Finance Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer]

It is difficult not to take this vindictive policy of taxing education personally. That is not just because, like many parents in Surrey, we as a family have chosen independent education for our children, or because as a Conservative I support all our schools and I want all our children to have the best start in life; it is because lots of different data points show that the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency will be one of the most heavily punished areas as a result of this policy.

It is interesting to hear the Minister talk about the estimated numbers of children who will move out of the independent sector and into the state sector. I speak to the many independent schools in my constituency pretty much all year round. They have met me, and they tell me that they are desperately concerned about this policy. They have estimated that about 5% to 10% of children will need to move out. That is probably 500 to 1,000 children in my constituency, many of whom have already been disrupted by covid. Many of them are studying for their exams, have friendships groups that will be disrupted, and will potentially be moving to schools that will be unable to provide the same courses or exam specifications that they are currently receiving.

I hear from state schools that already face lots of pressure on places. As the Minister will have heard in my earlier intervention about admissions and the empty spaces that we have in years nine to 11, and the intake for the next academic year there is no space—we have lots of pressures. This policy will cause long-lasting damage to many children. I hope it will not, but in reality it will.

It is clear, given the numbers and the full-throated support on the Government Benches, that this policy is going ahead and we will not be able to stop it. But will the Government, at very least, support our new clause 8? If they are so proud of this policy, which they clearly are, and so happy to defend what they see as the limited impact on young people, why are they afraid of a proper analysis? I would ask them please to think again, but I would be at risk of misleading the House, because clearly they never thought in the first place.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats do not support imposing VAT on private school fees. We do not support treating independent schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes, and that is why I wish to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I thank her for tabling the amendment, which would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Bill on pupils with special educational needs but who do not have an education, health and care plan. Of the 615,000 children in private schools in this country, almost 100,000 are being educated privately because they have special educational needs but do not have an EHCP.

The Lib Dems are glad that the legislation exempts from VAT on school fees those privately educated pupils who have an EHCP that requires the local authority to fund a private school place. That is a welcome step, but it does not protect those who do not have an EHCP from a steep rise in fees. The parents of many of those children will find that they cannot afford the increase, throwing the future of their children’s education into doubt.

Moreover, there will be an increase in demand for local authorities to issue EHCPs stating that the local authority must fund a private school place. Local authority resources for special educational needs and disabilities are already stretched to breaking point, and additional demand will be impossible to manage.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is right. The Government share the analysis that our special educational needs provision in our state schools is under massive pressure already and there is a shortage of capacity, notwithstanding the vast increases in expenditure since 2019. However, the Government’s policy, recognising that, is to tax and therefore deter and reduce expenditure on children with special educational needs out of people’s private pockets. It does not make any sense, does it?

[Sarah Olney]

I trust that that means the Liberal Democrats can look to the right hon. Gentleman to support our new clause today, because the inevitable result of the legislation, if unamended, will be thousands of children with SEND forced into the state sector all at once, which will be enormously disruptive, and not just for them but for pupils already in the state sector. It will be potentially traumatic for those children, as well as being immensely difficult for the state schools to manage. New clause 9 would protect both the children and the schools affected by the impact of these measures—the children who have special educational needs but do not yet have an EHCP, as well as the children of families who have applied for one.

However, it is not just children with SEND who will be affected. The parents of many thousands of other children across the country will find that they can no longer afford to keep them in their current school, and those children will experience enormous disruption to their education as they are forced to change schools. Many will face the upheaval of being separated from their friends and a familiar environment. The Government should reflect carefully on whether the benefits of this policy that they are intent on pursuing are worth the damage caused to these children’s education and wellbeing.

The influx will not be evenly distributed. In my constituency of Richmond Park, more than 45% of children attend a fee-paying private school. In common with other parts of London, demand for state primary places is down, so younger children will be easily accommodated, but secondary schools are experiencing great pressure for places and a rise in requests for in-year admissions will be difficult to meet. There may only be a small proportion of children whose parents are no longer able to meet the fees, but a drop in headcount at private schools could see them closing because they become unviable. That means that the effect of children needing to transfer out of independent schools and into the state sector could be much greater than is currently forecast.

I want to reflect on what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and others have said about the music and dance scheme. The Royal Ballet school at White Lodge in the middle of Richmond park in my constituency is a world-leading ballet school, and it has expressed great reservations to me about the effect of this policy, and I would very much like the Government to reflect on that.

If the survey done by The Times of private school parents earlier this year is accurate, and 25% of parents have to withdraw their children from private education due to the Government’s proposals, that could have a huge impact on children in communities such as mine across the country. The Government propose that their new tax treatment should be applied only to the provision of private schooling, but taxing some forms of education and not others will almost inevitably create loopholes.

Creative accountants will find ways of delivering education services that fall outside the VAT legislation while other education providers that the Government did not intend to tax will unwittingly find themselves caught up in it. The risks of these distortions increase if legislation is hastily framed with insufficient time for scrutiny. Between parents who cannot afford to pay their children’s fees and schools that cannot keep their doors open, the state will need to find space and resources for an influx of new students.

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the Government’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees because we believe it is wrong to tax education. Imposing this increase in fees will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will create not just hardship for those children and their parents but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. That is why I join the calls of my colleagues to urge the Government to back new clause 9.

[The Chairman]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, no doubt saving the best till last.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress, because I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, and I want to mention the points made by other hon. Members in the debate.

We heard from the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Yet again from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, we see a party that is happy to support our extra investment in education for all children, but that cannot bring itself to support the measures that we put in place to help pay for that investment in education.

[Sarah Olney]

We have heard this point time and again from the Labour Benches. I want to say, one more time, that the Liberal Democrats put forward a fully costed programme in our 2024 general election manifesto, which had a range of tax-raising measures that would have paid for the changes we proposed and did not include VAT on school fees, for all the reasons the Minister has heard today.

[James Murray]

The reason why the Liberal Democrats hear this time and again from the Government Benches is that, time and again, they want all the benefits of investment without having to pay for it. That is a pattern that we see again and again in this Chamber.

Finance Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: wherever we look, the fiscal ambitions of the Labour Government on North sea oil and gas, or energy more generally, seem to be counterproductive. They are introducing a policy that anybody with a passing understanding of the industry realises will have precisely the opposite result of its stated aim, but the Government will not listen, much to my regret.

Analysis from OEUK shows that the oil and gas sector’s total tax yield will peak in 2026 under Labour’s increase in the EPL before declining, compared with the previous scenario, in which Treasury receipts continued to increase over the period. The analysis shows that while the expected tax take from UK oil and gas producers would increase in the very short term, ultimately it will result in a £12 billion net loss to tax receipts compared with the current regime. If the Labour party does not care about the jobs that the policy will cost, the harm it will do to the just transition or the damage to the economy of Scotland, surely Labour can accept that a tax increase that actually reduces the amount of tax received is, at best, counterproductive. That is why the SNP will support new clause 2 if it is pressed to a Division.

The SNP appreciates the many and varied reasons why parents choose to use private schools, but it is not fair or sustainable to treat private school fees differently from other discretionary spend for the purposes of VAT. The VAT exemption offered to private schools costs the UK taxpayer £1.6 billion annually—money that could be invested in other public services. However, the SNP also understands that for many parents whose children are enrolled in private schools the UK Government’s decision to remove that exemption will be extremely worrying.

The Scottish Government have sought to ensure that the distinctive nature of the Scottish education system is understood by the UK Government in this transition. In particular, the Scottish Government have raised concerns with the UK Government about the decision to include grant-aided special schools in the policy. In Scots law, they are not considered independent schools. In Scotland, there is a clear distinction in educational law between grant-aided special schools and independent schools, and the UK Government’s policy regrettably does not reflect that. I know the Minister studiously avoids almost everything that I say, but I hope that he heard that, and I would be very grateful if he could address it when he sums up.

On Scotch whisky, when the last Tory Government hiked whisky duty, the tax revenue raised from the industry fell by £300 million. That should have been a salutary lesson to any Government who came afterwards. The sensible option for both supporting Scotch whisky and Treasury receipts would have been to cut whisky duty. Instead, the Labour party is raising it again. On top of that, we now have a UK Government plan to grant a different definition of a single malt to English producers than that of Scottish single malts. The definition is entirely inconsistent with the global reputation of the quality of single malts, and seeks to tear up a well-established dictionary definition of a single malt while pulling the rug from underneath Scotch whisky producers. The Government must listen to warnings from the industry, the Scottish Government and those from across the political spectrum, and scrap the plans and duty hikes, which are an act of sabotage to Scotland’s world-class industry.

The industry already faces the risk of Trump tariffs, which cost over £600 million in exports the last time they were applied under his first presidential term. Rather than further damage from the UK Government, the industry needs support, starting with the reversal of the plans to hike duties still further. It is high time that Westminster finally listened to organisations such as the Scotch Whisky Association and stopped discriminating against Scotland’s national drink, which supports more than 40,000 jobs and delivers more than £7.1 billion to the London Treasury every year. The SNP will support new clause 8 if it is pressed.

I have spoken consistently about what is under debate in the Bill, but the wider context cannot be ignored. Labour has no cogent plan for reforming the economy. It seeks to reduce the deficit and not raise taxes, and it wants to stimulate growth with large investments. It is impossible to do all those things at once, and it is astonishing that the Government seem to persist with this wilful ignorance. A Government may increase spending to kick-start the economy and deliver growth and public services, but that requires tax increases and/or deficit spending, both of which the Labour Government are too scared to pursue because of their short-sighted election promises to abide by fiscal rules and not increase the highest-revenue sources. We are therefore stuck in the worst of all possible worlds, with insufficient growth—especially green growth—insufficient investment, a deficit causing a rising debt burden, and no way to increase revenue meaningfully. The UK Government are bizarrely persisting with gaslighting themselves in thinking that they are “fixing the foundations” and delivering growth. They are doing nothing of the sort, and if they stick with this Bill and the Budget on which it is predicated, they never will.

Finally, is it not astonishing that when farmers push back on agricultural property relief, family businesses push back on business property relief, pensioners push back on their winter fuel allowance, the Scotch whisky industry pushes back on duty hikes, the North sea oil and gas industry pushes back on the EPL, and when the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign pushes back, they are all told, “No. The situation is too bad. You’ve just got to suck it up,” but when the non-doms push back, they get swept right to the heart of the Treasury and the Chancellor, and they get whatever they want? That is the Labour Government.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of new clause 4, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The amendment would require the Government to carry out an impact assessment on the changes that the legislation would introduce for small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our local communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. I hear time and again from the small businesses across my constituency that they are struggling to keep up with soaring energy prices, business rates and the costs of exporting. The Chancellor is absolutely right to be focused on economic growth; however, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are deeply concerned about the impacts of the changes in the Bill on our high streets, and particularly on those in the hospitality industry, who are very concerned about the impact that duty rises on wine, beer and cider will have.

The wellbeing of small businesses acts as an indicator of the health of the economy as a whole. As such, the new clause would be a useful tool to allow us to understand the broader implications of the legislation on our economic prosperity. More broadly, an impact assessment would look at the combined effect on small businesses, both directly and indirectly, of all policies in the Bill to ensure that SMEs remain at the heart of the Government’s economic policy. It is crucial that the necessary tough spending decisions to clear up the mess that the previous Conservative Government left behind do not hit our small local businesses, which are vital to our economy.

To encourage growth for our small businesses, the Chancellor should be looking to reduce the burden on businesses through means such as cutting Brexit red tape, securing better trade deals with Europe and entering a customs union. The combination of the cost of hiring staff, the cost of additional red tape and higher business rates will be simply too much for many SMEs to absorb, which is why I urge the Minister to support our new clause and assess the impact of the legislation on local businesses.