking about me, because they have been talking about parents who are not rich but who send their children to independent schools. I no longer have a declarable interest, but my daughter did go to an independent school. We were not wealthy, and it was not easy, but it was our choice. We never regretted it, but we often struggled to finance it. I know that there are thousands of parents, many in my constituency, who face an even bigger challenge because of this change.

My daughter went to an independent school in the west of Scotland. It was originally the town school—anyone from Glasgow knows which one I mean—and it had a tradition of awarding a large number of bursaries every year. A lot of the children who were at her school and are now doing well would not have got that place otherwise. A lot of them faced challenges, and the school helped them. We need to remember that we are talking not about the Etons and the Harrows—the big schools—but about a lot of independent schools that often provide a service in communities. It is a choice made by parents who are not always rich.

My city of Edinburgh is one of the areas of the country with the highest proportion of children educated in independent school—it is one in four. That is reflected in the figures in the petition. There were 740 signatures from my constituency, which is a higher number than for any other petition that I remember from my almost eight years in this place. That fact is also reflected in my mailbox and in the concern that parents in Edinburgh regularly express to me. They do not always have their children in the independent sector; a lot of them have their children in the state sector. Every week, parents come to me who cannot get a place for their child in the local state school because it is close to capacity. That problem will only be made worse if many of those one in four children are forced, by this Government, into the state sector because their parents can no longer afford the choice that they made.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Lady and I were both girls in those schools, and she talked about her daughter. Does she accept that it is often the parents who want their daughters to have an all-girls education. There are figures from the Girls’ Schools Association. There is also the head of Dame Allan’s girls’ school, who said that girls thrive better in all subjects in all-girls environments and that they choose things such as physics and maths more when there are not boys around mucking about.

[Christine Jardine]

I accept that point and absolutely agree. It reminds me of the point that for a lot of parents, their children are in independent schools because they were struggling in the state sector. They moved their children into the independent sector, where they are thriving. Rightly or wrongly, that was the parents’ choice, and we—or, at least, the Labour Government—would be taking that choice away from them, because of the fee increase. I also find it difficult to understand a Labour Government who would support the principle of taxing education. As well as the practical issues with the policy, they are taxing education, which is surely not something that they would support.

Introducing the change halfway through the school year has caused issues for many parents, who have suddenly found that all the budgeting they have done is out the window. They may have more than one child at a school that they can no longer afford due to the increase in school fees. That is why so many people are writing to me every weekend to say that they are having to think about what they will do about their child’s education and where they will find a place.

Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. Then we will work out the order of who is going when.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) not only on securing this debate on such an important topic, but on her skill and commitment in leading the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment.

The APPG is such an important group for ensuring that the voices of blind and partially sighted people are heard in this Parliament. Having been for many years a member of the cross-party group on visual impairment in the Scottish Parliament, I am delighted to find that the APPG here is also an effective forum for advancing key policy areas for people with visual impairment. Changing employers’ attitudes and increasing employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people is vital, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out in her excellent opening speech and that the hugely important “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report highlights.

As an MP for a Scottish constituency, I am keenly aware that this is as important an issue for people with visual impairment in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. In his excellent speech, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was quite right to point out that there is also important work for the devolved Administrations to do. Only one in four blind and partially sighted people in Scotland is in paid employment. Research by RNIB Scotland shows that there are about 9,000 registered blind and partially sighted people of working age in Scotland, of whom only about 2,000 are in work. As many as 78% are not employed, so for blind and partially sighted people in Scotland the disability employment gap is particularly acute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly highlighted the disability pay gap and the inequality that it creates in our society. There is a huge opportunity cost not only to people with visual impairment who want to work and cannot find work, but to our society as a whole. In my career before my election to this place, I was fortunate to work at the charity Sight Scotland. A number of our services employed blind and partially sighted people. They were valued members of our team, not only as experts by experience but because of their individual skills and their knowledge. They would be assets at any workplace where they were employed.

During my time at the charity, we conducted research into the social isolation that is experienced by too many people with visual impairment. Our research showed that 90% of our respondents had experienced loneliness. It is important to recognise not only that increasing employment opportunities helps to counter low income and poverty, which still affect far too many blind and partially sighted people, but that being in work, having a workplace to go to and working alongside colleagues helps to tackle isolation, promotes inclusion and improves the quality of life for people with visual impairment in so many other ways as well. It is vital that we create far fairer access to employment for blind and partially sighted people and ensure support is in place for them and for potential employers to achieve that.

In my constituency, the charity Seescape supports more than 4,000 people each year through rehabilitation and through aids, equipment and accessible technology. Those kinds of support are essential to achieving inclusion in the workplace. Seescape’s work is transformational for so many blind and partially sighted people, not only in Glenrothes and Mid Fife but throughout the whole Kingdom of Fife. It is hugely valued by our community.

I very much welcome the recommendation in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report that the UK Government should partner with sight loss organisations to develop best practice on recruiting blind and partially sighted people and supporting them to enter the labour market. They are the very organisations with the right expertise and knowledge to achieve that goal.

I also endorse the substantive and practical recommendations in that report for the Government and employers. Those recommendations come at an important time, as we look towards the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and the £240 million that will be invested by the Government to promote employability. Following our conversation at Mr Speaker’s excellent event to celebrate Disability History Month, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister, who I welcome to his place, is seized by the opportunity that the White Paper offers to increase disability employment and to set out an effective strategy.

Sadly, in the last few years, there have been cuts in funding for employability at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Not enough has been done to promote opportunities through Access to Work, a scheme that can make a real difference when it is effectively delivered. We need to change that situation by ensuring that the White Paper leads to an employability strategy that actually works for blind and partially sighted people.

In Scotland, employability programmes such as Fair Start Scotland have certainly not had enough success in including people with visual impairment. That needs to change and it can change. We know what works in promoting the employment of blind and partially sighted people: changing attitudes and changing the approaches of employers, in line with the practical recommendations made in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report and more broadly in relation to disability.

I also commend the work of the commission led by Lord Shinkwin for the Institute of Directors and its report, “The Future of Business: harnessing diverse talent for success”. That report makes a series of recommendations to Government to create the most favourable conditions for businesses and directors to flourish, with specific reference to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.

One member of that commission was Dr Theresa Shearer, the chief executive of Enable, where I worked until I was elected to this House; I declare that interest. The All In programme, led by Enable Works, has formed employability partnerships across Scotland that have brought together specialist third sector organisations so that they can collaborate. Those partnerships have had great success in securing training and employment for many people who face barriers to employment, including blind and partially sighted people. Indeed, they have secured three and a half jobs for every one job delivered by traditional employability schemes.

There are many factors involved in improving employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people; indeed, we could have a separate debate on education and transitions into employment. However, the many important recommendations in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report will result in real progress if they are adopted. The first recommendation is essential, namely that we establish a disability employment strategy that sets out measures to improve employers’ attitudes and increase the number of blind and partially sighted people who find and—crucially—retain work.

I commend that report and its recommendations, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on all she is doing to ensure that its ambitions are fulfilled. Fulfilling them is vital if we are to achieve genuine inclusion for blind and partially sighted people in our society throughout the UK.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Our final Back Bencher, before we move on to the Lib Dem spokesperson, is Lee Pitcher.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much hope that we can, because the hon. Gentleman is right: there is a good deal of anxiety about these overpayment problems. We hope that the alert service will at least inform people when they run into a problem so that they do not then develop a large overpayment, which has happened all too often in the past, but we also need to look at the other arrangements relating to carer’s allowance in order to provide the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman has rightly called.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

17. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of benefit sanctions in the last five years.

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

In May 2019 the universal credit sanction rate was 3.17%. It reduced considerably during the pandemic, gradually returning to 3.51% by November 2021. It then continued to rise, reaching a peak of 7.29% in October 2023, but it is now falling, with a rate of 6.17% in May 2024.

[Dr Huq]

According to recent research by Gingerbread, a high percentage of sanctions have been misapplied to single parents, not because they have not met the job search requirements but because of missed meetings for reasons connected with childcare. Max, a bereaved single dad of two, had his sanction overturned, which involved a fairly challenging process. Will my hon. Friend please look into the possibility of overhauling the mess of a system that was left behind by that lot over there?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, through her, I would like to thank Gingerbread for its work on this issue. There have always been, and always will be, conditions attached to social security, but the past 14 years show what happens when we have a Government who are more interested in blaming people and creating cheap headlines than offering real help. In our manifesto, Labour committed to review universal credit so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and the report that Gingerbread has written will also help inform our child poverty taskforce.

Winter Fuel Payment

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I remind everyone that this is a short debate, so everything is a bit squished, and most Members will not be able to make proper speeches. We have two Members down as intervening—we will seek clarity on the rest—and the Minister has 10 minutes to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s expertise, and she is right: the NHS is where this issue will present itself. It is already under huge pressure, so we have to find a way out of this issue.

We have all had the emails, the handwritten letters and the people queuing up, pleading—I certainly have. These pensioners have worked hard all of their lives. Some have put a little bit aside; others have not. Winter is always a challenge. This Government must have the capacity to find another way. People put their hope in Labour because, like me, we believe that it exists to fight for working people, to protect the poor and to seek justice, equality and fairness. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), does too.

With the economic imperative shredded and the medical case so powerful, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has provided a path out. It is unconvinced that the measures should be pushed through so urgently and wants scrutiny. It highlighted that the DWP needs to assess the risks of those eligible and ineligible for pension credit. While the triple lock fails to provide protection, the triple hit of the energy price cap rising by 10% on 1 October, the Tory freeze to the personal allowance and the removal of the winter fuel payment, without the cost of living payments, leaves people exposed. The Committee says that the measures could be delayed by changing the trigger dates. Delay is still possible.

The Committee also highlights that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has a legal role in reviewing legislation before debate, will not meet until after the measures have passed. That means that MPs and Lords will not have the opportunity to debate its findings. We need these reports to debate the proposals. Furthermore, no impact assessment has been published.

As has already been said, according to academia fuel poverty is deeply rooted in inequality, disproportionately impacting on women and black and minority ethnic and disabled people, as well as the socio-economically disadvantaged. I have been contacted by many charities highlighting cancer, neurological conditions and others—and, of course, dementia too. Labour must always ensure that those with protected characteristics experience no detriment.

Our constituents are worried sick. They are frail and frightened. I see desperation in their eyes, and I hear it in their voices. As they grip my arm in the street and look at me, they know what I know—and if we are honest, what we all know. They are worried that they will be that statistic. Our duty is to take away that fear.

Mitigation is still possible: from delay to a social tariff or social prescribing, where consultants and GPs can authorise payments. I want to know what work the Government are doing in these areas. What measures are they looking at? What mitigation is possible, and by when? The household support fund will simply not be enough. The pension increase is insufficient. We need more, and we need it urgently.

I want this Government to do much better than the last, and I believe that, over time, we will, but winter is upon us now and we must reassure the fuel-poor pensioners that they will have the support they need. My constituents plead that I do something—my goodness, I am trying, but the Minister must too. Please, let us mitigate. Let us give people confidence and the comfort and care they need—the help and protection to keep them safe, warm and well this winter. If that cannot be done, then delay these measures. I rest my case.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I see that there is another name down to speak. We have actually run out of time for that, but the Clerk is advising that Neil Duncan-Jordan can intervene on the Minister—that is a possibility. I call the Minister, Emma Reynolds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk always reminds me that Members cannot use “you” because it means me, even when used with “Minister”. We have had it all morning.

[Emma Reynolds]

Dr Huq, I am sure Members will soon get used to the bizarre ways of this House.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for his question. As I set out, the Chancellor was not expecting to do this but had to do it urgently because of the £22 billion black hole in our public finances. The black hole is in-year. What if we did not tackle it? Look at what happened under the previous Government, with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget: they put forward unfunded tax cuts and sent the markets into turmoil. Interest rates increased, putting mortgage rates and rents up, and that led to higher inflation.

People on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, would really suffer were we not to secure economic stability. Economic stability is the foundation of all that we want to do in Government. I say to pensioners and others across the country: this is a necessary step to make the improvements that we want in our NHS, bringing down waiting times, and in our schools, ensuring that we have the highest standards.