Labour MP: VAT charge on private schools could make elitist system more elitist
Rupa Huq raised concerns the Government's policy to apply 20% VAT to private school education and boarding fees could make an 'elitist system more elitist'.
The policy, which came into effect earlier this year, is aimed at raising money to fund state schools.
During a debate on the VAT changes, Ms Huq, who attended a private high school, said parents with 'genuine concerns' should not be demonised.
Speaking in Westminster Hall, the MP for Ealing Central and Acton said: 'As a parent, I would never dream of going private, but I can understand and accept that people do do this.'
She added: 'I can completely appreciate that people like my own parents at the time, make – and (Labour MP Alison Taylor) mentioned this as well – enormous sacrifices to send their children there.
'And I've heard this on the doorstep, you know 'we have the worst car, we never go on holiday', that was me in the 80s.'
She continued: 'These are people who consider themselves working people, so again, the strap line of the Labour manifesto was no taxes on working people. So I think we should be careful with our rhetoric sometimes.'
Ms Huq went on to say: 'The problem is the word private school implies a whole load of things, they are not all Eton. And some of the comms around this I think hasn't been done very sensitively.'
Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.
Capital at risk.
Terms and conditions apply.
'You get your smaller Send school, you get your smaller faith school, those kind of people, they're not all Eton is what I'm trying to say, and I think some of these comms are based on a caricature.'
Ms Huq said there could be 'unintended consequence' from the change and the policy will 'hand schools like Eton money back from Treasury coffers'.
She added: 'These elitist private schools, Eton, they've actually done quite well out of this, because they can cash in on windfalls from these new VAT rules.'
Intervening, Conservative MP for Windsor Jack Rankin, who has Eton in his constituency, said some of the points on Eton were 'a little bit unfair' because they 'do a lot in my community'.
Ms Huq replied: 'It's interesting to learn that, but they are still are going to be quids-in after this.'
Also intervening, Liberal Democrat MP Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) said: 'Will you give it up all this stuff about Eton? I speak as the mother of two old Etonians.
'I was a single parent, I worked three jobs. When (Damian Hinds) said there's more money from the old Etonian parents, there certainly aren't, not from this one.
'Eton hands out 100 boys plus a year completely free fees, they don't even have to pay for their pencils.'
Earlier in the debate, Conservative former minister Damian Hinds said 'there is probably plenty of VAT to be had from the parents of boys at Eton' but the Government has 'ignored' the concerns of low-fee faith schools or schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Ms Huq later said: 'My worry is it will just make an elitist system more elitist.'
Intervening, Conservative MP Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) said: 'What does she expect her Government and party to do then?'
Ms Huq replied: 'What I would suggest is possibly doing it on a turnover basis. So for your enormous schools that can afford it: yes. But then for the smaller ones that have been caught in this trap: no.'
Treasury minister Torsten Bell said: 'No one during this session is judging other parents' choices … the best education for children is also what motivates the Government to break down barriers to opportunity, ensuring every child has access to high-quality education.
'Every child includes the 94% of children that attend state schools. The reforms we debate today, to VAT and business rates, will raise around £1.8 billion a year.'
Mr Bell said the argument that private faith schools should be exempt is 'not compelling'.
He added: 'An exemption would reduce the revenue available for pupils in state schools, including those of faith.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
Flynn: Farage wrecked UK and threatens Aberdeen's future
Speaking on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, the SNP Westminster leader said it was astonishing that Farage, who was central to the Brexit campaign, has faced no accountability for the damage done. 'Finances are in a mess and the politicians are lost as to how you get out of that particular mess,' Flynn said. 'And yet the guy who orchestrated it … doesn't have to face the consequences of the economic damage that Brexit has done to the UK.' READ MORE: UK Government facing legal action over refusal of medical evacuations from Gaza Flynn was clear about the scale of the crisis: 'It has made us smaller and it has made us poorer.' He urged Labour to take a stronger stance against Farage, saying: 'If the Labour Party want to defeat Nigel Farage, they need to accept the premise that Brexit has been a disaster.' Realigning with the EU, Flynn argued, is the best route to economic recovery. 'The best way to grow the economy and to get our public finances in a fit state is to realign our relationship with the European Union.' Flynn also addressed Reform UK's impact on recent elections, pointing to their 26% share in the Hamilton by-election. But he rejected the idea that Reform is eating into SNP support. 'The SNP vote in that election reflected what national polling would suggest,' he said. 'It's the Conservatives and the Labour Party who are feeling it.' READ MORE: When 'critical friends' fall out: Angus Robertson's Israel meeting details revealed Taking aim at Farage's recent attacks on Scotland's renewables, Flynn said: 'The best way to take Nigel Farage on is to deal in the facts with him, to say to him 'if you are going to come after Scotland, you are putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs'. "You're going to leave cities like mine [Aberdeen] looking like Detroit in 30 years' time, rather than an expansive, future-looking city which exports its skills and expertise across the globe.' 'He wants to sabotage our renewable future to serve his own ideology, and whilst doing so, doesn't have to face any of the consequences for decisions he's made in relation to collapsing the UK's economy with Brexit."
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Landlords must lose the fight over Scotland's rent controls
Last year, the government declared a national housing emergency, recognising record levels of homelessness, the toll high rents are taking on tenants, social housing waiting lists of nearly a quarter of a million across Scotland, and disrepair rampant across our housing stock. Yet as Professor Duncan Maclennan points out, the 'housing emergency' is a misnomer. Read More: This so-called emergency did not happen overnight; it has been created by design through the privatisation of our housing stock and unregulated growth of the private rented sector. Scotland's tenants have faced the hard end of these economic decisions for decades, and bold structural solutions are urgently needed in response. Tenants don't have time to wait. Rent controls, as outlined in the Housing Bill, are an important first step towards ending decades of housing misery. Robust, universal rent controls which have the ability to bring rents down could begin to transform our housing system by making private rented accommodation more affordable and disincentivizing exploitative landlordism overall. It's important to state that forms of rent control seen in recent temporary measures have included too many loopholes for landlords to exploit. Any exemptions to upcoming rent controls would create a multi-tier system, leaving thousands of tenants open to unregulated rents and undermining future policy efforts. The current consultation on rent controls has laid bare the Government's intention to appease landlords by introducing significant exemptions to rent controls. Ruth Gilbert, national campaign chair of Living Rent (Image: Newsquest) At this last hurdle rent controls are under threat. Since the government first committed to rent controls, the landlord and developer lobbies have eroded support for proper regulation of the private rented sector among politicians. The constant barrage of criticism - combined with empty threats of a mass exodus of landlords - have pushed a pliant government into conceding to appease the market at the expense of tenants. The most egregious exemption proposals concern 'build to rent' developments. The government has proposed a suite of amendments designed to encourage these sorts of developments, but this dangerous trend towards large-scale private developments is not something they should sensibly support. Build to rent properties are expensive, and beyond the reach of most tenants. Anyone who has walked through either Glasgow or Edinburgh recently will have seen these buildings springing up alongside billboards that promise convenient locations, fun perks, and luxury accommodation. Worryingly, this is just the start of the build to rent boom, over 3,800 units have been built, and there are 12,767 still in the pipeline. This explosion of the sector should highlight that it does not need any further government incentives. Indeed, across the UK the industry received over £1bn in investment from North America in the last quarter of 2024 alone. Developers' push for exemptions only highlights the business model they are touting. The bill, as introduced, already allows for above inflation rent increases, and so lobbyists' greedy demands for more exposes a model that is more concerned with creating dividends for overseas investors than delivering on the needs of Scotland's people. The government is deeply misguided if it thinks that expensive, luxury accommodation is going to fix our housing emergency. These are development sites which can and should be used for much-needed and genuinely affordable housing for social rent. Also proposed for exemption are mid-market properties. Mid-market tenants are some of the most vulnerable in our housing system. Apparently designated for tenants with low to middle incomes, mid-market properties exist to ensure that those unable to afford rents in the private sector and who cannot access social housing are able to better afford their housing costs. By threatening to exclude mid-market tenants from rent controls, this will see mid-market landlords able to increase rent however high they like with tenants left with no recourse to challenge it. For example, this summer at Water Row mid-market development in Govan, tenants were hit with a 10.6% rent increase after being given a rent increase of 39% before they had even moved in. The rent increase was delivered despite a previous commitment to keep rent below the local housing allowance. However, tenants had no legal recourse to challenge. It was only through Living Rent members organising together and fighting back did the landlord eventually concede and cancel the rent increase. This government needs to stop listening to the empty threats of landlords and legislate to protect those who have been most impacted by decades of mismanaged housing policy. Scotland's tenants need universal and comprehensive rent controls that bring rents down. Anything short of this will ruin the housing bill, undermine the possibility of a more just housing system for years to come, and damage the wavering trust that Scotland's tenants have that politicians will take the urgent action needed to end the national housing emergency. Ruth Gilbert is the national campaign chair of Living Rent
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Young Scots back UK Government decision to lower voting age
Of course, here in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been able to vote in Holyrood and council elections since 2016. So what do young Scots think about the decision to expand voting rights, and which party could benefit most? SNP activist Alex Gill said a "stronger youth voice" could convince the UK Government to pursue more progressive policies. The 22-year-old said: 'This will reshape the electorate and elevate issues that matter most to younger citizens such as action on climate change, access to affordable housing and opportunities for fulfilling work. 'Successive UK governments have shown little appetite for strategic, long-term policymaking, too often chasing short-term optics. With luck, a stronger youth voice will hopefully pressure them to start rectifying that failure. Read more: Shane Painter, a Scottish Conservative who was one of the youngest parliamentary candidates in 2024, is also in favour of expanding the franchise. He said: 'Lowering the voting age to 16 is a good move. It might finally force parties to speak to young people's concerns. In Scotland, 16-year-olds can already vote and they take it incredibly seriously. Painter had strong words for his own party's positions on young people, noting: 'Conservatives must stop being the party of pensioners, back housebuilding, scrap the triple lock & WFP, and invest in the future and young people if we ever want to be in government again.' Painter's position is somewhat unique among members of his party. Former Tory MP candidate Shane Painter. (Image: Aberdeen Conservatives) In the House of Commons on Thursday, Conservative shadow housing, communities and local government minister Paul Holmes told MPs: 'This strategy has finally revealed [Labour's] ambition for allowing a 16-year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party. 'So, why does this Government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in? That position was echoed by Joshua MacLeod, the chair of the Scottish Young Conservatives, who told The Herald: "This is just another rushed headline with no serious thought behind it. It's yet another case of Labour trying to rewrite the constitution to suit their own electoral interests. "If voting is meant to reflect adult responsibilities, then let's have a proper debate about adulthood. Not just a spontaneous change to mask their political weakness." Calum Mackinnon, who was unable to vote in the 2019 general election due to his age, says extending the franchise would be a step in the right direction. He told The Herald on Sunday: 'I was literally weeks away from turning 18. It felt like my almost 'mature enough' voice was going to be missed out on by about 60 days. In 2016, Brexit focussed my mind firmly towards independence, having been more sympathetic towards a No vote in 2014. 'Even as a young S2, I still remember 2014 so clearly and how it changed Scotland forever. Having lived and studied in the EU post-Brexit, I am a fierce advocate – despite its imperfectness, so I would have 100% voted in the 2019 general election.' Ellie Gomersall, the Scottish Greens activist and former president of the National Union of Students Scotland, also spoke out in support of the change, which she says is long overdue. Gomersall noted: 'From cracking down on their right to protest, to stripping them of their disability benefits, Westminster governments have consistently failed to represent the needs and interests of young people. 'This change means that young people will be able to have their say in the decisions Westminster takes that have a huge impact on their lives. However, Gomersall believes the government should go further, and introduce legislation to abolish 'the utterly undemocratic first past the post system' and 'replace the unelected – and overwhelmingly old and male – House of Lords.' Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall. (Image: Ellie Gomersall) What about concerns raised by some that teenagers aren't mature enough to make informed decisions about who to vote for? Mackinnon, now 23, concedes that 'nuance' is often lacking at 16. 'It's a tough one,' he says. 'I think that nuance is difficult to obtain at 16/17. That being said, young people are always getting more and more aware and involved in our politics. 'I think, on balance, the young people who vote are probably interested enough to 'do the research' on what they want their politicians to achieve.' University student Caitlin Kelly, 20, shared similar thoughts. 'At 20 do I think differently than 16?' she queried. 'A bit less naive maybe but I largely vote the same. I think it is important to encourage young people to be part of the future of our country, and that is what voting at 16 does. 'When I was 16, the desire to vote was all the more prevalent except I then had the skills to read and research critically, and so being Scottish I was lucky enough to vote.' Fred Byrne, a student at the University of Aberdeen, agrees. 'Many 16 year olds have better informed political beliefs than their parents and grandparents,' he told The Herald. 'At 16, British youth can join the army or attend university, so it's only right they have been granted their long overdue right to vote. Young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future and will cast their votes for a just and sustainable world.' Will 16 and 17-year-olds be persuaded to vote for Keir Starmer's Labour? Hope Merriweather, who recently graduated from Dundee University with a degree in law, says she isn't sure if the change would boost voter turnout. 'I don't know if it would increase participation,' she told The Herald on Sunday, adding: 'I do think that the 16-year-olds that care should get to participate. 'I have some questions about 16-year-olds' ability to think critically, so I would want some level of education around it to prevent their parents from influencing their opinions too much. 'However, overall I think 16 and 17-year-olds have plenty of capacity to think and vote for themselves, as long as they are given the tools to do so. 'That goes for the entire population, the most important issue with voting right now is a lack of voter knowledge. If we could increase that across the board it would improve participation.' Will extending the franchise shift the balance of power, potentially giving Labour a bulwark from which to combat the rise of Reform among working class voters? A leading pollster believes it may. Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common told the Mail: 'Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers.' Read more: Meanwhile, Reform's Nigel Farage has hit out at the move, accusing Labour of attempting to 'rig the political system.' Gill believes that the lowering of the vote age could be a boon for the SNP. He said: 'The latest polling shows that 75% of Scots aged 16 to 29 back independence, and support is likely even stronger among 16 and 17-year-olds. "Therefore, expanding the franchise will certainly be a positive development for pro-independence parties.' Of course, with the next general election not scheduled until 2029, the UK's political parties will have ample time to court young people ahead of what could be one of this nation's most consequential electoral contests.
