Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Debate between Rupa Huq and Christine Jardine

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Christine Jardine

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

I want to carry on for a minute, actually.

Some of the tactics that such people employ include live-streaming, filming and uploading to Facebook, despite there sometimes being a violent ex-partner in the background. I do not disagree with praying or informing, as I think people call it, but there is a time and a place for everything. That informing should take place at the GP surgery down the line.

The hon. Member for Northampton South said that the police are being made into a laughing stock, but our police in Ealing welcome the measure because it frees them from patrolling two different groups outside the clinic, so they can fight real crime. There is real crime out there.

Anyone should be able to use medical services without navigating an obstacle course of people trying to impose their view of what is right on the process to dissuade and deter. Even the reviled Iranian regime got rid of its morality police, so why do we allow them here?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a good and powerful point. Several people have written to me about the Bill with varying views. Does she agree that there is a huge contradiction in people saying, “We have a right to protest in buffer zones,” yet denying women the freedom of choice for themselves? At that point, it is not protesting but bullying and harassment. That is the difference.

[Dr Huq]

I completely agree. These things are always subjective, so someone might say, “I’m just praying. I’ve just got some rosary beads,” but the woman seeking the treatment is traumatised for life. It is often a traumatic experience in the first place.

Assisted Dying Law

Debate between Rupa Huq and Christine Jardine

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. That is something we would have to be aware of, but I believe it is up to us to address it. It is up to the lawmakers and the Government in this country to ensure that we increase our investment in palliative care as a choice. There is that word again: choice. Free will—the ability to choose.

Seven years ago, in another landmark, my belief in that was firmed up by a conversation following a newspaper article I had written. At the time, the late, irrepressible Margo MacDonald was guiding her second, ultimately unsuccessful bid to make assisted dying legal in Scotland through the Parliament at Holyrood. I originally met Margo while I was a young journalist, and her amazing personality and commitment had a huge impact on me. That did not have an impact on my politics, of course—we had very different views—but I recognised in her someone who lived their beliefs and their politics. I had spoken to her while I was writing the piece, and I visited her office afterwards. On this issue more than any other, she had a profound effect on me. It was several years ago now, but that conversation has stayed with me and made me determined to protect the right of the individual—my right; your right—to choose to have the dignity that we want in our final moments. Why should any of us, knowing that we are not going to survive, be forced to endure unnecessary pain?

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

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. I am pleased that she has not brought any legislation before us, because I found this issue very difficult when we last faced it, in 2015. I actively abstained by voting in both Lobbies, and I was told off by the then Speaker for doing so. I get her point that saying goodbye in an airport is not the best thing for people who choose to go to Switzerland, but at the same time I worry about safeguards. This could be exploited as a shortcut if NHS funds are not as we want. Does she agree, at least, that more research is needed? Nothing seems to have happened in Parliament since 2015. We need more evidence before we decide on this.

[Christine Jardine]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. That is the purpose of this debate. It is intended to get the ball rolling, look for the evidence, find out what people are afraid of, and consider the safeguards we need and how the law can be improved. We are not going to do that overnight. We certainly are not going to do it today, and I will not suggest any changes today, other than to say that we should look for the evidence and at what people want from the law.

Since this debate was publicised, I have been contacted—I am sure we all have—by a number of constituents. In some cases, they called for caution; in others, they expressed their opposition. However, in very many more, they expressed support. One in particular that I found moving came from a woman who was a palliative care nurse for more than 20 years, and who during that time witnessed numerous examples of the current assisted dying law failing dying people. One example she gave was of a gentleman with motor neurone disease who had a particularly undignified final few months of life. He was cared for at home at first before moving into a hospice, where he clearly expressed the wish that he wanted help to die. The staff had to explain to him and go over the reasons why they could not do that; it simply was not possible.

This gentleman’s motor neurone disease had affected him in such a way that his legs were still working, but he was not able to use the top half of his body. One day, he tried to throw himself down the stairs as a way of ending his life. Despite him fully admitting that he was trying to end his life, some of the staff understandably claimed that he had probably fallen, and that it was an accident. Perhaps they did not want to admit or acknowledge what he had tried to do, because of the position in which the law put everyone, but that gentleman did not get to express his distress about the way he would die or have it addressed as he wanted. I understand he lived for another two months or so before he died in a hospice. I am grateful to my constituent for sharing that story because it highlights the invidious position in which the current law puts everyone.