Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Debate between Scott Arthur and John Lamont

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

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

The hon. Gentleman is talking with great passion about a subject that is of interest to him and to us all. He talked of many thousands of children facing displacement, but, in Edinburgh, I think the number of children being moved from the private sector to the state sector is somewhere between 50 and 60. Edinburgh has one of the largest private sectors in the UK, so where are the other thousands coming from?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman represents a part of Scotland where the proportion of young people going to independent schools is among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. I have had conversations with constituents and the teaching staff at a number of schools in his constituency, so I know how concerned they are. A number of parents are now considering taking their children out of the sector because they can no longer afford to pay the fees.

The hon. Gentleman knows from his discussions with those parents that they are not necessarily wealthy. During the last election, I spoke to parents who had made really tough choices about how they lead their lives to ensure that they can pay school fees—very often in schools in his constituency. They have made that choice about how they want their children to be brought up, and I think it is wrong that the Government are potentially taking that choice away or making it much more difficult for families to send children to the very good schools that he supposedly represents.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Many young people, particularly in the city that she represents, go to schools in the independent sector, so the effect of this policy will be disproportionately higher in her city and the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), than in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is disappointing how dismissive Labour Members are of the concerns raised by the schools that the hon. Gentleman supposedly represents.

My fourth point, which really undermines Labour’s stated reasons for going ahead with this policy, is that there are huge potential costs to state schools arising from pupils moving out of independent schools. Every pupil who moves from an independent school to a state school will incur more cost to taxpayers. Those students did not cost the Government any money, but now their entire education will be met at a cost to the taxpayer.

The Government think that they have been clever by raising a tax to support public services, but they have not come to the obvious realisation that they are also raising the cost of providing public services. Just look at the number of students: there are 30,000 pupils in independent schools in Scotland alone. Survey data from the Independent Schools Council shows that, across the UK, 8,500 children have already left independent schools or did not start last September, and another 3,000 are expected to have left in January. The Independent Schools Council has stated that that is nearly four times the Government’s estimate for this year alone. The kicker is that the real test will come in September 2025, once this policy really hits parents hard. All those pupils will now have their education delivered by the state, and taxpayers will have to pay for it.

Now that I have outlined the great damage that the policy could do, let me turn to what the Labour Government have said in response and rebut some of their ridiculous claims. The Government stated in response to the petition that the policy

“will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to deliver the Government’s commitments for children in state schools.”

Except that may not be the case. It may not raise anywhere near that amount, because that is an estimate, not a hard fact. That claim also does not fully take into account the cost to the public finances of so many young people joining the state school system all at once. It is a big claim, and it does not really stack up.

[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.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting my intervention. What I will say is that more than half of voters in Edinburgh voted for the policy. Does he think that they were wrong?

[John Lamont]

I would be amazed if the voters of Edinburgh endorse the policy in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. He should put that suggestion to some of the Facebook groups that support the directly affected Edinburgh parents—some of his constituents are directly affected by the policy—and see how many of their members say they support the policy. I suspect that very few will. If he paid any attention to those groups, he would know how much animosity there is towards the policy among parents in Edinburgh.

Scotland: Transport Links

Debate between Scott Arthur and John Lamont

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I will not comment on the legality of whether Avanti has breached its contract, but I think he is making the point that there is an issue, or at least a perception, that train companies do not think that customers and passengers north of Manchester or north of Birmingham are as important as those in the south. We need to remember, however, that the communities in the northern part of the UK and in Scotland, and the passengers travelling on those services, are in many cases much more dependent on those services because there are so few alternative services and options if there is disruption on the trains, so he makes a very important point.

As I said, I will move on from the railways and talk a bit about the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy. More than 60% of visitors to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom arrived by car in 2023, showing how vital our roads are to tourism and the Scottish economy. Fixing the roads should be high on the agenda of both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

For many years, however, the SNP has failed to invest in local roads. The state of the roads in the Scottish Borders, sadly, has declined substantially on the nationalists’ watch. The dire state of our roads is putting public safety at risk and increasing the cost of driving as more cars need to be repaired after hitting potholes. Although it always tries to deflect blame, it is on the SNP to step up and give councils the cash they need to fix our roads. Councils across Scotland cannot fix their roads because the SNP Government keep cutting their funding.

Unfortunately it looks as though Labour is following a very similar approach to the SNP. Last year, we heard the devastating news that Labour has decided to scrap plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland, after many years of campaigning by me, other MPs and many local people and businesses who rely on that vital road and are desperate to see it improved. This road connects the Scottish Borders to England. It is vital for our economy, and it supports jobs and helps to promote trade. That is yet another terrible decision in Labour’s Budget that will have damaging consequences for workers, families and businesses across the Borders.

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

The hon. Gentleman is doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents. How would he fund that project—the Labour Government have said that the money is not there just now—or the feasibility study of extending the Borders railway to Carlisle? Where will the funding come from for those projects?

[John Lamont]

The funding for the Borders railways feasibility study is part of a legally binding agreement: the Borderlands growth deal between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. That money was allocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is sitting behind me, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The money has been allocated within UK Government budgets for that feasibility study. The Scottish Government committed to that money on the back of the UK Government’s commitment, and similarly the UK Government committed to it on the back of the Scottish Government’s commitment. The money is undoubtedly there; it just needs to be unlocked. That is my frustration, and the frustration of my local authority, the Scottish Borders council.

In relation to the A1 dualling, there is a cross-party campaign to get that road improved. That is why, in response to the Labour Government’s decision to scrap that dualling, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), described it as deeply disappointing, I think—he shares my concern and we have the same view on this.

We need to see investment in infrastructure so that our constituents in rural areas, such as the Borders or North Northumberland, can benefit from the same type of investment in transport as the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) enjoy in Edinburgh. Labour Members have a metropolitan outlook in terms of ensuring that only cities get good transport, but they should not forget the rural communities, such as those in the Borders. I suspect, looking at the representation on the Labour Benches, that we will get a very skewed central-belt view of transport and connectivity.

I fear that the Labour Government’s previous decisions give us no hope that other essential roads will see the improvements that they need, such as the A68, which runs from Darlington up to near Edinburgh, or the A7, which stretches from Carlisle to Edinburgh. Those roads barely seem to register on either Labour’s or the SNP’s list of priorities. I will keep campaigning for better roads across the Borders, despite Labour and the SNP refusing to make the improvements that motorists need. We need to see much more ambition from the Government here at Westminster, and at Holyrood, to advance Scotland’s infrastructure.

Railways, roads and other transport routes between Scotland and England are vital, not just for people to get around, but to maintain and enhance the connections between our people; to allow families to visit each other and go on holidays across the UK; to help aspirational business owners to engage with customers and clients in other parts of the country; and to allow people to easily work and socialise wherever they live in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Beyond the direct and immediate impact on people, better transport routes will improve our economy, raise productivity, and help to contribute more to tax revenues and improve public services.

At a time when we desperately need to raise levels of economic growth, investing in infrastructure is an ideal way to do that. Better transport routes would also help to protect our environment by helping us to reach net zero faster by encouraging more people to use public transport and by reducing emissions. There are a whole host of benefits that could be achieved by improving transport links across our United Kingdom. That is what we should aspire to: a more connected country where people can travel freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK for work, to visit family, or to spend time with friends, wherever they are on these islands.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Debate between Scott Arthur and John Lamont

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate.

In the days running up to 5 November this year, I met by chance at an event in Edinburgh an off-duty police officer who lives in my constituency, and he explained to me that he had been injured on Guy Fawkes night in 2023 and had still not made a full recovery. He was just one of 62 police officers injured after being targeted with fireworks and other projectiles as part of a significant outbreak of antisocial behaviour around Guy Fawkes night that year. I stress “other projectiles” because it is not just fireworks, but fireworks are a catalyst for antisocial behaviour and they are also, obviously, extremely dangerous. I talk about “antisocial behaviour”, but we all know that that is just a euphemism; it is outright lawlessness that we are confronted with at times in Edinburgh in relation to fireworks.

[David Mundell in the Chair]

In the days running up to Guy Fawkes night—I keep wanting to call it Guy Fireworks night—this year, I met with two community police officers to support a local shopkeeper who was concerned about shoplifting. Both were set to be on duty on 5 November, and both had been through so-called public order training. I had to wish them both good luck. It is shameful that we know such violence is coming on 5 November, but all we can really do as MPs is wish the police officers good luck. We should be empowering them and also protecting them.

When the night came in Edinburgh South West, we saw disorder in Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomview. Thankfully, we only saw one injury, which was to a female police officer. Nevertheless, the police were clear:

“The levels of violence and aggression police officers, fire service and ambulance service personnel faced in some areas was wholly unacceptable”.

They said that residents were left

“terrified as serious disorder took place in their communities and vital bus services that allow safe travel across our city were violently attacked”.

I know that Members will not know Edinburgh well, but I will list the bus services affected just to give the scale of what happened. They included Lothian Buses services 2, 12, 14, 21, 30, 46, 48 and 400. There are many jobs where people’s partners worry about them when they go to work, but driving a bus should not be one of them. We really have to take steps to tackle that.

The police are still hunting down those responsible, and so far several houses have been searched under warrant and several vehicles seized. There have been 27 people arrested in Edinburgh and they have been charged with 64 offences. The police showed me a huge stash of fireworks that they took out of one car on 5 November. The driver had set himself up as a mobile fireworks delivery service, and he was cautioned and charged accordingly. I do not understand how one person was able to buy that volume of fireworks.

My office is engaging with communities impacted by the disorder to ask what they think needs to change. There is fantastic community partnership work going on to try to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour of all types, but people are saying that, where fireworks are concerned, we have to do more to tackle both their supply and their use. We already have a mix of dispersal zones and firework control zones across Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh, to try to control the problem.

Firework control zones are designed to reduce the negative effects of fireworks on the environment and vulnerable groups, as well as to support animal welfare. They essentially make it illegal to set off fireworks, including within private property. However, imagine the job of the police in trying to identify who is letting a firework off in their back garden. How are they supposed to enforce that? Israel’s Iron Dome comes to mind, but perhaps it is not applicable in that setting. The Scottish Government said that the control zones were

“a key milestone in the journey towards a cultural change in Scotland’s relationship with fireworks.”

This is not a criticism, because the legislation is well intentioned, but so far there is little evidence that it is having an impact. A senior police officer told me that the orders were “mildly preventative at best.”

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point, but does he agree that, in Scotland, the issue is about resources as well? The local authorities and police authorities of Scotland just do not have the resources to police this. He is making the point that the legislation and rules are there, but, if he reads some of their responses, he will see that the police are concerned about their ability to enforce them effectively. It comes down to the money from the Scottish Government for the police and local authorities.

[Dr Arthur]

I support the police, both north and south of the border, having more resources. I am one of those people who is quite happy to pose next to the police at a community event and share those pictures on my Facebook page, but the price I pay for that is to support them in their calls. What resources do they need to deal with fireworks? Do they need helicopters to see where they are being launched from? We need to tackle the import and sale of these devices, and we have to be honest about that.

The police officer was clear with me that more could be done to restrict the import and sale of fireworks, which was the point I just made, and I think we have to listen to the police on this issue. The chaos in my constituency and what I hear from police officers is why I am here today. We have known that fireworks are dangerous all my life. I can remember warnings on “Blue Peter”, when we used to get told to keep our fireworks in metal biscuit tins—remember those dangerous days? We knew back then about the impact of fireworks on animals too. At this point, I have to mention my cat, Millie—other people have mentioned dogs, but there have been no cats yet. Since then, fireworks have only got bigger and their misuse has become an increasingly significant driver of antisocial behaviour.

The British Fireworks Association wrote to me—I am sure it wrote to others—to say that fireworks-related injuries account for less than 0.03% of all A&E attendances.

Scotland’s Economy

Debate between Scott Arthur and John Lamont

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on securing the time for this debate, and thank him for touching on the university sector in his opening remarks. Scotland’s universities, which are among the very best on the planet, are more than just institutions of higher learning; they are vital engines driving our economy. From groundbreaking research fuelling innovation to nurturing the next generation of talent, universities play a pivotal role in shaping Scotland’s future. Anyone who doubts that only has to look at the support that Heriot-Watt University’s National Robotarium, in my constituency, gives businesses. That is just one example of how knowledge and expertise generated within our universities attracts investments, creates jobs and fosters economic growth.

I am proud that people living in Scotland have access to free university education, but I am ashamed that our universities are not fully funded to deliver that. Universities receive direct funding for each student via the Scottish Government, but that is currently around £2,000 less than universities in England get. The gap is only widening. If we are serious about growing Scotland’s economy, underfunding Scotland’s universities must end.

I am proud that our universities attract the best minds from around the world, both staff and students. This year, however, the number of visas issued to students coming from overseas to the UK overall dropped by 16% due to Conservative immigration policy. That is a failure, and is really concerning given the current state of the sector in both Scotland and England. It also only damages the multicultural vibrancy that should be at the heart of any university experience, such as the one that my son Ben gets at the University of Edinburgh.

In conclusion, Scotland’s universities are not just assets but essential catalysts for economic growth. By investing in education and research, we are investing in our nation’s future. That is why our universities must be nurtured and cherished, and their success should never be taken for granted.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Scotland’s universities and the role that they play, particularly regarding investment in our universities. So does he agree that it was a mistake by the UK Labour Government to reverse investment in the supercomputer in Edinburgh?

[Dr Arthur]

It was a mistake for the previous Conservative Government to commit to that project without allocating funding to it. My good colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is working day in, day out to secure that funding.

If we are serious about growing Scotland’s economy, we must ensure that our universities have the funding they need, and that the voice of the UK’s universities is heard when it comes to setting immigration policy.