Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Debate between Scott Arthur and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. There is a danger to our international reputation, as well as our economy, if we become somewhere people cannot trust that. If they make the life-changing decision to come here, invest in our country, work for our economy, and contribute through tax and national insurance, we should not turn around decades later and say, “Sorry, we have changed our minds.” That is vitally important.

Some of the people who wrote to me told me of their visceral fears, and their worries for their children or for the LGBT community they are part of or work with. Some are terrified they will lose their jobs in the swingeing cuts of the Trump Administration. There are so many real-life stories from people in the United States.

But there are also the people in this country. We can only be the best representatives we can be if we listen, and I want to highlight something I was told by someone who wrote to me in this country. Speaking of their trans partner, they said:

“I have to say, I’m glad someone is speaking up about this. I see the genuine fear and anxiety he has about being sent back to the States. He told me recently that he has his suicide plan all ready and goodbye letters to family already written, as he’s ‘never going back’.”

It terrifies me that people should be so afraid of going back to the world’s largest democracy because of what it has become. That person went on to say:

“Thank you for maybe finding a solution that saves US LBGTQI+ lives in our current political upheaval. They and any non-white male here are in terrible danger.”

That came from someone from the United States. People have told me that they fear for their family’s safety and for their children.

We have to look at why this is happening, and how we can help people who are living in fear. The idea of fast-track visas was born of two issues. The first was the election of a President who does not represent my values or the values of so many in this place, and the consequences of that election for his own people. We have all seen the news and seen the unnecessary loss. For so many in the US, it is no longer the land of the free. According to official figures, there were more than 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents across 47 states and Washington DC in the past year—a 5% increase from the 984 incidents in 2024. Over half of those targeted transgender and non-conforming people specifically.

The second point was our skills shortage, and the way this Government are getting immigration under control: it will be much more difficult for people to come and stay here, to make their lives here and to feel confident, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned. They want to contribute to our economy, our public services and so many important sectors: space, education, oncology and science. So I thought, “Here’s an opportunity.” Those who know me would say that I am a solutions person, and I saw an opportunity. It is about not just saying there is a problem, but actually coming up with an idea that is beneficial to those people and to us—to both sides of the pond.

For me, it is also about creating a positive case for immigration; it is about looking up and out, and saying that for our country to be successful, we might need to encourage people to travel here from beyond our shores. That is not because I am doing this country down, but because I believe in our future and I know that that is the reality of the current situation. We are better when we work together and learn from our different experiences.

Why not offer sanctuary to those who want to flee, if they can make our country a better, more prosperous place for our people in the process? As I said, I am a solutions person. For many, the American dream is now a nightmare, but we could turn that around and offer them a fresh dream.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Debate between Scott Arthur and Christine Jardine

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Dr Arthur]

I find it really interesting that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are talking about how wrong it is to place VAT on school fees, even though they thought nothing about introducing university fees, which place a huge cost on education, particularly for people from poorer backgrounds.

[Dr Arthur]

The massive rise in tuition fees came later. Hon. Members know exactly what I am talking about. [Interruption.] Can I speak, please? Nobody here is questioning the motives of parents—every single parent who sends their children to an independent school wants the best for their children—but what we are questioning is, if we were to scrap this policy, what would we cut instead? I am just not hearing an answer. This policy will generate additional income for the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). Where does she want that to be cut from instead? What does she say to the majority of people in Edinburgh who voted for parties that supported this policy?

[Christine Jardine]

Like the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), I would like to see the evidence that half of the people in Edinburgh voted for this policy. I have to tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) that there are 311 signatories to this petition from his constituency. More than half of the people in Edinburgh West voted for me, so I would like to see where he is getting the figure that parents in the city have voted for the measure.

Where does the hon. Gentleman think that the City of Edinburgh council will find the places, when its own figures, produced by a Labour Administration before this policy was announced, showed that 16 schools in the city will be at capacity by 2030? The problem is that where there are places, they are not necessarily convenient for the children who will be forced, by this policy, to look for a new school place. State school rolls are already stretched in Scotland because of the SNP’s cuts to local government, and this change can only make that situation worse.

[Dr Arthur]

My goodness me. If this policy generates the £1.8 billion we heard about earlier—[Interruption.] It could generate more. If it generates £1.8 billion, it will benefit schools in Edinburgh—of course it will. The hon. Lady made reference to school roll analysis, and stressed that it was conducted before the policy was introduced. Since then, there has been an update, and it shows more than adequate capacity in Edinburgh, particularly as we have only 55 students moving from the private sector to the state sector. She is well aware of that analysis.

[Christine Jardine]

Yes, I am aware of that analysis, and it does not show a healthier figure. The point that I was making in saying that it was conducted before the policy’s introduction is that the instant this Government came out with the policy, the Labour council went back and redid the figures. [Interruption.] No, I did not say that, but what I will say is that state schools across the country are stretched. If the hon. Gentleman is insisting that this £1.8 billion will go to Scotland, perhaps his Ministers will tell us how it will get to schools in Scotland, because they have no power to put that money into state education in Scotland.

This is a national policy. It is affecting families up and down this country, and it is putting more pressure on the state education system everywhere from Caithness to Cornwall. It is not just about Edinburgh; it is about the entire country. I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, but I feel that their fears are reflected elsewhere in the country. If this Labour Government can tell us how they are going to make that money effective in protecting state education, and how they will get it into schools like ones in my constituency, then we might listen. The problem is that all they say is, “Find a different way of making the cuts.” Well, we did put forward different ways of raising money. They could have raised money by reforming capital gains tax. They could raise money for schools by putting a tax on social media platforms, which we suggested. The alternatives are there, and they would not be a tax on education—an ill-thought-through, ideologically driven policy that does not take account of the unintended consequences.