Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

What the Treasury does accept is that at this Budget, the Government had to make the decisions to ensure that we could increase our fiscal stability and get borrowing falling in every single year. The previous Government were not able to control our public finances, and yet in every year of this forecast, borrowing will be falling, and we have more than doubled our headroom to £21.7 billion.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Go on—that’s helpful.

[Dr Arthur]

I always try to be helpful, and I thank the Minister for giving way.

There was a lot of speculation about the Budget, but a lot of that came from the Opposition Benches. Every single clickbait headline was repeated in the Chamber to fuel speculation. It was incredibly damaging—does the Minister not agree?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree that the Opposition are incredibly damaging for the economy.

The clean-up operation of the disaster zone that was the last 14 years is well and truly under way. Our economic plan is working, with growth up, employment up, interest rates down and borrowing falling, with a Labour Budget focused on the British people delivered by a Labour Chancellor making the fair and right choices. We reject this absurd monologue of emotion from the Conservatives, and we will stick to our plan for a better Britain.

Question put.

Taxes

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch.

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

This is a serious point. People who are worried about the financial situation in the country will save rather than spend, whether they are private individuals or business. But is not the very aim of this debate to fuel that speculation and make people feel more anxious?

[Dr Spencer]

We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My home town is Kirkcaldy, and a former MP for Kirkcaldy is Gordon Brown, of course. In the Blair-Brown Government, he did a lot of work to cut child poverty, which is something I am really proud of, and he cut pensioner poverty as well. Conservative Members should be absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK. I and my colleagues on these Benches, I am sure, will do everything we can to reduce child poverty—including, I hope, removing the two-child cap.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.

Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under you this evening, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing the debate so ably, and I agree with much of what he said. He presented a number of questions to the Minister on the operation of alcohol duty, but one question that was perhaps missing was around the health impacts of having the wrong level of alcohol duty in the UK. I will touch on that in my speech.

In my life, English wine has moved from being a feature of jokes on sitcoms to a premium product—sometimes in terms of price, but more importantly in terms of its quality. I am pleased to see that Scotland’s wine industry is also growing. In 2025, so far five new vineyards have registered with Food Standards Scotland. I hope that this industry will continue to flourish and grow. I am proud to have the North British Distillery, one of Scotland’s oldest and largest Scotch grain whisky producers, in my constituency; I would be in trouble if I did not mention it. I hope that any consideration to changes on alcohol duty covers the whole of the industry in the UK, rather than just one part of it.

As much as I want these industries to thrive, and I absolutely do, we must be conscious of alcohol’s public health implications. It is our responsibility to find the right balance, with an alcohol duty that works for businesses, as we have heard, but that also supports public health. We need an alcohol duty system that works for our wine industry, supports the hospitality sector and improves public health. I shall talk about informed moderation when it comes to drinking. I am not here to lecture anyone—I enjoy a drink, like everybody else—but I am a real advocate of awareness of the implications of consuming alcohol.

I am concerned about four things, really. I think that drinks are getting stronger; that has certainly been the case in my lifetime, and it is to the detriment of the taste of some wines. We are drinking more at home post covid, and that has real health implications. I also have to say that I am eating more crisps at home as well post covid. [Laughter.] It is a serious point, actually. Our hospitality industry is under huge pressure, and this impacts on the vibrancy of our high streets.

We have a duty to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of drinking. Recently, I met representatives from Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. They told me that in Scotland in 2024, a total of 1,185 alcohol-specific deaths were registered. That was the lowest number registered since 2019—something that we should celebrate. It is perhaps, in least in part, due to minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland, but it still shows the damage that excessive alcohol consumption can do, and it remains too high in Scotland and elsewhere.

By choosing to consume lower strength alcohol, we can continue to enjoy drinking and the benefits that it brings us on social occasions, while also addressing the harms caused by alcohol. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking quite seriously to meet their commitment to label alcohol, just as we did as a country with cigarettes, to make people more aware of some of the risks that come with drinking. For example, the World Cancer Research Fund told me that alcohol-related breast cancer can be caused even by low levels of consumption of high-strength alcoholic drinks. Reducing the strength of alcoholic drinks can reduce the likelihood of this type of cancer. I have to say, they told me about this at the Labour party conference in Liverpool—not the best place to give people advice on drinking a little bit less. That is why I feel that a well-designed minimum unit pricing system across the UK is worth considering, alongside a meaningful and well-structured alcohol duty regime, but I understand some of the concerns around minimum unit pricing of alcohol.

Many people active in this sector look back to when Alistair Darling was Chancellor in the UK, and the changes that he made to the alcohol duty regime and how that directly related to improved health outcomes for people. That is something that we can learn from. I am always proud to say that I followed him, although there was someone between us, as MP for Edinburgh South West.

Alongside an effective duty system, it is also right that we encourage drinking in as safe an environment as possible, while supporting our hospitality industry. During a meeting with the Institute of Alcohol Studies last month, I was told that freezes in alcohol duty disproportionately benefit the sale of alcohol in shops, allowing supermarkets to maintain lower prices in comparison with hospitality venues. This is at the heart of so many pubs feeling the strain, because it is so much cheaper for people to drink at home than in pubs and other venues. Hospitality is a massive employer in the UK, and it is under huge stress. We need to look at taxation of alcohol right across the board to make sure that we are benefiting that sector while also reducing harmful drinking at home. An effective alcohol duty can support many of these jobs by closing the gap between the prices in pubs and supermarkets. That, in turn, encourages people to drink—hopefully, British-produced alcohol—publicly, which is far safer than consumption in private.

It is right that we take time to thoroughly consider alcohol duty, and make sure that it works for our wine industry and for businesses like the North British Distillery in my constituency. But we also have to see this debate as an opportunity to support the hospitality sector and improve public health. These are three really important things, and I do not envy the Minister in trying to reach a balance between them.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tax is a blocker on the aspirations of those who are growing their families and simply want to find a home with more bedrooms. Often, they cannot find those homes because empty nesters—those whose children have left home—are not prepared to face the huge, eyewatering stamp duty involved.

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

Is not the reality that people cannot find homes in England because his Government failed to build them while in power?

[Sir Mel Stride]

We built 2.8 million homes since 2010, and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this Government will build.

Another huge advantage of abolishing stamp duty is that it will generate more transactions, which will benefit more plumbers, electricians, builders, designers, estate agents, surveyors and conveyancers, and allow local economies to thrive. Above all, it will increase the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer society and a stronger economy.

Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the Minister give way?

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I shall take both interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I note that he took my intervention second rather than first—I am not offended!

On the position in Scotland, it is worthing remembering that Scotland’s Deputy First Minister said at the SNP party conference at the weekend that the Scottish Government want to scrap the EPL—sorry, I meant they want to replace it with something else. But, of course, she did not say what that something else was; it is slightly cowardly not to define that detail.

The Minister was talking about the strength of the renewables sector in the UK and how it is growing under this Government, and we all appreciate and welcome that, but that sector also needs continuity and a stable framework to work within. Does he therefore share my concern about the Opposition taking the decision to ditch the Climate Change Act, which has really unsettled the whole industry?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.

I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that, even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.

In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance—

Property Taxes

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Conservative party—I am sure that they are deeply felt and very genuine. What the Deputy Prime Minister should be doing is delivering more homes. It is quite clear that the target of 1.5 million homes, which the Government claim they will deliver at the rate of 300,000 a year, will not be met. I am quite happy to be proven wrong, but I very much suspect that I will not be, unfortunately.

We have ended up in a situation in which a huge black hole is looming. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research puts it at possibly as much as £40 billion. The economic mismanagement of the Labour party is a recurrent theme. In the October Budget—the Government’s first—there was headroom of about £10 billion against the fiscal rules. That, plus £4 billion more, was blown by the time of the spring statement—the emergency Budget. Once again, it appears that considerably more has been blown all over again.

That is no surprise. The U-turns on winter fuel payments and on welfare reform, which we have already discussed in this debate, led to unfunded commitments of around £6 billion—unfunded commitments after the Chancellor had said that the Labour party would never find itself in that position. What she said has simply not happened. What signal does it send to the markets when the Government cannot control spending? In the long-term, it will be interesting to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility has to say about its forecasts for growth. In recent times, 30-year bond yields have hit a 27-year high. We are paying more to borrow than Greece. There is a potential debt crisis looming, and this country could be on the brink—all on Labour’s watch.

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

The Government inherited bond yields higher than those in many other countries. Right now bond yields are going up in Japan, Germany and the United States. Is the Chancellor responsible for all that?

[Sir Mel Stride]

There is no doubt that under the previous Government there was a need to support the economy. That involved the expenditure of £400 billion, not least on the furlough scheme. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman’s party arguing at the time that we should not do that; in fact, it argued that we should go further still. The Conservative Government stepped in, supported jobs and saved us from going into mass unemployment that many feared would be worse than even in the 1980s, and I take great pride in that. But we are where we are now, and what the Government should be doing is growing the economy, stoking up business sentiment, getting taxes down and getting the economy moving, but they are doing precisely the opposite.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that the Government have renewed our commitment to regional airport capacity, with plans for a national policy statement to be published in due course. I am sure the Transport Secretary and her team are listening to him on the increasing costs for his constituents of those flights, which we would of course like to reduce, if we can.

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

As a civil engineer, I absolutely welcome the Minister’s statement, but I want to respond to it within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If he does not mind, I will start by giving him some advice. If he is going to meet his counterpart in the Scottish Government, do not mention Sheriffhall roundabout on the Edinburgh city bypass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) is laughing. Over the past eight years, there have been lots of reports but no delivery and the price has moved from £120 million to, I think, £300 million now—quite incredible.

On to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the long-term plan. There are kids at school today who will be involved in delivering it. I welcome the connection with schools and colleges, but my right hon. Friend will know that universities in England are under huge pressure and universities in Scotland are in crisis. What part will they play in developing the skills we need to deliver these projects?

[Darren Jones]

Our universities play a crucial part in our education and skills landscape. They are, of course, privately-owned organisations and so are funded separately from the departmental budgets we have allocated in the spending review. The money announced last week and in the infrastructure strategy today is for schools and further education colleges. Any further changes to help universities with their estates will be announced in due course.

Family Businesses

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

What my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position is probably correct. Businesses and farmers in my constituency think that the Government have sold them down the river and led them up the garden path—they are doing things that they did not think they would do when they were trying to get into power. We have not heard from the Government what they are doing to support businesses and family businesses.

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

The hon. Member speaks with great passion about his constituency, and I understand some of the concerns he has raised. He asks what the Government are doing. Apart from all the money we are putting into the NHS and all the money going into education, what are we doing? He earlier gave the example of a single person running a business about to employ their first person, which is a big step for any business—I accept that. But is it not the case that those small businesses will be paying less national insurance as a result of this Budget?

[Lewis Cocking]

Businesses in my constituency are putting off investing and employing local people because of the jobs tax and the Government’s proposed new regulation. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will say what the Government will do to create the next generation of entrepreneurs.

We could turbocharge the education system. There are lots of fantastic teachers in my constituency and across the country who do a sterling job for young people. We could say to people who have created businesses, “We will give you some money off your tax bill if you go back to your secondary school and teach not from a textbook, but from real life experience about how to create growth, jobs and businesses and enthuse those students about creating their own businesses.” People do not have to go to a maths class to understand maths. Someone who has run a business could come in and say, “Right, we’ve got to do your accounts now. You’ve got to see how much you are going to pay people and how much tax you will pay.” We could get people in from the creative industries. They could say, “Right, now you have to design your logo. How are you going to do that? You’ve got to design a TV advertisement for your product, for what you are going to sell.” We could be doing that. We could be thinking outside the box.

I have not heard what support the Government are giving to create the next generation of entrepreneurs. If we do not unlock their aspiration and continue to allow people to take risks and invest in their ideas, there will be no taxes coming in or money for public services. We must do this, and we must do it more regularly. I hope the Minister will tell the House how he will unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs and how we will support people to take what is, as I said, a massive risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that public spending is increasing faster than he expected. Perhaps he could outline where he thinks it should now be cut to make that good, starting with public services in his own constituency.

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Public spending is not increasing faster than I expected; it is increasing faster than his party told the country. That is the point.

The Treasury might not be what it once was, but even if we believed what the Minister said about the fictional black hole, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has disowned, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion does not reach even half of the £76 billion in extra Labour spending. I am not sure whether the Minister is listening, but he can intervene if he wants to explain himself at this point—he clearly is not.

What do we get for these extra taxes? The Home Office budget is being cut by 2.7% in real terms compared with last year. The Department for Transport budget is being cut by 2.5%, and its capital budget is being cut by 3.1%. That is economic illiteracy. This amounts to taxsterity —tax rises and spending cuts—to go with stagflation, or stagnation and inflation. That is Labour economics.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I find it difficult that the Labour party says that we are irresponsible with public finances, yet when we faced a once-in-a-century pandemic and spent £400 billion or £500 billion to support residents, business and families in Stoke and across the country, we decided that we needed to pay that money back and did not want debt to keep on rising. Yes, we made difficult decisions in the face of a global pandemic. There is no global pandemic today. This is a political choice, and that is the difference.

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

The hon. Gentleman is very kind in giving way again so quickly. The point has been made about the billions of pounds that were spent during the pandemic. Can he outline how much of that money went to Tory party mates and donors through dodgy contracts?

[Gareth Davies]

The hon. Gentleman was not here at that time, but those of us who were in Parliament then faced an incredibly challenging time in very difficult circumstances. Billions of pounds went to support businesses in his constituency; if he has a conversation with the average business that benefited from the furlough scheme, I am sure he will correct the record.

The problem is that socialists fundamentally do not understand or care what it means to have an idea, to take a risk or to work hard day in, day out to make a business a reality. That is the problem. They think it is all so easy—that profits just flow in. They think it will all be all right, because Government can step in and take us much tax as they want. That is not the case. If Government Members talk to the average business in their constituencies, they will find this out; if they set up a business, they will see it for themselves.

Perhaps most worrying of all, not only do the Government not understand the private sector, but they have completely overlooked the different ways in which the public sector provides for our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) set out. Whether healthcare, childcare or the charity sector, organisation after organisation has warned Ministers that this tax rise will impact the services they provide. That may not have been intended, but the Government have yet to act. That is why we have tabled amendments 13 to 15 and 16 to 18, which seek to protect certain key sectors from both parts of this tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

Finance Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

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

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I will try to confine my remarks to the subject of state education, because the scope of the debate has gone somewhat beyond what I have either the expertise or the time to discuss.

In view of the critical and urgent relevance of state education funding to the parents, pupils and other people of Falkirk, I support the removal of the VAT exemption on private school fees. When Labour entered government in July, we inherited dire public finances and broken public services, which required necessary decisions to be taken to renew the foundations of the country. The guiding principle of the tax decisions taken in the Budget was clear: those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share so that we could invest in our public services.

A critical part of investing in the future is investing in state education. I speak from experience as a former local councillor. Through no fault of the brilliant teachers and education officers who deliver state education, local authorities such as SNP-controlled Falkirk council have sought to reduce teacher numbers, close school swimming pools, cut additional support and even reduce valuable initiatives such as music lessons. This broader trend of council underfunding in Scotland, and throughout the United Kingdom, has left schools underfunded, newly qualified teaching posts scarcer and resources overstretched, and has left councils with very little room for manoeuvre. Tomorrow, at a meeting of Falkirk council, there will be a proposal on the table to cut learning hours across the Falkirk district, depriving a child educated in Falkirk of a year of learning time across his or her primary and secondary schooling journey, and leading to the lowest number of school hours anywhere in school. The Falkirk Labour group oppose that proposal, as do I, and they will vote for it to be taken off the table tomorrow.

In stark contrast to this crisis in our state education system, spending per pupil in private schools is nearly 90% higher than in the state sector as of 2022-23, and the gap between private school and state school spending per pupil has more than doubled since 2010. For all the chat about this measure leading to an unworkable hike in fees, its opponents must match their rhetoric with the fact that fees have soared, on average, by 55% in real terms since 2003 for those who choose to pay for their kids’ education. Lifting the VAT exemption on private school fees will raise £1.8 billion annually by 2029-30—funds that will, and should, go directly into state education. This is an essential funding stream that will help to relieve the financial pressures on local authorities’ education budgets, and it is being delivered by this UK Labour Government.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to spend all the consequential funding that will flow from this UK Labour Government’s decision on education, and I also welcome the tepid and understated support of SNP colleagues. I note that, again, no SNP Members are in the Chamber. It is predictable but disappointing that the Opposition say this measure sacrifices aspiration.

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

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in mid-flow. Is he surprised that SNP MPs are not here, given the absolutely shocking record in Scotland on education?

[Euan Stainbank]

I am surprised that our SNP colleagues are not here, but, again, I welcome their eventual and tepid support for this measure during the general election campaign—something that they have tried to distance themselves from.

I was proudly educated at two Falkirk state schools: Ladeside primary and Larbert high. Neither I nor the 94% of young people in the UK who are educated at state schools should ever feel like our parents or our teachers lacked aspiration for us. From my conversations with parents, pupils and teachers in Falkirk about their concerns about our state education system, I know that their overwhelming opinion is that we must now invest in our state education system as a priority.

If today’s decision is between billions of pounds going into state education annually and having £1.5 billion to £1.8 billion less for state education by maintaining a tax exemption for fee-paying institutions, I know what the people of Falkirk’s preference is. Falkirk does not need tax breaks for institutions that largely serve the wealthiest. Falkirk does need well-funded state schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who negotiated the Brexit deal. I want to put that on the record.

Colleagues from across the House have spoken frequently in recent months about the crisis facing SEND provision in this country, and we have heard so many stories of struggling families fighting within a failing system to get their children the education they deserve. After years of Conservative neglect, the system is on its knees. Just this week, we have heard from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the scale of the problem. Once again, its report laid out clearly the huge costs that have left local councils on the brink, while failing to deliver better outcomes for children. Two out of every three special schools are oversubscribed. Just half of education, health and care plans are granted within the statutory 20-week limit, and 98% of those rejected are granted on appeal when parents go to tribunal.

It is clear that the system is failing families and our vulnerable young people, so is it any wonder that parents who feel that their children’s needs cannot be met in the state system are turning to the independent sector if they can just about manage it? Small schools of less than 100 pupils make up some 40% of the independent sector. In so many cases, those are the schools that struggle and strive each day to provide desperately needed support for SEND pupils—support that, sadly, is all too often unavailable in their local state school. Those are the schools that will be punished under this measure, and the families who will need to bear the load. The Government have said that pupils who have been placed by a local authority in an independent school to fulfil the terms of their EHCP will be exempt from the VAT hike. Taken in isolation, that is a welcome mitigation to this damaging policy, but there are a whopping 100,000 SEND pupils in the independent sector who do not have an EHCP, and their families will be saddled with this VAT hike.

One such family came to see me in my surgery a few weeks ago. The parents were in tears in front of me. Their son has autism and various other needs. When he was in an excellent local state primary school, he was at risk of exclusion because of the behaviours that were manifesting as a result of his additional needs, which could not be supported in that state primary school. Those parents made the difficult decision to remove him and put him in a local private school, where he is thriving. He is coping well and his conditions are being well managed. His parents are not just paying the basic school fees; they are paying an extra £18,000 a year on top of the school fees for the additional support their child needs. All of that will be subject to VAT, which is why they were in my office in tears. They do not know how they are going to meet those costs to keep their child, who was at threat of being excluded from a state school, thriving. That is the individual human reality of this policy, which the Minister just waves away with numbers, as if these statistics do not have human stories and faces behind them.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member is doing a fantastic job representing her constituents, but she is describing a failed system where people with money can get access to better treatment for their children. No one envies a parent put in that position, but my hope and expectation is that through this policy we can improve outcomes for all children. I expect that she shares that objective, but we cannot do it by defending the existing system at all costs. This measure will raise income to solve the very problem that she describes.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman says that I am describing a failed system, and I am; I set that out. The SEND system is failing many children across this country, but I say to him gently—I made this point to the Minister in a similar debate a few weeks ago—that I do not think the level of investment that this measure will make in our state SEND system will fix that system. That will take many years and many billions of pounds, which I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have, and I do not think the answer to that is to penalise those who have scrimped and saved to be able to offer their children opportunity.

If I may, I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of another constituent who emailed me. She remortgaged her home, cashed in her pension plan and is struggling to be able to send her children to a local independent school after the local state school could not meet her children’s special needs. She said something that I think partly echoes what he is saying:

“Is this fair when other children with the same difficulties as mine are not able to access the same level of help? No. Definitely not. Believe me, I would never have chosen this route but I have been left with no choice. Is it fair to punish us further financially for the failings of the state education system? No!”

So I think the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, but I do not think the state SEND system is going to be fixed quickly or adequately enough, and I do not think the answer to that is to level down everybody’s opportunities. We need to level up opportunities for all and not penalise the parents who have made the often very difficult choice to ensure that their child has the opportunity that they wish to give them.