Fuel Duty
John Lamont Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. By taxing families and individuals less, we provide them with more money in their pockets and we drive economic growth, as they have more of their own domestic spending power.
This Labour Government want to hit many businesses and individuals with three consecutive fuel duty hikes in a matter of months. If these proposals go ahead, motorists and haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. The road haulage industry is critical to our nation’s economic success: goods are moved around daily, and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services—on companies such as Freightlink Europe. Road freight moves 81% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage.
The Road Haulage Association estimates that a 5p rise in fuel duty will result in a typical motor vehicle-owning household spending an extra £100 each year and increase annual household spending by £1.9 billion, which is a whopping £7.3 billion over the rest of this Parliament. In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden for this Government to put on those households. At a time when the conflict in the middle east is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, it is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty hike.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to highlight the choices that people living in rural constituencies such as mine are making. In Coldstream, the price of diesel per litre has gone up from £1.41 to £1.69 over the past few days. That is a huge increase, but because of the prospective tax rise that is coming down the line from the Labour Government, constituents tell me that they are looking at jobs and considering their alternatives, because they have to drive to get to work. A constituent who has been offered a new job that is further away, and who will have to drive further to get to it, is thinking about turning it down because once the 5p fuel duty increase comes in, he will not be able to get to his job.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to the additional challenges in rural areas, but he makes a clear and concise point: if people have to travel further for a job opportunity, they are going to be taxed more by this Labour Government. That is on top of the Labour Government removing the rural services delivery grant that was providing additional support to many local authorities operating in rural communities. We clearly have a Government who are not interested in supporting our rural communities. Of course, this fuel duty hike comes on top of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and business rates. It will impact our care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which are also impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions.
At a local level across the Bradford district, we face an additional tax burden: the clean air zone, which was rolled out several years ago. A taxi driver with a non-compliant vehicle who wants to travel into Bradford—an area that we all want to see grow and thrive economically—faces a daily charge of £7 to do so. A white van driver is charged £9 daily to go into Bradford, and someone operating a bus or a heavy goods vehicle is charged £50 a day to do so, as a result of the choices that Labour-run Bradford council has made.
Labour-run Bradford council has received £20 million from collecting this additional tax from our hard-working businesses over the period that the clean air zone has been in force across Bradford. It is something that I am firmly opposed to. Bradford council will say that it is going to spend this money wisely across the district, but based on a freedom of information request that I submitted to Bradford council, I can contradict that narrative. As of 2023, just £4.1 million of all highways spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six-year period. To put that in context, the spending in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South was £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million respectively. That illustrates that there is no fairness in how Bradford council spends the money it is collecting from my hard-working constituents across Keighley and Ilkley.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Without getting into a fight about who has the biggest constituency, Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey is in the top five for geographic size, and my constituents grapple on a daily basis with energy costs across the whole suite of energy measures, whether that is road fuel, heating oil, tank gas, or the electricity prices that they pay. The issue for them is that the combination of all those things is totally disproportionate. The highest prices for road fuel are paid in rural areas such as those in my constituency. The highest price for heating oil is paid there, because there are high distribution costs. The highest price for electricity, because of high standing charges, is paid in my constituency and in constituencies in north Wales and Merseyside, which is the other high standing charge area.
The combination of all that means that my constituents are paying substantially more for their energy than constituents elsewhere in the country. Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have presided over discriminatory—I do not use that word lightly—energy charging for electricity. To have that compounded by the highest fuel charges and the highest oil charges is extremely painful for those households who, like everyone else, are suffering from the cost of living crisis. They also have the coldest temperatures in the UK, and these constituencies are producing the highest amount of energy per capita. The people who are using that energy hundreds of miles away are paying less to use it. The situation is utterly disgraceful and needs to change.
This Government have had nearly two years to make changes to standing charges and electricity prices, but they have not done it. They have not made a decision on it, and decisions are taking far too long to be made. Pace is everything in this. People are suffering every single day, but it is not just the individuals who suffer. Many Members have referred in this debate to the cost to businesses in these areas, generally from high transport costs. For businesses to get around and deliver their goods, to get their goods to market and to get their supply chain to deliver to them frequently involves travelling large mileages. Public services, including our emergency services, are paying vast amounts for fuel.
On Monday, while I was experiencing a very enjoyable walk to work on a bright spring day here in London, my constituents in Aviemore were contending with a temperature that felt like minus 5°, and the Highland council and the trunk road authority had gritters out for a considerable part of the day to keep the roads safe. Those gritters travel hundreds of miles on their routes because that is what they are required to do, which means that local authorities, the NHS boards and other public or emergency services are paying out vast and unpredictable amounts for fuel when budgets have already been set. Capital projects involve built-in risk to cover future price increases that are quite considerable, so they are protected to an extent, but that does not apply when it comes to public authorities’ day-to-day operational costs. The fuel price increases include increases in heating oil prices. Many primary and secondary schools in the Highlands, and Moray and Aberdeenshire and in other parts of Scotland—and, indeed, other rural areas in the rest of the UK—pay for their heating oil, and these increases will have a very detrimental impact on them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made many reasonable points about the impact of the energy profits levy and the fiscal regime that governs North sea production, and about the need for us to continue to produce oil and gas for as long as is required, while still making a transition. Let me gently point out to Conservative Members that while I agree with them that the EPL needs to be changed immediately—in fact, it is beyond time for it to be changed—they have drawn away from that transition to renewables because of the pulling away from climate change targets. I know that North sea companies agree with them about the EPL, but they were utterly dismayed about that pulling away from the transition, because the oil and gas majors are the same people who are investing in renewables. We need to get that transition right to avoid the job losses that the hon. Member mentioned.
A number of Members mentioned bus fare caps. Let me, again, gently point out that in my constituency in the north of Scotland, and across the highlands and islands, a pilot is being run for a £2 cap enabling people to travel, in some cases, for hundreds of miles for £2. That is progressive, because people in, for example, Inverness in the highlands who need access to services have to travel hundreds of miles to get it. The cap is about treating people with fairness, recognising that they are at the heart of our energy production and are still paying more for their energy, and giving them some services back for that. Peak rail fares have also been withdrawn.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who mentioned heating oil support in Scotland, has left the Chamber, but I can tell the House that the Scottish Government have more than doubled the heating oil funding provided by the UK Government—although is still nowhere near enough, because the UK Government should be taking far more responsibility and putting in far more money. People will be able to apply for that support from 1 April, and it will be delivered through Advice Direct Scotland. there is a plan in place, and it is moving forward.
Red diesel used to be available to local authorities for gritting roads. Reinstating it would make a huge difference to the local authorities in the north of Scotland who have to spread grit for considerably longer than those in many other parts of the UK, and I urge the Minister to consider doing so, because it is essentially an emergency service. Our roads would not be safe in the depths of winter without being gritted, and making red diesel available to those vehicles again would not be a bad idea at all.
Finally, let me simply urge the Government to take account of what happens in rural areas—how people commute, how they get to work, and how services are delivered—and to consider that in the context of fuel duty. They have the power to fix fuel duty. Such certainty is important, especially to people who are planning and budgeting for a year ahead, and that applies to public services in particular.
John Lamont
To pick up the hon. Member’s point about fairness, he will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted that Scottish taxpayers are £710 on average worse off compared with taxpayers in England as a result of the Scottish Government’s higher rates of income tax. Does he think that is fair?
Graham Leadbitter
I have always believed that the tax we pay is part of a contract with the state, and that we should consider whether it is reasonable to pay that price for the services we get back. I would also observe that we have to look at tax in the round. Broadly speaking, council tax in Scotland is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK. The tax on the accommodation I use in London is certainly considerably dearer than that on my own property at home, which is larger, and that is pretty much the case throughout Scotland. The cost of living is generally cheaper in Scotland than it is in central London.
Graham Leadbitter
And the taxation being paid gives people back more services and better services. Things such as the removal of peak rail fares and the freeze on bus fares—the cap on bus fares has been put in place and is being tested in the north of Scotland—all really benefit people. Beyond that, however, more than half of taxpayers in Scotland do not pay more income tax than people do south of the border. That is a fact.
I urge the UK Government to consider many of these proposals. They could consider measures on bus fares and peak rail fares, but they also have the power over key taxation levers, including fuel duty. They need to make decisions quickly to give people more certainty and a little bit less risk about where things are going. Some things are not controllable, and I wish the Government did not have to consider them, because they are difficult, but the Government have levers that can make it a bit easier for people, and they should use those levers.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
Whatever Department I am in, I hear the same question from the Liberal Democrats. They support all the extra spending that is funded by revenue-raising measures, but they oppose all the revenue-raising measures themselves. If the hon. Gentleman wants NHS waiting lists to fall and if he calls for more spending every week, then he has to support the revenue-raising measures that make that possible.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Universal credit is primarily reserved for people settled in the UK. With regard to trends, overall the proportion of universal credit claimants in this country who are foreign nationals has fallen from 17% in January 2025 to 15.5% in the latest statistics from January 2026.
John Lamont
According to the Government’s own figures, most foreign nationals who are claiming universal credit are not in work. The Government do not seem to want to do anything to bring that figure down, so will the Minister tell us how much this is costing the UK taxpayer?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the proportion of foreign nationals claiming universal credit who are in work is one third higher than the proportion for people who are British or Irish claiming—[Interruption.] If he prefers to put the figures into the context that he has just suggested from a sedentary position, the figure is 10% lower in terms of people who are not in work. It is often difficult to extrapolate a specific number because universal credit figures, such as these, are calculated on a per household basis rather than on an individual basis. If I am able to provide the specific number, I will follow up with him in writing.
Budget Resolutions
John Lamont Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
This Labour Government came to power with so many promises. The Chancellor promised to kick-start economic growth, and not to increase the taxes of working people. Now that Labour is in government, I am afraid that it is doing the exact opposite. If it can be taxed, the Chancellor will tax it—an electric car, a holiday, or even a taxi home after a night out. I am afraid that the Chancellor and those on the Government Benches are completely out of touch on how the economy works.
The statistics speak for themselves. Unemployment has surged across the United Kingdom: 19% more people are without a job since this Labour Government came to power, and almost 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality. The Government inherited inflation that was bang on the Bank of England’s targets; now, it has almost doubled. That is why there is a cost of living crisis out there in the real world. Economic growth is going in the wrong direction; forecasts have been revised downward next year, and are predicted to be lower in every remaining year of this Parliament. That is this Chancellor’s record and her legacy.
In advance of this Budget, there was wild speculation about what the Chancellor would present and endless rumours of more tax rises—kite flying by the Treasury. How can we expect any business to plan or invest for the future if the rules of the game continue to shift in this way? Of course, the situation is a whole lot worse in Scotland, where the SNP Government have made us the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom.
I will focus my speech on two choices that this Labour Government made in the Budget. The first is the family farm tax. Yesterday I met farmers from across the United Kingdom who came to protest against this Labour Government’s decision to introduce the family farm tax. I was disappointed that I did not see many, if indeed any, Labour Members taking the time to speak to the farmers outside Parliament. I was utterly disgusted at the last-minute cancellation by the Metropolitan police—perhaps this Government were involved, too—of the farmers’ rally in Whitehall yesterday.
Farmers are devastated by the Chancellor’s decision not to reverse this cruel tax. It is not that they do not want to pay their fair share; they already do, and they are a vital part of our economy, protecting our countryside, rural communities and food security. They simply cannot afford to pay it. I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is sadly not in her place just now, but who highlighted very clearly the anguish facing many farmers, not just in her constituency, but in mine and across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret the fact that Ministers have their hands over their ears, and are refusing to listen to the plight of our farmers.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend is delivering a searing indictment of this Budget. Does he agree that the intention of the farm tax may have been to take in multimillionaire so-called “slipper farmers”, but in rural constituencies like his and mine, it is hitting tenant farmers?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The intention may have been to force overseas investors, trust funds and others out of the farming sector, and to attack big landowners, but the tax is doing the complete opposite: it is destroying the family farm sector, forcing tenant farmers out, and seriously impacting on our food security ambitions.
The family farm tax is yet another promise broken by the Chancellor, who gave no indication before the last election that Labour would introduce it. The supermarkets agree: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer and many more have expressed their concern about how the tax will impact farmers and our nation’s capacity to produce our own food. I grew up on a farm, so I understand this. The consequences of the Chancellor’s failure to reverse this cruel tax will be catastrophic for our rural communities.
Two weeks ago, I visited dozens of small businesses across the Scottish Borders—corner shops, greengrocers, butchers, manufacturers, gift shops and many more. The same issue came up at almost every single one: the extremely tough business conditions just now. The jobs tax is forcing many of them to delay hiring decisions, or even lay off staff, and the additional red tape is forcing good employers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops. The average cost of a member of staff has surged by almost £1,000 a month, thanks to the jobs tax and the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. To make matters worse, because of the state of the economy, customers have less to spend on goods and services. It is all adding up to be an economic nightmare.
The Chancellor’s decisions are pushing our economy into a tax doom loop: higher taxes will fund more spending, which harms our economic growth and— surprise, surprise—means that the Chancellor receives lower revenue, and so once again comes back to ask for more tax rises.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I entirely endorse the argument that my hon. Friend is making. The big punishment in yesterday’s Budget was the increase in taxation on dividends. That says to our wealth creators and entrepreneurs—the people who create jobs—“Don’t bother.”
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Budget creates no incentives for people to invest and take the risk of setting up and growing a business. It sends out all the wrong messages about what we want in a country that has traditionally been full of entrepreneurs. Because of the doom loop that the Chancellor has created, it will always be hard-working businesses and families who pay the price for her economic failure.
The Chancellor could have made much better choices in her Budget. She could have saved £47 billion, including £23 billion from welfare, avoiding the need to increase taxes in this way altogether. She could have introduced a cheap power plan to bring down energy costs for homes and businesses. But the Chancellor has not listened. She has not learned from the mistakes she made in last year’s Budget. This Labour Government promised economic stability, but this Budget does nothing to make that a reality, which is why Conservative Members oppose it so strongly.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
Barrow has unique circumstances, challenges and opportunities, and it is important that all parts of the Government address those unique opportunities and challenges in Barrow. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to further discuss what we are already doing and what more we can go on to do to ensure that young people in Barrow have the best possible chance in life.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March that incapacity and disability benefits spending would be £90.7 billion in 2029-30. That figure will be updated at the Budget. Better employment support and removing perverse work incentives in universal credit are the key to getting more people into work.
John Lamont
Just two months ago, the Secretary of State was left humiliated after being forced to significantly water down her botched welfare Bill. If the Government had pressed ahead with the Bill as originally drafted, how much less would taxpayers be spending on benefits by 2030?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I have said, the OBR will update its forecast at the time of the Budget. We inherited a terrible situation, with record numbers of economically inactive people. Economic inactivity is down since the election, and employment is up. Those developments have been encouraging, but our reforms will go much further. The £3.8 billion that we are investing in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds—the biggest package ever—will be key.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent addition to his family. I hope he had a restful summer, although I doubt he did considering the likely lack of sleep. He is right to raise this issue. It is now past the date for the call for evidence, but if he wants to write to me directly about that issue, I will ensure it is fed in.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We discussed this issue at some length in the statement before the recess. He knows that the priority for the Labour party has been to raise the state pension by committing to the triple lock throughout this Parliament at a cost of £31 billion a year. For the new state pension, that will mean an increase of £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament.
On winter fuel payments specifically—and I thought this was the Conservative party’s position—most people think that we should not be paying hundreds of pounds to the very richest pensioners. We have listened to concerns and raised the threshold, but it is important to maintain that principle. If the Conservatives’ position is now that they want a return to universal winter fuel payments, they need to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, who has not supported universal winter fuel payments or, indeed, a universal state pension.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
John Lamont ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore
This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness.
Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s proposals are creating the worst of both worlds? On one hand, they are failing to tackle the rising welfare budget, but on the other they are creating anxiety and fear among many disabled and vulnerable people, who do not understand or know the impact of these changes on them?
Robbie Moore
That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later.
No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.
Winter Fuel Payment
John Lamont Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
I will not adjudicate on which Member has the coldest constituency in England, as my hon. Friend invites me to. She raises an important point that has not yet been made, so I should spell this out: we will bring forward the regulations on the payment of the winter fuel allowance over the summer, and they will set the qualifying week as that of 15 September, as it has been in past years. That means that payments will be made in November and December, as in past years.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
A shocking 75% of Scottish pensioners said that they were left cold in their home last winter. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government must use the additional funding from today’s announcement to ensure that pensioners in Scotland receive the same amount of winter fuel payment as they did under the previous UK Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, those are decisions for the Scottish Government. However, as I said, I have spoken to the relevant Ministers in the Scottish Government today. There will be a block grant adjustment to reflect this higher spending in England and Wales.
Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief
John Lamont Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I will make a short statement on the House’s sub judice resolution. There are legal proceedings active in relation to the policy of applying VAT to private schools. However, Mr Speaker issued a waiver on 5 February to allow reference to those cases, now and in future proceedings, on the grounds of national importance. For the record, I point out that my daughter is a teacher in a school affected by the VAT on fees.
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.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I represent a different part of Edinburgh, where one in four or five pupils goes to independent school. I have already received representations from parents who have had to take their children out of their schools and are concerned about where they can be placed in the city, given that the Labour council has already said that at least 15, and possibly 16, schools will be at capacity by the end of the decade even if there are no extra pupils.
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.
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.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite possible that this ludicrous policy raises the square root of net zero once we knock off possibly 100,000 children not going to independent schools, the recovery of input costs from schools, the closure of schools and the reduction in bursaries because the schools cannot afford to give them?
John Lamont
The hon. Member is absolutely right, and that leads me neatly to my next point. Let us look at what else the Labour Government have claimed. They said:
“Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people.”
That supposed extra funding is far from guaranteed. The policy is unlikely to raise what has been stated, and it may well incur far greater costs to taxpayers than anticipated.
Let me state it plainly: nothing about this decision was necessary. This did not need to happen now or in this manner. At the very least, it could have been considered in detail, with all the repercussions weighed up. The Government estimate that in the long term, 37,000 pupils will leave or never enter the UK private school sector as a result of the VAT charge. That number may also prove to be nonsense; if it is, the Government’s entire basis for doing this will fall apart. If the number is higher, the cost to the public finances will be higher and less revenue will be raised. That is a potentially vicious double whammy for the Treasury, inflicted entirely by Labour’s own design.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the policy was well documented in the 2017, 2019 and 2024 Labour manifestos? People voting in the 2024 election were well aware of Labour’s policy.
John Lamont
If the hon. Lady engages with the parents and schools affected, as I am sure she has, she will know that one of their criticisms is the haste with which the policy was introduced, and the inability of schools and parents to make plans to adjust to this severe tax. I cannot think of another example of a Government trying to increase a tax by 20% in one go. One of the main reasons schools and parents are so concerned is the failure to engage, discuss and properly understand the impact, as well as the suggestion that only wealthy parents will be affected. The hon. Lady will know from her constituency that people are making tough choices about whether they send their young people to one of the local independent schools; they are making choices about how they lead their lives, and budgeting accordingly. It is very sad that the lives of young people will be disrupted as a consequence of the policy.
The Government also stated:
“Many of the resulting moves into state schools are expected to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of exam courses.”
That is pure assertion. It is made up. It is fantasy. The Government have no guarantees that that will be the case. There is no evidence to suggest that pupils will move only “at natural transition points”. Many parents will be unable to afford the extra bills and will have to move their children immediately, and not at a “natural” time. As I stated earlier, that could easily be at a critical moment in the child’s development.
The Government have said:
“These policies will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs.”
That is plainly false. It is not even close to the truth. The Independent Schools Council, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and individual headteachers all say the opposite. The Government’s policy will have an impact on vulnerable pupils with additional needs. It is simply shameful to claim otherwise, and does a huge disservice to the many parents out there doing their best for young people who just need a bit more help.
I conclude by thanking the petitioner again and all those who have signed this important petition. I look forward to hearing from other right hon. and hon. Members about their views of the petition. I believe that this reckless policy is being pursued for political and ideological reasons. It is not about what is best for the country; it is a move to placate the left wing of the Labour party. It will cost pupils, parents and taxpayers. It will leave both independent and state schools worse off. Labour promised change—well, here it is: change for the worse.
John Lamont
I am conscious of the time and that the House of Commons is about to vote. I will not detain hon. Members much longer.
I thank the petitioner for bringing forward this petition and the 115,000 people who bothered to sign it. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. I think it is telling that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members spoke against the Government’s policy regarding the VAT charge on school fees and the removal of business rates relief. The empty Government Benches are also very telling, although there were notable exceptions in the hon. Members who did come to try and defend their Labour Government’s policy. It was interesting to hear some of the caution that was also being expressed, however, most notably by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who gave a very important contribution.
I was struck by all the contributions about the impact that this policy will have on young people with additional needs, and the fact that it is not simply about wealthy families choosing to send their children to independent schools. There are lots of young people who go into the independent sector to get the educational support that they need to be able to achieve their full potential. Many of them will be deprived of that opportunity because of this policy. We also heard from a number of hon. Members about the impact on military families, which I had not previously considered.
I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s response, as I am sure all the petitioners are. There was no recognition that there might need to be a review of this policy in future and of how it will affect the independent sector and the opportunities of young people.
Again, I thank Hugh, the petitioner. One of the highlights of the day was meeting his daughter, Amelia, who is in the Gallery. I hope that she has enjoyed the debate and has found it interesting, although I suspect that the purchase of a House of Commons teddy bear before the debate will be the high point for her.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools.
Support for Pensioners
John Lamont Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson
I am absolutely shocked, and I will come on to mention a few stories from my own constituents. They are very similar, and I think we are hearing these stories up and down the country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges that older people are facing. I note that there are no Labour Back Benchers here to contribute to the debate. We have the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, so the payroll are here, but despite all the rhetoric during the general election campaign about supporting pensioners, Labour Back Benchers do not seem to be willing to stand up for them in this debate.
Blake Stephenson
My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement.
Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is rightly highlighting the weaknesses of the Labour Government in supporting pensioners. Does he agree that in many communities, the voluntary and third sector is now stepping forward to provide that support? In my area we have the Borders Older People’s Forum, the warm-ups in St Boswells village hall, the Hawick dementia café and multiple other examples of the voluntary and third sector stepping forward to provide the support that the Government should be providing.
Blake Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Yes, the third sector has come forward to support, but what have the Government done to the third sector? They have applied national insurance increases and reduced the threshold, causing pain and suffering for the sector that our constituents now rely on because the Government have stepped away from their responsibilities.
The support that the Government have given pensioners to cover off the impacts of their decision to cut winter fuel payments is merely the thinnest of political spin. The most prominent such cover is the extension of the household support fund, which itself is an attempt to outsource the protection of vulnerable residents to already under-pressure local authorities that should be focused on delivering high-quality public services.
But it is worse than just outsourcing the problem, because a bit of examination showed that up to be the most disappointing example of the empty words our constituents hate. Despite the spin, the truth is that the household support fund simply has not been designed with pensioners in mind. The east of England receives £32.90 per pensioner. London receives double that: £66.73. When I first saw those numbers and the Government’s description of the household support fund as mitigation for pensioners, I wondered why London’s pensioners had been deemed so much more deserving of support, so I wrote to the Secretary of State. I got the simple answer that the fund is not intended to be targeted at pensioners. The Government have even admitted to me that they do not know how much of the household support fund went to pensioners this winter. Age UK estimates that typically, £1 in every £10 the household support fund pays out goes to pensioners.
What does all that mean for our pensioners? It means more pensioners in hospital—nearly 20,000 more in November and December 2024 than in the same months in 2023, a 6.6% increase. That is 6.6% more stress on our already overstretched health services, and it is nearly 20,000 more pensioners suffering in hospital and potentially suffering lasting ill health, because this Government, which some of them voted for in the belief that they would look after them, forced them to make a choice between heating and eating. It means tens of thousands more pensioners in poverty. Those are the Government’s own statistics.
Agricultural Property Relief
John Lamont Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ann Davies
Of the clients that Eirian mentioned, five of them will not come under the tax liability because they have very small farms with off-farm income, they have transferred their farms following ill health, or they have significant debt that offsets the value of their farms.
It is clear that the assessments of the impact of the changes on working farms across the UK, on the wider economy and on the wider food supply chain are inadequate. The data that we have is deficient; it includes smallholdings and non-working farms. Data based on the basic payment scheme or on agricultural output would provide a fairer representation of the situation for genuine farmers.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is speaking remarkably well about the challenges that this Government policy will create for farmers in Wales, in Scotland and across the UK. Research by Scottish Land and Estates shows that the average UK farm size is 217 acres and the average agricultural land value in Great Britain is £8,200 per acre, which means that the average working farm in the UK is worth about £1.8 million. Does that not show the flaw in the Government’s argument? This policy is not attacking the richest landowners; it is attacking working farms the length and breadth of the UK.
Ann Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I totally agree. Indeed, I will give further details about that issue later in my speech.
It is also clear that industry experts were not consulted on the changes prior to the announcement, even though consultation could have led to a fairer and more appropriate solution that is not detrimental to family farms or the wider industry.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I do not think we have undertaken that assessment. Of course, a benefit of being part of the United Kingdom is the subsequent extra money per head that is given through the Barnett formula, and the Scottish Government can decide what to do with that. I am sure they will be carefully costing their independence things, or that sort of financial support will simply not be there.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
In April 2021, we updated the offer in our jobcentres, boosting our network of armed forces champions to 50, supported by 11 area leads. They are focused on providing key support to our veterans and other members of the armed forces community to ensure that their talents and abilities are recognised and that they can move quickly on to their next step. I saw that in action on Thursday at the military careers fair in Aldershot with the Veterans Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
John Lamont
As the Minister will know, our veterans have particular skills and needs. Can she confirm that veterans in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, whether they attend a jobcentre in Hawick, Galashiels or Eyemouth, will be able to access the support offered by their district armed forces champion?
Mims Davies
Yes, I can confirm that they will. The great work that is being done by our DWP armed forces champions in my hon. Friend’s constituency is playing out, for example, in how the local champion from High Riggs jobcentre has already been working with the local council to secure bus passes for veterans, alongside providing veterans with direct employment support.