Youth Unemployment

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I appreciate that all Members across the House care about youth unemployment, but the way it is tackled is very different depending on from which party a Member hails.

We have rising youth unemployment, and the issue is taxation. Our businesses are facing an increased national insurance rate, and business rates on the high street are high. Hospitality and retail businesses are being taxed to the point where they cannot take on another employee, and usually that employee is a young person who is being given their first opportunity. The Government are making the job market so rigid and protecting workers’ rights to the point where there will be no jobs available by the time young people are looking to get into employment. The Government are making it so restrictive that businesses do not want to take on new employees. First, they are not able to afford to and, secondly, there is so much restriction when they go to hire a new employee that they just will not do it. That will not be dealt with, and youth unemployment will continue to rise.

I have had a young person come to me who has just finished a degree in mathematics from Cambridge but cannot find a job. Someone else’s son did a law degree but cannot find a job. I have people from every sector coming to me with their concerns: businesses are saying that they cannot take on a new employee because they simply cannot afford it, and parents are desperate to get their child into any job.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, apprenticeships and zero-hours contracts were an opportunity for a young person to get their first job, for example in hospitality or retail. Working in those environments, with other people, teaches young people lessons that they can take forward in life to other jobs and opportunities. That is what young people need.

I would like to provide some historical context to the Minister’s speech. In 2010, the Conservatives inherited from Labour youth unemployment at 20%, and nearly a million young people were out of work. Before the pandemic hit in 2020, the Conservatives had nearly halved it to just 12%. When we left office in 2024, despite the pandemic’s effects, the level was just 13%. That was the result of our fixing the economy, driving up education standards and making work pay.

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

I am really impressed by how the hon. Lady is representing her constituents and businesses. I loved her summary of recent youth unemployment levels, but the reality is that when we came into power in 2024 youth unemployment was rising. We cannot blame the problems we are facing now on the current Government. One could argue that we are not making it better and that we could do more, but youth unemployment was rising at the time that we came into power and had been for many years.

[Joy Morrissey]

That intervention leads me to the statistics that we have today. Nearly 16% of young people—that is 729,000—are out of work. That figure is a staggering 103,000 higher than a year ago, and a further 2.88 million young people are economically inactive. Just to point out: that is more than when Labour took over from us. That is statistically accurate.

[Dr Arthur]

I accept that youth unemployment is higher now than when we took office. I regret that and it is great to see that the Government are doing more on it. The point I was making was that when we took office, youth unemployment was rising and it was rising fast. It has continued to rise, but it was rising then. That is my point.

[Joy Morrissey]

This is a youth unemployment crisis of Labour’s own making. It is because of the national insurance tax hikes and the restrictions on business—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. How do we, as so many colleagues have asked this afternoon—certainly on the Opposition Benches—persuade an employer? How do we create the incentives for an employer to take a chance on a young person who may have no work experience—they may be full of ambition, fresh ideas and curiosity, but with little or no experience to offer—when that same employer could choose an older candidate who is proven, reliable and familiar with the workplace? If we can answer that question, we will help more than one person; we will help ensure that we provide the door to opportunity for people to have that dignity of work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has just talked about.

I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 21 years, along with the Minister. In that time, she, like me, will have visited hundreds of schools—I certainly have, from Holderness academy to Withernsea high school—and asked thousands of students the same question: “What do you want to be when you leave school?” Not once has a child replied, “Unemployed”, and for good reason. Young people are ambitious. They want the dignity of work, about which my right hon. Friend spoke so passionately just now, over the indignity of welfare. They want to climb a ladder of opportunity, not fall into the trap of dependency. However, as was reflected in the Minister’s speech, study after study tells us the same hard truth. Young people who experience long-term unemployment are more likely to end up poor, sick and more isolated than their peers, with no options and no hope. No way should we be consigning our young people to that fate.

Labour Governments have done this before. I never want to question anyone’s honesty, but some Labour Members have been very selective in the data that they have given. They have talked relentlessly about the 14 years, but not one of them has given youth unemployment figures for those 14 years, which anyone fair-minded would surely do rather than picking some three-year period around covid. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) did make a fair statistical point. He said, “OK, youth unemployment has gone up under Labour.” He conceded that: how refreshing. However, he also said that it was going up when we came to power and we should deal with that. It was a fair point and a point well made, but in 1997 youth unemployment stood at 14%, and by 2010, under the socialists—the Labour party—it had climbed to 20%.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will happily give way. Given that I have referred to the hon. Gentleman, it is the very least I can do.

By 2024, the level had been brought back to below 14%. Again and again, Conservatives have brought youth unemployment down. I have mentioned—as have others, including the Minister—just how damaging it is for young people to be unemployed. It has not just a short-term horrific impact, but a lifelong impact. I do not quite know why that is the case, but study after study shows that it is. Now, less than two years in, the figure is 16% and rising. We have seen this film before, and unless we change course—unless the Government change course—we know how it ends. So how do we change course? I think that Conservative Members have tried to indicate to Opposition Members what the answer might be. I know that Opposition Members lack experience of running businesses—so few of them have ever had to make that huge decision, that risk-filled decision, to employ someone and then to employ more people, having to find the money to pay them at the end of the month as well as paying all the taxes—but the answer is that we do it by changing incentives.

As any good economist knows, the single biggest cost for almost any business is its workforce, yet this Chancellor has chosen to increase the minimum wage and so many other costs on business. In turn, the cost of employing 18 to 20 year-olds—just since July 2024—has risen not by £2,000, not by £3,000, but by a staggering £4,095, in less than two years. If we understand that behaviour is driven by incentives and we make it much more expensive to employ a young person than to employ someone older, what happens?

Well, it is not a surprise: the rate of youth unemployment has gone up. Let me now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank him for reflecting on a longer period than just the last few years. However, if he has been in this place for 21 years he will remember that the level of youth unemployment in 2010, a year to which he referred, was not because we had a socialist Government—although I am a big fan of Gordon Brown—but because we had a global financial crisis. Unemployment was high in the UK, but it was high elsewhere as well. The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that part of his Government’s response to that was austerity. Does he want to reflect on the impact of that on our young people?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and reasonable point, but if he goes back and looks through the data, he will see that youth unemployment stayed stubbornly high under the last quasi-socialist Government, and it was not just because of the 2008 crash. The truth is that, throughout that period, we had a much higher level of youth unemployment than we should have done. He says that we had austerity, but the then Government overspent. We inherited a massive deficit and slowly brought it down throughout the 2010s, but we overspent in each and every year, so the idea that we had austerity is a myth. “Austerity” means living within our means, but we did not live within our means. We overspent each and every year, but by the time we got to covid, we had managed to get our deficit right down. We showed fiscal responsibility, because we know that if Governments spend money that they do not generate, they impose a burden on the very young people on whom unemployment is now being imposed.

I will deal with the minimum wage, which Labour Members have touched on. They asked whether we want to tell young people that they are not worth higher pay. Well, if they do not have the experience, and if they lose out on getting a job against an older person because they do not even have cost competitiveness, they are in trouble. Since the introduction of the development rate in 1998, there has been a lower wage for younger workers. That is deliberate, for a very sensible reason: when young people enter the workplace, they are doing exactly that—they are developing. They are developing skills, confidence, discipline and the ability to work productively alongside more experienced colleagues. Employers were explicitly permitted to pay less in order to reflect an economic reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I certainly hope that we will hear a plan of action to tackle this alarming crisis, and a less selective grouping of statistics than we heard from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) when she opened the debate.

This Government have made it more expensive, burdensome and risky for businesses to hire young people. That is not a view that I am expressing from a partisan point of view—[Interruption.] I will try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and not be partisan, by quoting from external organisations. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that many firms are now scaling back recruitment, with young workers the most exposed. The highly respected and neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of a worrying rise in unemployment among young workers, citing policy-driven increases in labour costs. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has highlighted a cooling labour market with disproportionate effects on young people.

How in their first 18 months have the Government managed to have such a terrible impact on our young people? First, there is the national insurance rise. The Institute of Directors has described the national insurance rise as a direct disincentive to hiring. Young people are the least experienced, the least established and the most vulnerable to cost cutting, and when it is made more expensive to hire, employers hire fewer people. It is not complicated.

Secondly, we have Labour’s increase in the minimum wage. Since the 2024 general election, the cost of hiring a full-time minimum wage worker has risen sharply across every age group. For over-21s, the annual cost has increased by 15%, but for 18 to 20-year-olds, it has jumped by 26%, despite the fact that there is no employer national insurance to pay for that age group. For apprentices, it has risen by 25%. In fact, since Labour got into government, it now costs £4,000 more a year to hire an 18-year-old full time.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I give way to a Member from the governing party.

[Dr Arthur]

I am very proud to be a Member from the governing party. I am sure the hon. Lady would not tell those young people in our constituencies that they do not deserve that pay rise, particularly when it is about ensuring that two people, doing the same job side by side to the same standard, get the same pay irrespective of their age. Surely that is a good thing.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am sad to see that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that that young person will now be standing next to another young person who is unable to get a job. Surely he must agree that the level at which people are being paid has had an effect on the fact that there are fewer people in these jobs.

Pension Schemes Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

The UK Government should instead adopt my new clause 6, which provides no cap on inflation, includes reimbursements to make good losses and specifies its application to transferee members, ill health payments and payments to surviving dependants. Affected pensioners must be at the heart of action to address the pension injustices that they have faced for so long. I urge the UK Government to listen to the continued concerns and to make the necessary changes to deliver real justice. For former ASW workers, that means providing full pre and post-1997 indexation—and backdated, please.

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

I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I want to speak in support of Government new clauses 31 to 33, and in the context of new clause 22. Before I do so, let me say that I think it is really good that today’s debate has brought people together after four days of debate on the Budget. There seems to be a lot of agreement today, which is good. In particular, we are agreeing on the pre-1997 measures that were announced in the Budget last week. Nobody mentioned them much in their speeches over the past few days, but today we are all talking about them, which I think is really good.

I warmly welcome the Government’s confirmation in the Budget that we will legislate to allow the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme to provide some inflation protection for pre-1997 pensions. This is an issue I have campaigned on, alongside Members from across the House, and I am genuinely pleased to see concrete progress included in the new amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill before the House. I thank the Minister for meeting me in the Treasury in the week running up to the Budget, and for drawing the Chancellor into that discussion. We had our picture taken in the Chancellor’ office, and one of my constituents spotted that there was a mouse trap, which shows that the Treasury hangs on to even the crumbs, as well as to the pounds and pennies.

For years, more than a quarter of a million PPF and FAS members have seen a significant part of their pension frozen—left to lose value year after year—and last week’s announcement begins to right that wrong. It matters deeply for people in Scotland. More than 26,000 pensioners will be helped by this change, which is 26,000 former workers in manufacturing, retail, hospitality and countless other industries. Having spoken to many constituents in this position, I know that many of them have felt forgotten. This reform sends a message that they have not been forgotten, and also that they have been listened to, which I think is even more important.

This decision is important not only for what it delivers, but for what it signals. By acting, the Government have effectively acknowledged that the lack of pre-1997 indexation was an injustice. By recognising that injustice in the public system, I feel that the Government have established an expectation that the private sector must also look at this matter.

The private sector requires encouragement in this area, as a number of companies—primarily under US ownership, in my assessment—are not currently providing regular discretionary increases on pre-1997 pension payments. Many of my constituents, pensioners who used to work for the likes of ExxonMobil—it has been mentioned a few times—and Johnson & Johnson, have told me of sponsoring companies taking a 10-year funding holiday from pension payments into the fund, while simultaneously blocking the indexation in payments. I take the view that the money in the funds belongs to the pensioners and that the funds themselves have a responsibility to move that money from the funds into pensioners’ pockets—and hopefully into the tills of local businesses in my constituency.

The Pensions Regulator itself notes that 17% of pre-1997 pensioners receive no inflation protection, not because of actuarial need but because scheme rules enable companies to do so. For a long time this was an academic matter because inflation was so low, but over the past five years it has eaten some pensions alive, and affected pensioners in Edinburgh South West are now really feeling it. I hope very much that the private pension schemes that do not already provide significant indexation to pre-1997 pensions but have the financial capacity to do so—many do—will see the signal from the Government’s changes to the PPF and the FAS schemes and improve their own schemes for the benefit of those pensioners. I have some slight concerns about the Bill, in that it might not go far enough in forcing them to make those improvements, but I have great faith in the Minister’s negotiating powers.

It is hoped that the surplus release enabled by the Bill will help to underpin additional corporate investment in the UK, but there is a risk that in cases such as ExxonMobil it may simply enable such companies to move the money in those funds outside the UK and into the bank balances of shareholders in other countries. That money really does belong in pensioners’ bank accounts, but there is a credible argument for also using it to invest in the UK. It does not seem like a good outcome for that money to be lost to our economy.

That can be avoided by addressing the issues of trustee governance. Some trustees undoubtedly act in the interest of scheme beneficiaries, but scheme rules do not always allow it and contrary guidance from the Pensions Regulator may be non-binding. Additionally, trustee boards often lack independence, particularly when we see a majority or even all members have been appointed by the employer—perhaps a conflict of interest. Mindful of that, I commend the Minister for announcing that his Department will consult on trust-based pension scheme governance, strengthening the member voice and supporting lay trustees working closely with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that trustees act in the interests of all beneficiaries, and comply with the law and their scheme rules. Again, the money belongs to those beneficiaries.

I have high hopes for the review, as we need significant reform if we are to secure meaningful protection for these pensioners. The urgency is clear: many of these individuals and their spouses are of an advanced age—I hope none of them hears me say that and thinks it is an insult—and we need to act quickly if they are to benefit. Addressing this injustice requires not only technical improvements in governance and trusteeship, but the political will to act. I am proud that this Labour Government are stepping up to act and looking at this issue in detail. We saw progress last week in the Budget and there is a commitment to do more.

Before I end, I want to touch on two slightly aligned issues. First, we have spoken a lot, across the House, about people who have pre-1997 private pensions and we worry that those pensions are not enough to support them. Each week, in Oxgangs in my constituency, I go to a community meal where I meet people who do not have any private pension. They survive on the state pension, often in quite difficult circumstances. When we talk about poor pensioners, it is right that we think about pre-1997 and others with private pensions who are struggling, but we should never forget who is really feeling the cost of living crisis.

Secondly, I have to thank my union, the University and College Union, for the work it has done over many years to protect my pension. I know I will benefit from that. Hardly a month goes by without me getting an email from it saying that there is some risk to pensions in a university somewhere in the UK. I commend it for its work.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the chance to speak in this debate, especially without time limits—it is lovely. I absolutely love a very technical debate in the Chamber, but unfortunately not enough Members do. It would have been nice to see huge numbers delighted to talk about the technical aspects of legislation, but being a veteran of previous Finance Bills, I am aware that there is not often a huge turnout for these debates.

I am thankful for—but have a few criticisms of—the Government’s position throughout the Bill. I will start with a couple of issues around timing. It is appreciated that the changes are being made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the Budget debates, and I mentioned in my speech then how delighted I was that the change had been made, and how great it was that pre-1997 indexation would be taking place.

However, when I made my speech last Thursday, we had not yet seen the Government amendments. I was aware that there would be Government amendments, because it had been announced, but we did not have the opportunity to properly scrutinise them, or to consider whether those amendments should be amended, because of the timeline of when the details were provided. I appreciate that the Minister tabled the amendments in advance of the deadline, which is great, but there are questions that I potentially would have asked, and I may have tabled some probing amendments, if I had seen those Government amendments in advance.

On the 1997 indexation, I apologise that on Thursday, when I was talking about this, I mentioned the FSA instead of the FAS—I apologise to the Food Standards Agency; I did not mean anything by it. If I do that again, I apologise. In terms of the PPF and the FAS, the PPF got in touch with me last week, and I had a good meeting with it about what the indexation will look like and how many members would potentially be impacted. It suggested that it was getting in touch with 165,000 members, which I thought was a very significant number, with an impressively fast turnaround in the time it was looking to reach out to them. Those are significant numbers, and I appreciate that.

However, I am concerned that the uplift does not involve a one-off payment in order to bring the pre-1997 contributions up to some sort of level. The contributions were made pre-1997, so the compound interest on that would be unbelievable—it would be very significant. If there is no one-off payment to be made, and no recognition of the fact that the indexation has not taken place, then we are looking at adding 2.5% a year on to a tenner—or whatever—instead of 2.5% every year up until now, which would be a significantly different sum.

I appreciate that the change has been made, and I also appreciate that the PPF levy is still going to have the potential to reduce to zero. The PPF’s plans are still intended to go ahead, and it is still able to meet its financial obligations, even with the changes that have been proposed by the Government. However, I would appreciate it if the Government considered the possibility of a small one-off addition to the pre-1997 accrual that members have, in order to bring them closer to what the pension should have been if they had had that indexation previously.

Older pensioners are the group affected, some of whom are very unwell. As was mentioned by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), a number of them are no longer with us. The Chair also mentioned Terry Monk, who has been in regular contact with me via email, and I thank him and all of the members who have fought so hard for this change. They have achieved something, although I expect they will probably go on fighting for more. I can understand that and I will be happy to back them in the search for more justice.

On some of the other issues that have been brought up in this debate, around the fiduciary duties, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and I probably have a similar idea of what “best interests” looks like, what the words “best interests” mean, and what the interests of scheme members are. Some of the ideas that he was talking about around investments are ideas that I would fully align with.

However, we can all define best interests in different ways. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), talked about the fact that fiduciary duties mean having to get the best returns—he said something like that—but it is not the best returns, but the best interests. Some people may define best interests as best returns, but some people may not. Some might define best interests as better transport systems for the majority of the scheme beneficiaries who live in a certain area, for example; if there were a more efficient transport system, more housing and better schools and hospitals, that would significantly benefit those members in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. Productivity and growth are real possibilities if there is better patient capital investment, not just in social housing and renewable energy projects, which I would dearly love to see and have spoken a lot about—in particular social housing—but in tech and appliances, so that companies can use capital investment that is invested for the long term. That could have a significant impact on productivity.

Turning back to the Minister’s announcement around fiduciary duties and that definition, although there will of course be political argument about what best interests mean and how we define best interests, trustees will at least have the benefit of the guidance and will not necessarily labour under the misapprehension that they have to get the best possible financial return.

I draw the Government’s attention to the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 in Wales, which I talk about a lot, and which is about making the best decisions for the future. It is not necessarily about chasing economic growth at any cost; it is not necessarily about building certain things. Instead, it is about ensuring that future generations are best provided for. Some of the lessons that could be learned from that could be put into the fiduciary duties consultation that is coming forward about what the term best interests actually means and how it could be defined.

We have largely covered the mandation powers and their direction in the discussion of fiduciary duties. I am pretty relaxed about there being some mandation and some requirement, not least because of the points the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North made about the growth in the economy that is likely to occur should capital be invested more in things that will increase productivity. There probably is a balance to be struck between benefiting pensioners of today and the future; if there is a lower return for pensioners 30 years in the future, we might again be causing a level of generational unfairness that we need to think about. How does that balance up? Does that new hospital or that new social housing provide enough of a benefit for those younger people, who will become pensioners in 30 or 40 years? Does that stack up? I do not think that will be an easy decision to make.

However, generally I think we can look at mandation; I do not take an ideological position against it like some with Conservative beliefs. I am, though, happy to support the Conservatives in their amendment that would require a report on what those mandation powers look like, because the more transparency from the Government—the more transparency from everybody in this place, frankly—the better. I therefore think a report on that would be absolutely grand.

I will mention a couple of other things. New clause 3 about terminal illness is a really neat solution to a problem. My local authority has implemented a “Tell us once” policy, whereby if someone has had a bereavement in their family, for instance, they have only to tell their distressing story to the local authority once and everything will be changed—their council tax and benefits—and they will no longer get various charges. I therefore think the solution proposed in new clause 3 is neat.

The Minister might come up with some issues around potential data sharing between the PPF and the DWP. However, if he could come up with a solution so that people do not have to tell their distressing story numerous times—having to explain again to somebody else that they are terminally ill and having to provide a huge amount of paperwork to do that when they have already had to do that with the DWP—that would be hugely helpful.

My understanding from my conversation with the PPF on Friday is that it is pretty good at supporting members, and I felt that it would be willing to be flexible about this should it get direction from the Minister and should the data-sharing issues be sorted out, but I am just guessing—I am not putting words in the PPF’s mouth. I just feel that it is a very member-focused organisation and might be quite keen to support its members in that regard.

[Dr Arthur]

This is a very slight aside, but is it not interesting that, when it comes to claiming benefits, there are so many silos and barriers to organisations, councils, Government agencies and Departments talking to each other, but they suddenly start speaking to each other and the benefits are stopped overnight when someone passes away?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would like to see much more conversation. Gateway benefits allow people eligibility for other things, and sometimes those do not work either. A person might be eligible for universal credit, but they do not necessarily get the follow-through to free school meals, for example. Anything we can do to make that path smoother, either in the cessation of benefits or in agreement on eligibility, would be really helpful. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we have seen issues with carers, for example, being chased for overpayments that were not their fault.

Again, I support the Government’s move on the consolidation of small pots, which I think is incredibly sensible. I am famously a massive supporter of the pensions dashboard and have never been at all critical of its timelines, but when it comes online there will be a rush for consolidation anyway. This is all about consolidation for people who have not touched their small pots, and making sure they get a return from that is totally sensible.

Guided retirement and the mid-life MOT are mentioned in a number of amendments, and ensuring that people are given the correct advice at the correct time is incredibly important. When the Government do their sufficiency review—when we are looking at the adequacy of pensions and what people will get when they hit retirement—I would be very surprised if that and the consultation do not conclude that more people need more advice earlier. The more advice that people have on their pension, and the more money they put into their pension at the earliest time, the bigger their pension will be.

I have already mentioned compound interest: if we put £100 into our pension when we were 21, it will be significantly bigger by the time we retire than if we put £100 into our pension when we are 40. That is just a fact. The more advice that we can give people at various important life stages, but particularly significantly before retirement, would be really helpful. That is another thing that should be included.

Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) spoke at a press conference about the local government pension scheme and how terrible it is that it is spending so much money on fees. That was in September, after Second Reading, at which he did not speak about that. He did not table any amendments on it before the Committee stage, and he has not shown up to raise it on Report. It is almost as if Reform MPs are saying things in press conferences and not doing any actual work. [Interruption.] I told him I was going to mention him. It is almost as if they make statements in press conferences and do not do anything, just as they have not shown up today.

Should a Reform Member have been particularly keen to make changes to the LGPS—such as to cap the level of fees it can pay, which are probably not unreasonable, as the LGPS is phenomenally successful in its returns for members—they could have amended the Bill, but they would have had to show up to do so. I suggest that the media organisations who are happy to cover press conferences ask the Members giving those press conferences what they will actually do to get their policies implemented. If such Members have an opportunity, they should use it rather than just shouting from the sidelines.

As I think I have made clear, I am largely supportive of an awful lot of things in the Bill, the direction of travel and many of the technical measures, which are great fun to have a good look at. I have some concerns about pre-1997 indexation. I am delighted that it has happened, but more could have been done. I will be interested to follow the progress of the fiduciary duty statutory guidance and the sufficiency and adequacy review and whether there will be mandation powers.

Lastly, on new clause 3, can we please make it easier for members who are terminally ill to have that conversation? I would very much appreciate the Minister committing to taking that away and considering how the PPF and FAS can get that information more easily without requiring people to jump through significant hoops.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this debate. Being a parent is the hardest job in the world, and I believe that the state has a duty to make it easier. With just 90 seconds, I want to focus on just one case study.

Blanche is a fantastic mum who lives in Edinburgh South West. She is self-employed, and she found herself in an even more precarious position when she had a child. As she works for herself, she was entitled to only a statutory allowance: a flat £187 per week with no six-week cushion, unlike the statutory maternity pay situation. As a result, she had to work right up until the morning she went into labour at 41 weeks, and she returned to work almost instantly after using up her “keeping in touch” days. To quote her directly, and I warn Members that this is a bit graphic,

“it was a shock to the system, her body was sore, her breasts were leaking, she was still bleeding”.

She had to do work in that condition. She highlights that alongside the physical and logistical difficulties, she felt stigmatised by medical staff and other parents who judged her for leaving her child to return to work so early, without understanding that her financial situation forced her to do so.

I spoke to Blanche at the weekend. She does plan to have another child—she is a fantastic mum, and I am sure that we all wish her well—but she hopes that by then, Minister, things will have changed. I know that we cannot do this overnight, but I hope that the Minister can signal the start of a transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and the Petitions Committee for this debate. As a survivor of three maternity leaves—all on statutory pay—a c-section and a spell in the neonatal unit, all the topics that have been raised are very close to my heart. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contributions and for representing their constituents so well.

This summer, the Government announced that they would undertake a parental leave and pay review, expecting it to conclude in 18 months’ time. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to that much-needed review of parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eyewatering, and balance between family life and work has only become harder and harder to achieve. Not only is that unfair on families, but it weighs down our economy.

The Liberal Democrats have called for an overhaul of the parental leave system to give parents a genuine choice over how to manage their affairs in the first months of their child’s life. The Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce shared parental leave when in government. Years later, however, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with about a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.

Meanwhile, the Government are introducing wide-ranging changes to employment law through the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will introduce a suite of new protections and entitlements for working families, including enhanced rights on leave, protection from dismissal and bereavement support. Eligibility for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave requires employees to have a minimum length of service in order to qualify, but from April 2026 the qualifying service requirements will be removed. That means that paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will become entitlements from the first day of employment, as the Liberal Democrats called for in our 2024 general election manifesto.

[Dr Arthur]

The Lib Dems may well have called for that in their manifesto, but when it came to a vote, they abstained on that very right for mothers. Does the hon. Lady now regret that?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights. We welcome aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers, all of which move us in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of the measures are to be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for employees and for business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

I have spoken with businesses in my constituency that tell me that they are being left in limbo by the vague framing of the Bill, which leaves crucial detail to secondary legislation and Government reviews. That prevents long-term planning, and I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would have created more certainty for businesses.

New measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses and bring down their costs. We know that the Government inherited a mess. We know that the cause of the mess is the legacy of reckless economic mismanagement by the previous Government, whose record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards. But it is disappointing that the current Government have taken decisions that have compounded many of the challenges for communities, businesses and families, while presiding over very tight public finances and a stagnant economy.

That is why we urge the Government to put in place a range of measures that will bring down business costs, unleash the power of our SMEs and power economic growth—measures such as scrapping the unfair national insurance rise, fixing the broken business rates system, bringing down the cost of energy by decoupling electricity and gas prices, and finally repairing the economic damage caused by the previous Government’s shambolic Brexit deal by cutting red tape and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Those actions could breathe new life into our economy and our small businesses and would go a long way towards facilitating improvements to parental leave and pay.

In our 2024 general election manifesto, we called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to rise to £350 a week, for paternity pay to increase to 90% of earnings with a cap for high earners, and for the introduction of an extra “use it or lose it” month for fathers and partners, paid at 90% of earnings, again with a cap for high earners. Those policies would benefit not only families, but businesses and the economy, by encouraging workforce participation and making it easier for people to advance their career while starting a family.

We hope that the Government will look closely at those proposals, while introducing a robust plan to cut business costs, boost growth and empower our SMEs. More broadly, I urge them to look into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibility. What steps are they taking to support millions of family and kinship carers who have no paid leave at all? Will they commission a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and make carer’s leave paid?

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country.

As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an

“income shock for millions of low-income households.”

That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable.

In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress.

As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support.

Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.

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

I just want to make a gentle point to the hon. Member. He points out that the process feels rushed, but sitting here, I observe that there is not a lot of demand to speak from Members from any of the other parties on the Opposition Benches: just two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs and no Reform MPs. Does he share my disappointment?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am unable to comment on the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as “absent”. I am here to represent my independent alliance colleagues, all of whom strongly oppose the Bill as it is presented here today. It will adversely impact millions of people in our country—the people at the bottom of the food chain; the people who are struggling to feed their children, heat their homes, get to work, and keep appointments that are critical for receiving treatment that enables them to manage their conditions.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Morrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. Whether it is motor neurone disease, blindness, ME, arthritis, mental illness or cancer, these barriers will only be further entrenched should the Bill be passed.

Disability Stockport is a local charity that specialises in autism and mental health. It has told me that it is deeply opposed to the changes the Government are proposing:

“Such cuts would exacerbate poverty, worsen mental health issues, and further reduce the already limited support available to the most vulnerable and marginalised people across Greater Manchester. We believe this would pose a serious risk of harm.”

While Disability Stockport welcomes the Government’s investment in employment support, it is clear that much more is needed, because of people such as Joan.

Joan lives in Cheadle Hulme and worked in financial services before falling very ill. She explained to me the persistent and defeating barriers that disabled and ill people face when trying to secure employment. She faces a six-month wait for an assessment for Access to Work. How can this Government expect more disabled people to work if they have to wait six months just for an assessment? Joan told me that it is a degrading process to have to work without adjustments. She has to push herself through pain and fatigue, because she does not receive sick leave during her probationary period. If Joan moves jobs, she will have to start over again, despite a registered record of her need adjustments. This is just one example of the lack of full and effective investment in supporting disabled and chronically ill people into work.

The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has told me it is concerned about those using PIP to pay rent and bills. It also expressed the view that this rushed legislation does not truly apply more pressure on or give more support to employers to make accommodations for disabled people. Instead, the Bill will protect the status quo, and the onus to get support will be on the individual, not the employer. It asked:

“What will happen to 16-22 year olds who no longer get Disability Living Allowance and don’t quality for PIP?”

These young people will fall through the cracks and be pushed into poverty.

By bringing forward this Bill, which could amount to the biggest cut to sickness and disability benefits in a generation, it is clear that there is no sense of the real-life impact it will have on hundreds of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across the constituencies represented by Members of this House.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm what he thinks is the extent of the cut, because my understanding is that spending is still going to increase? Can he also confirm if the cut, as he sees it, is even bigger than the cut his party forced on the poorest in this country when in coalition?

[Mr Morrison]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but these are the voices of my constituents, whom I am here to represent. Labour Members can talk about the coalition Government all they want, but I am talking about the here and now, and Members of this House will be judged on which Lobby they vote in later.

It is ironic that the Government have introduced a child poverty taskforce, yet through this Bill are actively undermining that work towards alleviating child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, because of this Bill, following the so-called mitigations from the Government, 54,000 children will be forced into poverty, which is the equivalent of 1,800 full classrooms.

Disabled people, and all benefits claimants, should be thoroughly consulted before legislation is rushed through. If the Government will not listen to the voices of my constituents and the constituents of other Members, then maybe they will listen to the voices of respected charities such as Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust, and Mind. They are all urging the Government to change course.

The Bill will likely reduce support to millions of disabled people, pushing at least 150,000 people into poverty. Food bank use will undoubtedly soar. Worklessness will grow and the Government will, ironically, add even more to the unemployment figures that they are so desperate to bring down. The charities rightly warn, despite the last-minute changes the Government have hurriedly introduced, that adult social care services, NHS services, housing and homelessness support, the justice system and advice services will be catastrophically stretched, with many organisations facing breaking point.

The Government know that there are multiple other ways to ease the country’s finances, but they are making a very deliberate choice to penalise a group of people who have neither the strength nor the time to fight it. It is absolutely shameful. Unless the Government scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, child poverty will be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the start. Is that really the legacy this Labour Government want to leave?

Finally, I urge the Government to think of the stories of Amy and Joan, and to reflect on the very real and personal impact that the changes will have on them and the millions who share their story. The Government must change course without delay. I am sure I speak for many in this Chamber when I say that we came into politics to fight for the most marginalised and vulnerable in our communities. If the Bill passes, we will have all let them down.

Winter Fuel Payment

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. It is important that those in need of healthcare, in particular, receive support. It is not that we see higher levels of challenge in keeping the heating on among older generations; it is about the consequences of that, particularly in cases such as the one she raises. That is exactly why we need to ensure that we are turning around the NHS, which all the constituents of hon. Members in England are relying on. We are seeing improvements to waiting times in Wales as well.

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

I thank the Minister for his leadership on this issue. If he is looking for examples of how to increase the uptake of pension credit, he is welcome to visit my constituency to see the work that the Community Help and Advice Initiative is doing with Gate55 to maximise benefits. If he comes along to one of those sessions with the Dove Centre, he can also get a warm meal and a game of bingo. But the £35,000 threshold is much more generous than I, as a tight-fisted Scotsman, would have expected, so will he explain how he reached that value?

[Torsten Bell]

It is a fair question. All means-test thresholds do involve judgments—I have been completely honest with the House about that—and the judgment we have come to is that we want to see the vast majority of pensioners receiving the winter fuel payment. We want to be absolutely sure that no lower-income pensioners will miss out. That is what brought us to a £35,000 threshold. It also means that those on higher incomes—the richest 20% or 25% of pensioners—will not receive it.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Scott Arthur Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

That was 1998!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this debate on the back of the petitioners.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck in the Chair]

How many of us were elected to this great place to damage the prospects of our children? I would hope that the answer is none, but that is the direct consequence of this ludicrous policy to tax education. I think we are the only country in the developed world to do so. The unintended consequences are truly shocking. Within a fortnight of the policy coming into force at the beginning of this year, some four schools announced they were closing this summer—over 1,000 children were immediately plunged into uncertainty about where they were going to school and who were going to be their friends. The anxiety that that put on them as children, let alone their parents, should shame everybody in the Government. Tens of thousands of pupils will end up leaving the independent sector—and it is independent, not private, because most independent schools are charities that reinvest their surpluses.

[Dr Arthur]

I have independent schools in my constituency, and the challenges we face with this policy are real, but the numbers people are citing make it difficult to talk about those challenges. People have said that tens of thousands of students are going to move from the independent sector to the state sector, but I do not think anybody really thinks that is going to happen. Those sorts of numbers make it really difficult to have a serious debate about this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that “tens of thousands of students” is perhaps at the upper end of estimates?

[Richard Tice]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me to declare a historical interest. Not only did I have children in independent schools, but I was the chairman of the finance and general purposes committee for a significant independent school over the past six or seven years; I finished just before the election. Even when this policy was announced as a prospect, I saw an immediate drop-off in applications for places at that school, so I can confirm with absolute experience that tens and tens of thousands, if not 100,000, will leave the sector.

Surely, of all children, those whose prospects we want least of all to damage are those with special educational needs, yet that is where the independent sector excels. Let me give a small example from the county of Lincolnshire. I got a letter from a constituent who can no longer afford to send two children, both with special educational needs, to the independent school. They are going to have to go into the state sector, where there is a capacity crisis that we keep hearing about in the Commons. Because of the distance, she cannot provide the travel, so the county council has to provide it. For those two children alone, the annual cost of taxis is £20,000 per child. This is absolute insanity, I would respectfully suggest, Mrs Lewell-Buck—it is lovely to see you.

So we have damage to children and the worst of all worlds. Then we look at the prospects of children in the state sector, and we hear that the policy is going to pay for 6,500 teachers. That is about one teacher in every four or five schools—three, it is thought, in the secondary sector. Seriously? When we look at the extra children who will go into the state sector—the tens and tens of thousands—we see that actually there will be more pressure on existing class sizes and the existing teachers, who will therefore be able to dedicate less time per child in their existing school. The prospects of children are damaged not just across the independent sector, but across the whole of the state sector, under this deeply misguided policy.

I touched earlier on the cost. When the policy was announced, it was to raise £1.5 billion, and suddenly it is £1.8 billion. I suggest it will raise the square root of net zero. The reality is that schools will be recovering input costs, including on capital schemes. The reality is that schools will be losing children to the state sector. The reality is that bursaries will have to be slashed. We have heard about some schools giving hundreds of free places. All these things will put extra costs on to the state sector—the state schools—as well as the pressures on county councils’ taxi budgets, which is ludicrous.

From an educational-quality point of view the policy makes no sense, and from a cost point of view it makes no sense. There was an opportunity for the Government to say, “You in the independent sector are doing some things really well, particularly with regard to special educational needs, so we would like the independent sector to help us a bit more—share some of your expertise. Can you give some more places for special educational needs?” That was the opportunity, and I can tell Members that the independent sector would have welcomed with open arms a request to share expertise with local schools. That would have been the right thing to do to improve the prospects for everybody.

The other right thing to do to improve the prospects for everybody was to adopt the Reform UK policy during the general election, which was to say, “If you can afford to pay a bit more, we encourage you to take your children out of the state sector and into the independent sector,” and to relieve the pressure on class sizes by granting tax relief at the basic rate for those who sent their children to independent schools. That would have improved the prospects for everybody.

Those were the opportunities, but instead we have seen deep ideological socialism, with no evidence whatsoever that the policy will make any difference. It is discriminatory, because if it was logical, the Government would be applying VAT on university fees, because of course universities are elitist. Three or four in 10 youngsters go to university, so surely the same policy should be applied to universities.

Will the Minister confirm that if, when the legal cases go all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights—which some people love and some of us do not—the ruling from that court is that the policy is unlawful, the Government will agree with that ruling and apply it? This policy has no logic whatsoever. It is a tragedy for us all, but most importantly it is an absolute tragedy for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck.

In Windsor, we are very lucky to have some of the finest state and independent schools in this country, and I am proud to represent them all. One has already been mentioned; it is very prominent, but it is not very reflective of the situation in my constituency.

On two constituency visits this morning before I came into Parliament, I counted the independent schools that I passed. I passed six; 23% of the pupils in my constituency attend independent schools. The caricature that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said was always in the papers when independent schools are discussed does not reflect 23% of the parents in my constituency.

In my recent surgeries, I have had many parents who are really struggling with the proposed policy. Often, both parents are working, and one of them may have taken on a second job. In many instances, they have remortgaged their house. They have gone without. Many marriages are under pressure, and I am concerned about those parents and their children.

Because we have such a high percentage of independent schools in my constituency, they are not the only ones affected, even though they might be the most directly affected. The displaced children hit my state schools, and that means our state sector is bracing for an influx of children that it will struggle to accommodate. That is why I think this is a false choice: it should not be state versus independent.

Our schools are an ecosystem, and they are all valuable, because education is a public good. It promotes social mobility, strengthens our economy and benefits society at large. No other country in the world tries to tax it. When they have tried—as in Greece, where it lasted only four months—it has massively backfired. In fact, many developed countries look to subsidise independent education to promote parental choice and drive up school standards, so the Government are unique in their policy and, frankly, their vindictiveness.

Whenever the Labour Government hike taxes, there are unintended consequences. Just as their jobs tax is hitting charities and hospices, their tax on independent schools will hit military families and the 130,000 SEND pupils who are currently in independent schools. Many of the parents I have spoken to use those schools as a way of giving their children that extra bit of support that they would struggle to find in the state system. I think every single Member of this House recognises the challenges facing their local authority when it comes to SEND provision.

From my involvement with the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire chairs, it is clear that getting an EHCP is already an uphill struggle, and taxing independent schools will create the most regressive possible outcome. It will add to the pressures already facing our local authorities, and the SEND children in the existing state provision will pay the highest price.

In a similar vein—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) discussed this—2,666 military families in this country rely on independent schools to give their children a stable education. For those families, VAT relief can make all the difference. I previously co-signed a letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) sent to the Chancellor, calling on the Government to protect from VAT military families who make use of the continuity of education allowance.

Although the Chancellor has committed to re-rating CEA, I maintain that the full exemption from VAT is needed to truly support military families. That would make a real difference to those enlisted at either of Windsor’s two great garrisons, to whom we owe so much. That support should be given special consideration in the light of the Prime Minister’s discussions over the weekend and in the House today.

Labour Front Benchers frequently refer to parents who pay for independent education enjoying a tax break, but parents actually save the state £8,210—the money it costs to educate a child in the state sector—and receive no compensation for the income taxes that they pay. In my book, that is no tax break at all. Frankly, the numbers do not add up. The Adam Smith Institute has estimated that if even 10% of children move to the state sector—anecdotally, in my constituency I am seeing more than that—any revenue will be nullified. Any more than that 10%, and the policy will actually cost taxpayers money. That highlights the ideology behind the decision.

In my view, the Labour party is playing politics with children’s futures. It is forcing families to have difficult conversations mid-year and make tough decisions. The saddest conversations I have had have been with parents who have felt the need to separate children from classes mid-year. Frankly, only a Labour Government could set out with the aim of improving education in this country and introduce policies that have led to 40 school closures since the Budget.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member is talking with great understanding about the schools in his constituency, including state and independent, which is fantastic to hear. But we have heard in this debate about full state schools in England, about overloaded schools and underfunded schools. He will acknowledge that funding had to be found somewhere to try to fix the problems. We have one solution. Is there an alternative?

[Jack Rankin]

My point is that this will not raise any money. It will exacerbate the problem, because if 10% of the students are displaced, that nullifies the revenue.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that all our local authorities are under some kind of financial strain, and the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is under more than some others. One of the biggest exploding bills on its books is the school transport budget, which this policy harms by putting another unexpected pressure in the system that local authorities will have to pay for. I do not know whether that is in the numbers; perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

I find it almost humorous that some teachers’ unions—it is not often that Conservative Members agree with them—are raising concern about the impact of this policy on staff and pupils in state schools. After only a few months, we are seeing pupils being taken out of private school at three times the previous rate. We will have to wait until September to see the full extent of the damage, as many parents are doing everything they can to get to the end of the school year before, sadly, taking their children out of the schools they love.

In this country, we should be aiming to set the highest standards across the board, using schools that excel in the independent and state sectors as examples of what can be achieved. Labour would rather cut down that aspiration in return for uniformity. We are seeing this attack in their dismantling of the academy system, which has blossomed under successive Governments of all colours. Far from guiding the invisible hand, Labour’s education policy is strangling the school system. I wholeheartedly reject this “politics of envy” policy, which places politics above children, families and the good of the country, but if the Government are determined to stick with it, I urge them to introduce full exemptions for all SEND children, military families and specialist schools.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The issue that my hon. Friend raises is so important, and Sir Charlie Mayfield, who will be running our “Keep Britain Working” review, will indeed look at best practice among some great employers who understand what needs to happen to help disabled people get work and stay in work. If my hon. Friend writes to me about that exemplar working, I will make sure that he sees it.

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

Yesterday I was proud to host a reception from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, at which I heard that, across the UK, people with failing eyesight are not getting the support they need from the health service, from local authorities or from employers, and that they are falling out of work because of this. Can this be addressed as part of the programme being outlined today?

[Liz Kendall]

We will certainly speak to the RNIB to ensure that those points are included as we take our “Get Britain Working” White Paper forward.

Food Banks

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this debate, which has been quite interesting so far. I welcome the debate, and make my contribution within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Food poverty is a massive issue in the UK generally and in Scotland specifically. Like others, I want to start by thanking everyone in my constituency who is working to address food poverty. In the past few weeks, I have met people from Oxgangs Neighbourhood Centre, Community for Food, Soul Food Oxgangs, Space at the Broomhouse Hub, and the Open Heavens Edinburgh church in Wester Hailes. They are all doing great work to fill empty stomachs.

Members have spoken at length about the need to reform the welfare system, and I think we are in broad agreement about that issue. A key conclusion so far is about how groups in our communities, particularly faith groups, have rallied to the cause. We also have to think about the long-term causes that underlie poverty, and key to them is education. If we want to break the cycle of poverty that people inherit from their parents, we have to invest in education. Too many children, particularly in Scotland, are in an intractable situation. Education is key to improving their life chances, but poor nutrition is a barrier to their making the most of it.

On top of that, the education system in Scotland is holding people back, because it is just not a priority for the Scottish Government. This is shameful, because we know that education is key to ending the cycle of poverty. And it is not just about schools: our universities are underfunded as well. University places are capped, and although Scottish students do not pay fees, the fees that Scottish universities do receive are £2,000 below what universities receive in England, and we know how stressed the situation is in England.

Yes, increasing food bank use is shameful, but we have to be honest about the underlying causes of poverty. We have to accept that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government can be proud of their record over the last 10 or 15 years—I am disappointed that there are not more Conservative colleagues here to talk about their record—and we have to be honest about the factors that underpin poverty. We will succeed in creating a prosperous nation without poverty only if we create the conditions for good jobs, genuinely affordable housing, income security and meaningful opportunities that drive justice and give people hope.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

No.

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

I was reassured by the Minister’s response that we will soon see a reply to that letter. My constituents are not fools—they can see that while Opposition parties oppose the cut, they are not proposing how they would fund the payment. My constituents also see the desperate lack of people claiming pension credit. I put on the record my thanks to Age Scotland for its guidance to my staff on how to ensure that more people in my constituency claim it. The letter refers to winter fuel payment claimants in England, Wales, the EU, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway, but not Scotland. Is that because in Scotland, the Scottish Government have the power both to maintain the winter fuel payment and to fully fund it?

[Emma Reynolds]

Yes, as I understand it that is in the Scottish Government’s gift.