PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Finance Bill - 11 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 47

Removal of exemption for private school fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 48 and 49 stand part.

New clause 8—Statements on charging VAT on private school fees—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to Parliament about the removal of the exemption for private school fees introduced by section 47 of this Act, and other changes to private school fees introduced by sections 48 and 49 of this Act.

(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) pupils with special educational needs and disabilities,

(b) small rural schools, and

(c) faith schools.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act being passed, make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make a statement about the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

New clause 9—Pupils with SEND without an Education Health and Care Plan: review of VAT provisions—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every six months thereafter, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in sections 47 to 49 of this Act on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on—

(a) children with special needs who do not have an education health and care plan (EHCP); and

(b) the number of children whose families have applied for an EHCP.”

This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Act on pupils who have special educational needs but do not have an Education Health and Care Plan.

Has the impact on the market of children being withdrawn from schools been greater than expected? In my time as a Minister, I always found that the Treasury rather underestimated the dynamic impact of policy change. I would be interested to hear his reflections.

If the intention of the Government is that the moves should happen at natural transition points, why did they decide to impose the change from January? Whatever one’s views on the merits of the policy, that is not really fair on the parents affected. Indeed, one could say it is cruel.

I must declare that I, like many parents in Surrey, have chosen independent education for my children. A freedom of information request earlier this week regarding empty school places in Surrey showed that in the ’25-26 academic year, there are zero spare places in year 9, zero in year 10 and zero in year 11. The Minister will know that in independent schools, many children in those years take international GCSEs and baccalaureates. What is his message to those children, who have no place and will have their exam training disrupted because of his spiteful policy?

The Minister continually refers to tax breaks. They are not tax breaks. Why can he not just be honest with the House and admit that this is the first time that any Government in a civilised democracy has imposed a tax on learning and education?

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am so grateful for the public finance lesson. Surely he has to accept that as no tax is placed on learning in any sector in the educational landscape across the United Kingdom, this measure is not a tax break. It is not that there is a tax break for one sector while others have a tax imposed. This is an imposition of a new tax in the educational sphere. It is not a tax break because no educational establishment pays VAT.

My constituents would be surprised that there is no tax exemption on tampons, which are used by close to 50% of society, yet there is a tax exemption for VAT on private schools, which are used by less than 5% of the country. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is a mark of the priorities of Conservative Members that they are so quiet about the former but not the latter?

One of the schools in my area has posed a question on VAT. It has combined fees, within which things like meals are included. It is not clear from Treasury guidance whether the school would have to separate those fees out, creating another accounting problem—in order to have separate VAT and travel, for example, as part of the fees—when currently it is all one unit. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? When I met the Schools Minister, he was unable to give me an answer, and was going to go away and speak to the Treasury about what that looks like. This will have real impacts for this school, which will have to decide how to set out its accounting, and whether it has to include the fees or separate them out into several different blocks.

A particular subset of pupils affected by this policy are those in receipt of the continuity of education allowance. The revised figures for the CEA, released recently, do not fully protect those pupils from the uplift on VAT on school fees. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this policy on retention and recruitment into our armed forces and our diplomatic service?

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition, and particularly to new clause 8. Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating the Bill. It comes after a Budget in which the Chancellor said that we must have

“an economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 811.]

But that is not what this Finance Bill delivers. Instead, the Budget is forecast to deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher inflation.

The Minister referred to choices, and the Government have indeed made choices. They have chosen to tax enterprise, to tax the wealth creators and to tax the farmers who are, again, outside Parliament protesting against the family farm tax—I wonder whether, on one of his rare jaunts to this country, the Prime Minister has gone out to speak to them. Rather than promote opportunity, it was the Government’s choice to bring in a new tax on aspiration.

My hon. Friend talks about choices, and one of the choices that independent schools are now going to have to make is how to use their own resources, such as their sports pitches, bursaries and scholarships. The kinds of things that benefited the wider local community may now have to be turned into fundraising and revenue-making machines to be able to deal with this change, which in turn means that other schools will not be able to use their community facilities, such as their football pitches. Those may all have to be charged more for, or indeed cut completely, as the independent schools have to make those difficult choices. That is not good for community cohesion at all.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Over our 14 years in government, one of the things that consecutive Education Secretaries did was to work with the independent sector precisely to open up those facilities, in recognition of the public good and benefit to their communities that they were delivering.

Further to the excellent intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that is exactly what happens with schools in my constituency. Haberdashers’ school partners with 1,400 state school pupils every single week. When the Minister talks about finding efficiencies, these are exactly the sorts of programmes that will suffer. There is no other place for those students to go if they leave private schools in my constituency, so on both counts everyone is worse off. That is one of the inequities of the policy.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which reflects the rash nature of the policy and the inadequacy of the impact assessment, which does not address those issues.

The shadow Minister speaks about a tax on aspiration, but what is his problem with having aspiration for all children in all our schools?

We are about the 100% of pupils. We are not trying to divide and rule like the Labour party.

I will make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Sadly, this cruel tax, which is being imposed midway through the academic year, will damage the education of thousands of pupils. It is sadly typical of the ideological approach that we have seen the new Government take on education, where they are trashing the record of schools, pupils, teachers and governors over the past 14 years when we rose up the international league tables.

Given that there are many on the Government Benches who had almost as their life’s work the destruction of the private school system, is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am that for this flagship policy, which the red flag has so often demanded, the Government Benches are so underpopulated? I thought that they would be there to cheer the Minister on.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will have been here throughout many of the debates on the Finance Bill, the national insurance and jobs tax Bill, where very few Labour Members have made contributions to defend their first Budget for 14 years. I think we all know why.

Clause 47 removes the exemption for private school fees and spells out what Labour’s education tax will mean from 1 January. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, doing that mid-year is a cruel measure.

Further to that point, I think one of the reasons there may be so few colleagues on the Labour Benches is because they stood on a manifesto that was all about economic growth, protecting farmers and holding down tax. That is what they stood on, but it turns out that they have a leftist Front Bench which has introduced this pernicious tax midway through the year, and we have an Education Secretary so filled with malice and spite that she cannot even bring herself to congratulate the state school that has been No. 1 in the country three years in a row.

My right hon. Friend makes a typically salient point. I agree, in particular about the lack of congratulations. The Education Secretary was not prepared to congratulate the head of Michaela school, which is the best performing school in the country.

Putting VAT on independent schools will particularly hurt those parents on modest incomes who are saving to send their children to a school that they think will best serve their needs. None of those parents is getting a tax break. They are also contributing to funding places in the state system, whether or not their child takes one up. The clause excludes the teaching of English as a foreign language, education at nursery and higher education courses from the new tax, but the Government have already crossed the line. They are taxing education and learning for the first time. Will the Minister rule out widening the scope of the education tax to include university fees, for example?

The Opposition are deeply concerned about the impact the tax will have on pupils with special educational needs, small rural schools, faith schools and schools taking part in the music and dance scheme. We have consistently warned of the damage it will do to young people’s education, and we voted against the measures in the Budget resolutions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the shadow Chancellor, would require the Chancellor, within six months of the Act being passed, to make a statement to Parliament on the impact of the changes on those groups in particular, as well as the music and dance scheme. That is needed because there is such a wide gap between what the Minister is telling us and what the limited impact assessment is saying, and what all hon. Members who are actually talking to schools and parents know will be the case.

The shadow Minister talks about talking to schools. I have spoken to schools in my constituency for many years, and I am sure he has spoken to the schools in his. The “School Cuts” website tells us that North West Norfolk has seen a £2.2 million cut in its state schools since 2010. Perhaps he could point to the record where he spoke out against those cuts.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he checks the record, he will see that the level of per pupil funding actually increased over the last 14 years. I congratulate the schools in my constituency that have just received good ratings from Ofsted—a number of them have done so.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

No, I won’t at this stage.

There are more than 100,000 pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in independent schools who do not have education, health and care plans, so they will be subject to this tax. That could make it unaffordable for the parents of those children to send them to the school that they think is best placed to look after them. There will be demand in places where there is not capacity as a result. A number of local authorities have pointed that out. That will just make the problems that councils face with their SEND budgets worse, despite the record amounts we have put into high needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this disastrous education tax risks having a severe impact on those children and pupils with SEND in independent schools? It will force children with SEND out of independent schools as fees become unaffordable for their parents and it risks overwhelming the state provision, as there is not sufficient state provision at the moment.

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The knock-on impact and the damage to those children’s education will be considerable.

More than 40% of independent schools are small schools. They are at the heart of their local communities. They do not have big endowments. They operate on wafer-thin margins and simply cannot absorb changes of this magnitude, so it is likely that those schools will cut bursary places that exist due to this new tax that puts their viability at risk.

On SEND funding, the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest funded local authority for SEND per pupil. Children in the Prime Minister’s constituency get three times more funding than children in mine, which is a travesty in itself. This policy will put even more strain on my local authority and the children who desperately need support from it.

Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government hide behind the cloak of saying, “If you have an EHCP, everything is okay,” but 100,000 children in schools across our country will be impacted.

The next area we are concerned about is faith schools, which tend to be smaller and charge lower fees. The Independent Schools Council has warned that

“Low-cost faith schools will be faced with deficit and closure, communities will lose vital assets”.

There are small religious groups that do not have any state sector provision that can meet their needs as a denomination. Religious groups are mounting legal challenges as a result, battling for the right to educate their children and battling for the right to choose, which we on the Conservative Benches certainly support.

New clause 8(3) refers to the music and dance scheme, which provides grants to talented young people who could not otherwise attend world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet school. We welcome the Government’s decision, under pressure, to delay taxing schools in this scheme until September next year, but that exemption should be made permanent.

To return to one of the points that has been made, in the Budget statement the Chancellor said:

“94% of children in the UK attend state schools. To provide the highest-quality support and teaching that they deserve, we will introduce VAT on private school fees”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

That is a deliberately divisive approach. The Opposition support 100% of pupils. We care about all children. We simply believe that parents should be able to choose.

We have consistently raised the situation of military families, to which the Minister referred, and argued that they should be exempt from this tax. The Government did not agree to that, but in response to our campaign they said:

“We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 3.]

Well, the new continuity of education allowances have been announced and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, they fall short of protecting service families from the changes. That will have a direct impact on the retention and recruitment of our armed forces. There are 4,200 children who benefit. The allowance is in place to meet the needs of the armed forces when they have to move around the country or serve overseas and boarding schools or other provision is the only available option. Given the importance of this allowance for the retention of military personnel, why have the Government not met the commitment that they made to our armed forces?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the veterans’ commissioner that will be introduced by the new Government will be perfectly primed to look at this kind of problem to ensure that both Departments—the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education—get the best? Is that not the purpose of the commissioner?

I very much hope so. I know from my years as an adviser in the Ministry of Defence just how important the allowance is for retention. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have broken their promise.

I am grateful to the many organisations that have shared concerns about the implementation of these clauses, especially as the measure is rushed and is taking place in the middle of the school year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has called for a delay, saying that it is

“concerned that neither HMRC nor the private schools will be ready to implement the change in VAT liability effectively”.

In order to meet the mid-term deadline, HMRC has to register the schools in just five working weeks—an issue that new clause 8 could address.

Let me start by saying how deeply and genuinely grateful I am to the Secretary of State for Education for providing the money to rebuild Tiverton high school following a 20-year campaign. I also want to disassociate myself from some of the comments made by Conservative colleagues. Some of them were personalised and vituperative, and I do not wish to be associated with them. That said—

Order. May I remind Members that interventions need to be on the point and to pose a question?

Blundell’s school is also in Tiverton. Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear that when canvassing in Tiverton, in areas that might be considered relatively poor, I met numerous grandparents who were saving money every month to help their children to pay for a better future for their own children at Blundell’s school, through bursaries?

I entirely agree with that point. Families come together to help out, perhaps to fund a place for grandchildren to give them the best chance in life. We are not going to criticise people who make that choice, but unfortunately the Government are singling them out with their vindictive measure.

This change also represents a significant complication of the tax system. Even HMRC seems confused. The guidance on VAT registration for private schools has undergone seven technical updates since its publication, and there is confusion—as has been mentioned—about the meaning of “closely related supply”.

On the subject of confusion, my hon. Friend will have observed that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) appears not to have noticed that VAT was removed from tampons on 1 January 2021 by the Conservative Government. Is my hon. Friend, like me, hopeful that the hon. Member—however ignorant he may be of changes in our tax law—may join us in the Lobby tonight to oppose this pernicious policy? That would be consistent with the views that he tried to espouse a little earlier.

We can but hope that the hon. Member will join us in the Lobby tonight, and also that he will one day develop the attuned knowledge that my right hon. Friend has of the tax system and the changes that were introduced in the last Parliament.

Let me add that the Association of School and College Leaders has said that there is

“increased anxiety among school leaders”

who are having to deal with the change in the middle of the academic year.

This is the first time an education tax has been introduced, which is why we need to oppose it and review its impact. The Government’s very limited impact assessment estimates that 37,000 more pupils will come into the state sector, at a cost of £270 million a year. It also concedes that there will be a loss of places equivalent to the closure of 100 more independent schools over the next three years than would otherwise be predicted. That assessment is thin, and the Government’s consultation was flawed.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The Government’s impact assessment also assumes that the loss of places will be spread uniformly across the country, which will not be the case. In many constituencies, particularly those represented by Conservatives, a large number of students are at private schools, and the loss of those places will have a significant impact on local schools where there are not the places to absorb them.

My right hon. Friend has his finger right on the pulse. The Government claim that there are plenty of places, but they are not in the areas where they will be needed. Members representing constituencies in Hertfordshire, Worcestershire and Buckinghamshire, for example, have already drawn attention to their concern about that.

The new education tax is damaging and unfair. We oppose it, and our new clause would ensure that the true consequences of this tax on aspiration become clear.

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.

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?

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.

We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, tabled in my name. It would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the imposition of VAT on school fees on pupils who have special educational needs, but who are without an education, health and care plan.

The Liberal Democrats have been absolutely crystal clear: we are opposed to this tax on education, and we call on the Government to rethink their decision. It is an unnecessary, unfair and counterproductive policy. In our manifesto for the general election, we laid out our ambitious plan for education, from putting a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school to expanding free school meals to all children in poverty and tripling the early years pupil premium. At the heart of that vision was the principle that education is the single best investment we can make. All our children deserve the opportunity to reach their potential, yet too many children are not being supported to achieve that potential. In our manifesto, we set out a whole host of fair tax rises to pay for our ambitious plan, which did not penalise parents for choosing to invest in their children’s education.

I gently point out to Conservative colleagues—who have rightly pointed out that this is the first time we are seeing a tax on education, which is quite wrong in principle—that the only reason why the Labour Government are able to do this is Brexit. The Conservatives supported the Brexit deal, so I gently point out to them that this is something that they supported in principle.

Like so many Liberal Democrats, the hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that her party was the first major party to call for a referendum. Brexit was supported by the British people, not the Conservative party. The leadership of the Conservative party at the time was in favour of remain. The people decided. It is about time the Liberal Democrats learned to respect the people’s choice.

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.

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.

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.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), one of the complicating factors in Scotland is that we have no way of knowing for sure whether the money raised from VAT on schools throughout the United Kingdom will go back into our state education system in Scotland, which is struggling just as badly as the system in England, if not more so. On the point about parents of children with SEND, is there not a danger that, rather than paying the extra fees, because they cannot pay them they will take their children out of independent schools and put them into the state sector, whose already overstretched resources will then be stretched even further, and everybody will suffer?

I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. I am interested in how this money will flow back into the Scottish system, if at all. The point, raised not just by me but by a number of hon. Members in the various debates we have had on this issue, is that this will actually put a much greater strain on the state system, and particularly the SEND system. That is my real concern here.

Faced with the coming price hike, many of the families I have described will be forced to choose between returning to the overstretched state sector, as my hon. Friend has just said, where their child’s needs may not be met, and trying to home-educate their child. This choice has wide-ranging implications not only for those individual families but for our economy and our society. My new clause 9 would force the Government to see through the implications of this damaging measure.

I repeat that my party and I are opposed on principle to the imposition of VAT on school fees, but if the Government insist on pursuing this damaging and counterproductive measure, they should do so with their eyes open. They should be clear about the damage this measure will do, they should be clear about how it will affect parents, and they should be particularly clear about how it will affect children with special educational needs and disabilities. New clause 9 aims to ensure that by laying bare the impact of this measure on those families and children, who are already struggling with a broken SEND system. It would also require consideration of the additional children who will be coming forward to apply for an EHCP, so that their parents may be spared the fee hike the Government are imposing on them for trying, as any parent would, to do the very best for their child.

I received an email from one parent who, when his child was in an excellent local state secondary school, was discouraged from applying for an EHCP because of the challenges involved. He made the decision to send his child quite far away to an independent school where his child is doing well. This gentleman emailed me to say: “Well, I am now thinking that we might try to get an EHCP because, over a seven-year period, it will save us an awful lot of money if our son is eligible for one.” We know the EHCP system is overloaded and in crisis, so how much more pressure is going to be put on that system? New clause 9 seeks to measure that.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support the new clause, and I urge the Minister once again to rethink this ill thought through policy.

No doubt the whole House will join me in congratulating the next speaker on his engagement. How lucky you are. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the entire House for its well wishes.

I rise to speak of how our reforms will raise tax revenues from the wealthiest and use that money to build prosperity for all, because that is at the heart of our governing spirit.

Building prosperity for all means creating prosperity for those who cannot afford a decent life, no matter how hard they work, including non-graduates who cannot earn enough to live and the young who cannot earn enough to afford the homes they need. Today, we are proudly raising money from those who can best afford it to create good jobs and build homes across our nation, to create an affordable life for everyone.

I take exception to this idea of “the people who can best afford it.” A lot of parents who send their children to independent schools cannot really afford it—they scrimp and save. I do not think it is fair to characterise them that way. If they are forced to remove their children from those schools, it will not be the schools that suffer, it will be their children, and an extra burden will be put on the state system. This is hardly raising money to help other people.

In my constituency, private school fees are £15,000 per child per year. As a point of fact, almost no one in the bottom 80% sends their children to private school. Overall, it is 6%, while more than half of the top 1% send their children there. While I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, it is not where the numbers are.

The tax changes we are debating today go to the heart of our governing philosophy that those with the broadest shoulders who benefit the most can carry the heaviest load. We all benefit from roads to drive on, a healthy workforce and hospitals when we need them. Those who gain the most benefit the most, and they are the ones we will ask the most from.

I think we all, across the Committee, share the general principle of the hon. Member’s vision of a future, more prosperous UK. Surely it makes more sense, though, to encourage people to not use the state for provision, that way saving the state money that can be used for other things.

The difference in our approaches is that I do not believe in running down the state sector so people have to use the private sector to get a decent education. Half of schools do not have the specialist maths teachers they need and a third of students fail their maths GCSE. We do have a difference in our governing philosophies.

I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member. He has talked about trying to create a fairer society. Does he want to see one in which the 100,000 children with special educational needs who attend independent schools cease to do so? As he will remember, another great economist, like himself, Milton Friedman said, “If you want less of something, tax it.”

I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words. As he will know, the Government are fixing things for those who need special education—there is a huge amount we have to fix in this country—and he should remember the VAT exemption for those with EHCPs.

For those who cannot currently afford a decent life, the situation has become increasingly bleak. Non-graduates and young people are locked out of the opportunities their parents had. Before the 1980s, non-graduates could leave school and find good jobs with decent wages in their local factory. Then came deindustrialisation that destroyed mid-pay manufacturing jobs and led to a divided nation, where non-graduate men have seen their employment rates fall by 20 percentage points since then. Today, twice as many young men as young women are unemployed and we see the political shocks reverberate around us. Manufacturing jobs have been destroyed and replaced by low pay and insecure service jobs that do not pay enough to live on.

A couple with two children, both on average wages, do not currently earn enough for a decent living. On top of that, young people cannot afford the homes they need. Around 40% of my generation are living with their mum and dad.

May I also extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend on this wonderful day for him and his family? He is making an excellent speech. On the specific point about housing, can my hon. Friend say a little more about his vision? [Interruption.] He was coming on to housing. Can he speak, in particular, about the needs of young families? In many medium-sized towns and cities across the country, such as Reading, which I represent, there is a need for more affordable housing, both to buy and to rent.

Order. Can we ensure that the interventions are clearly related to the debate in hand? I have no doubt that the answer will be.

By building the houses we need, we get the revenue from the tax changes we see today. Indeed, that is the entire point of our programme, in addition to the planning reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) referred to. From the tax revenue we raise from the measure we are debating and others, we will build a nation where every person has a stake in our society and a nation where working hard makes a difference.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will make some progress. We are creating good jobs through our measures in the green transition and the caring economy and yes, building homes for the young to live in. Our warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes and create tens of thousands of good construction jobs. Our expansion in early years childcare will see more women in work and tens of thousands more jobs. Our affordable homes programme means more homes for young people, and for those who are struck down by hopelessness—

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I assume that this is an appropriate point of order.

Is this what we are supposed to be discussing this afternoon? I obviously fail to follow its relevance to VAT on private schools, which is what I thought we were discussing, but I may be mistaken.

We are discussing private schools and VAT. I do not think that is an appropriate point of order, but, Dr Sandher, there is no doubt that you will bring your contribution very close to VAT and schools. I look forward to hearing that.

The point is that by ending the tax breaks for the wealthiest, we are able to raise the revenue that we need to invest in our nation’s prosperity. That is the point of the programmes that we are setting out—programmes such as “Get Britain Working”, the affordable homes programme, and the expansion of early years childcare. We need to raise that money from somewhere, which is why we are proud of the tax changes that we are making. We are creating a great nation where every single person and every single child can get a decent education and a great job and afford a decent home, and where we all know that working hard means that we can achieve a decent life. We are raising tax revenue from the wealthiest and ensuring that the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load, so that we can build a nation where every single person thrives.

I rise to speak to new clause 8, and to refer to clauses 47 to 49.

Clearly, just six or so months in, we will not have seen the full effects of these measures, but we will have started to see them. We will have heard whether there are concerns from faith leaders, and what the early effects are on the number of applications for EHCP plans and so on. It is also right that we have asked that, within 18 months of this Act being passed, we report back on the impact of the music and dance scheme, on which we know there has been a partial concession from the Government, but it remains a very sensitive area none the less.

The Government say that they expect to raise £1.5 billion from this measure in 2025-26, rising to £1.7 billion—I think—in 2029-30. They expect 3,000 children to be displaced in academic year 2024-25; 14,000 in academic year 2025-26; and 35,000 eventually. These are enormous numbers of children who could have their education disrupted. Parents will be denied a choice that would be open to them in most other places in the world. It is also important that we look at the assumptions behind these numbers from HMRC’s policy paper—they are the exact assumptions that may then come into question in that post-legislative review, which our new clause 8 calls for.

The Government first expect fees to rise by 10% on average as a result of these measures. In fact, the actual mathematical cost of putting 20% VAT on fees is, in fact, an increase in cost of about 15%, by the time we net off the ability to reclaim cost on inputs. More significantly, we must put it in the context of everything else that is going on. This year, we are also seeing a business rates increase for about half of private schools, an increase in contributions on the teachers’ pension scheme, and as with so many other sectors, a massive hike in national insurance contributions. Those are on top of any other normal cost pressures that other organisations might have. Those are three things, as well as the VAT increase, that are direct transfers from the independent school sector to the Exchequer. Although, technically speaking, they may not be the measures that we are discussing today, they very much affect the ability of schools to be able to absorb any of those price increases.

To inform their conclusion on how many children will be displaced in the private sector, the Government have, to an extent, relied on one statistic. They say that the number of private pupils has remained steady, despite a large real increase in average school fees since 2000. Considering price elasticity is a mathematically flawed approach. Up until very recently, we used to talk about 7% of children going to private schools. Now we say that it is 6%, because the proportion has come down. But at a time when pupil numbers have been growing, other things being equal, we would expect the number of children at private schools to have been increasing as the proportion stayed roughly constant.

Moreover, it makes no sense at all to look at gradual price increases over a 10, 20 or 20-plus year timeframe and to say we could conclude anything from that on the effect of an overnight price increase of 15%, 20% or more. The Government have come to the conclusion that we will end up with a long-run steady state of 37,000 fewer pupils in private education in the UK.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to interrogate the Government’s numbers. Does he share my concern around SEND provision with children returning to state schools and the fact that teaching assistants are not fully paid for in state schools? That will be an additional burden on those schools.

Of course, there has been a huge increase in the number of teaching assistants over the past 14 years, but the hon. Member is right that there are particular issues for children with special educational needs, which I will come on to.

The Government estimate that there will be 37,000 fewer children in private schools and of those, 35,000 will go to state schools. What happens to the others? Some will be international students who will not come to this country, so that is a loss of export earnings, and some will be home-schooled. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned that, and we have not talked about it a great deal, but it is significant. The Government will say, “It’s only 35,000.” That is like a pretty substantially sized football stadium if we picture the number of children whose education will be changed by the measure. They say, “Don’t worry because it is only a small proportion of the total number in state schools.” At the end of the day, the number is from a spreadsheet; there is no guarantee that it will be 35,000 or any other particular number. In fact, it is rather odd that they came up with a single number at all. I would think that in any economic analysis like this we would at least have a range in which there is a central planning assumption, but also a reasonable worst-case scenario.

More importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) mentioned earlier, the effect will not be even. I have lost count of the number of parliamentary questions I have put down trying to get out of the Government where they think those 35,000 children will show up, because there is a huge difference in where they show up. It is worthless having empty places in primary schools in inner London if that is not where the children will be displaced to from private schools. In broad terms, there will not be that much of an impact on state primary schools. There will be on state sixth forms in London, but the big effect will be on individual places, particularly in 11-to-16 education. They include not only in counties we might guess, but also Bristol, Bury, Surrey, Salford and a much longer list besides.

On why the proposed review is so important, and we need to examine this in the post-legislative scrutiny, the Government say the revenue costs will be £270 million a year. That is, in other words, the cost of educating those extra 35,000 in the state sector. They go on to say that they have calculated the number based on the average spend per pupil in England in 2024-25. That is wrong. It is a mistake to base it on the average pupil because we know children with special educational needs will disproportionately have to transfer, and that will have a higher cost to their education.

Moreover, we will get more families—we do not know how many—applying for an EHCP. The limiting case is where a child is in a private school right now and their parents are paying considerably more than the average place. They will find that they cannot afford the extra 20%, so they will apply for an EHCP and the child could get placed back in the same school, with the entire cost now being picked up the state.

Those at an independent primary school in my constituency told me that approximately 20% of their students would be in receipt of an education, health and care plan if they were in the state system, but have no additional requirements in their educational establishment, and a number of West Dorset pupils receive six-figure support. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that more students going into the state system will increase costs for local councils, and that independent schools save the taxpayer money?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I will come to exactly where the money to meet the costs will come from. We have talked about revenue costs, and the policy paper from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs covers that, but what about capital costs? What if whole new places need to be created? What if entire new year groups need to be created—or even entire new schools in some cities or local authority areas? Where is the allowance for the capital costs? Then there is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the question of how the costs will be met. The money follows the pupil, so a school will be reimbursed for any pupil who presents there—but after the census date, so it depends on exactly when the pupil turns up—but the question is: from where does the money come? Does it come out of central Treasury coffers, or will the Department for Education be told, “No, we have given you your annual budget, so if more children come into the state sector, you must fund them”?

Will councils be reimbursed additionally if more children come out of independent schools and get EHCPs, or will they also be told that they have to absorb the cost of that, and meet it from their already stretched budgets? Then there are the indirect costs, as trade unions have pointed out, such as teachers being made redundant and, because it is not the turn of the academic year, potentially dropping out of the profession altogether.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently and at great length about the needs of children with special educational needs. Does he regret the state of special educational needs provision in this country, and that some people feel that they have to pay because they cannot otherwise get the service that they would like for their children? Does he regret that legacy of the previous Government?

Look, I want every child to have the best education available to them. When I was working at the Department for Education, I regarded it as part of my job to ensure that nobody thought, “I have to send my children to a private school”—but I would not have denied them the choice. State school improvement over that time will be one of the things that drove the figure I mentioned from 7% to 6%. A huge amount of additional money is going into high needs. The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) shakes his head, but it is true; that is in the Treasury’s own figures. It is also true that demand has greatly increased. There is much more to do to ensure that we have the high-needs system and resourcing that we all want.

On the equalities impacts, it may surprise some people to learn that Independent Schools Council census figures show that the proportion of children from ethnic minorities, and, as we have been discussing, the proportion of children with special educational needs, is higher at independent schools than in the state sector. However, the really big equalities issue relates to faith. I am pleased that the Treasury seems to have dropped its earlier assertion that people of faith will not be disproportionately affected by the measures. That assertion can only have been based on the notion that most children of a religious faith are in state education anyway, and are mostly Catholic or Church of England and in denominational or non-denominational schools. However, we cannot pretend for a moment that families of the Haredi Jewish community, or who have children in Muslim independent schools, or who are of certain Christian traditions, will not be affected more than others.

To come to a close, this is a bad policy overall. Education is a public good that simply should not be taxed. That principle is observed by Governments of the left and right all but universally, right across the world. In this country, in education, there is no tax break; in fact, families whose children go to independent school save the state money. Independent schools cater for some needs, such as those met through the music and dance scheme and the needs of small faith groups, that the state sector simply does not. In any case, parents are entitled to choose what they think will be right for their child, whatever the reason.

This measure does not even do what we think gets Labour MPs excited about it. It does not hit its target, because not every parent with a child at a private school is rich, and believe it or not, in some of those schools, including some of the fee-paying Muslim or Jewish Haredi schools I mentioned, the cost of a place is less than the average cost at a state school. Here is the bigger point: there are plenty of parents with children at state schools who are wealthy. If Labour Members really wanted to soak the rich, to tax the wealthy, there are more efficient ways of doing so—and more honest ways of doing so.

Most importantly of all, this policy will have an adverse effect on state education, especially in places where secondary schools are already or almost full. Labour challenges us to say whose side we are on—do we stand with the 94%, or with the 6%? We refuse to choose, because they are all children. There is no need to set one part of our education system against the other, and this tax will be bad for both.

In my constituency, thousands of hard-working families diligently strive to give their children the best possible start in life. Some choose our excellent state schools, while others opt for independent schools that they believe more closely meet their child’s individual needs. The crucial point is that until now, parents have enjoyed the freedom to make that choice, rather than the decision being imposed on them from on high. Today, more than 1,000 pupils in Leicester East attend independent schools, and their families are not the super-rich. These are ordinary, hard-working people who have scrimped, saved and carefully budgeted.

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that those people who send their children to state schools do not budget?

We are talking about people who have often sacrificed luxuries and gone without to afford the education that they believe is best for their children. This is not the preserve of billionaire hedge fund managers; we are talking about nurses, small business owners and tradespeople who have managed their finances meticulously to secure a particular educational path. They are the very working families who Labour claims it would never tax.

This new measure is fundamentally a tax on education, and the reality on the ground is deeply concerning. As a result of Labour’s policy of slapping VAT on independent school fees, the careful financial planning of hard-working people in my constituency has been shattered. Children are being forced out of stable, nurturing learning environments mid-term. Their friendships and routines are being severed, not by parental choice or educational necessity, but by a Chancellor’s whim. To add insult to injury, some families find themselves unable to secure a state school place locally, leaving them in educational limbo as a result of the Chancellor’s twisted game. I have already heard from one mother who, no longer able to afford her daughter’s independent school, cannot find a suitable state alternative in her catchment area. As we have heard in the Chamber today, that is not an isolated case, but a troubling sign of the turbulence that this policy is creating.

What do the Government propose for the children who are caught in the crossfire of envy-driven politics? Labour’s attempt to penalise perceived privilege has ended up punishing ordinary, aspirational families. Meanwhile, the notion that this policy will somehow improve state education is fanciful at best. Instead of supporting better standards and opportunities for all, this tax is about pitting one group of parents against another—and what is worse, this was done without a proper impact assessment. Instead of looking at the real-world consequences—the strain on families, the sudden influx of pupils into our already stretched state schools and the emotional turmoil placed on children—the Government rushed forward, blinded by the politics of envy. I call on Ministers to think again. This is not about reform or fairness; it is an attack on parental choice and on hard-working families who dare to hope for something different for their children. If Labour truly stands for working people, it must listen to their voices, look at the damage this will cause and scrap a measure that so clearly undermines the interests of children and families in Leicester East and beyond.

The proposal to impose VAT on independent school fees is a misguided approach that risks harming families, undermining educational freedom and failing to address the deeper issues in our education system. Let me start by acknowledging that our state education system is in dire need of funding. Years of mismanagement by previous Governments have left schools struggling with inadequate resources, overworked teachers, and outdated and undersized facilities.

We must confront this crisis, and I fully agree that we need long-term sustainable funding to support our schools, but introducing VAT on independent school fees is not the answer. This measure will not impact elite institutions or those at the very top of the income ladder. The wealthiest families will simply absorb the cost. Instead, it is middle-income families—parents who are saving every penny, working multiple jobs and making sacrifices to help their children—who will be impacted, as well as families whose children have special or complex needs that cannot be serviced in state schools.

Smaller and more affordable independent schools, which already operate on tight budgets and cater to working families, will be at risk of closure. Those closures will displace students into the already overstretched state sector, exacerbating the very challenges that this policy is supposed to address. Independent schools also contribute to their local communities. They work in partnership with state schools, offering shared resources, facilities, teaching support and extracurricular activities. Instead of imposing VAT, we should encourage more of these collaborations to strengthen both the state sector and the independent system.

The Liberal Democrats believe in parental choice and in policies that unite, not divide, our communities. We must focus on finding equitable solutions to fund our state schools, but we must do so without undermining the choices and aspirations of families or the stability of our broader education system. Families should have the freedom to choose the best educational path for their children without being penalised by the state. I urge the Government to work with all parties to find a fairer way to address the funding crisis in our schools—one that does not come at the expense of parents, students and the principles of educational freedom.

I rise to support new clause 8 in the name of the shadow Chancellor, because it will help ensure accountability on this policy, and ensure that its impacts are fully understood. I want that because of the policy itself, but perhaps more because of how the Labour party has framed it, which I have found deeply concerning. I know all parties in this place are sometimes less than accurate in how we describe tax and spending, and about how it works for political advantage at different times, but the one thing out of all the things that the new Labour Government have done that I find genuinely appalling is the vindictive way in which they have rolled the ground for this measure by pitching schoolchild against schoolchild and parent against parent. I have genuinely found it really deplorable.

We do not have hypothecated tax or spending in this country. Money from road taxes goes on things other than roads, and our national insurance payments do not get put into a pension pot. The Government know that, so to suggest that someone spending money on their own child without being taxed is taking money away from other children is completely and utterly wrong. The UK Government spend more than £1 trillion a year, and the Government can choose what they spend that money on. The suggestion that this money is going into a legally defined pot of money for education, and that if it was not there, there would be less money available for education, is completely without merit, not least because if there was such a pot, the parents we are talking about would for many years have been contributing to it, not taking money out of it. They would already have been subsidising mainstream education, according to the Government’s own arguments.

The idea that schoolchildren in mainstream education are going without directly because we did not have VAT on private schools—that all sorts of parents for all sorts of reasons are choosing to invest some of their money in their own children’s education, but because we have not been taxing that, children elsewhere are missing out on their education—is a deeply unpleasant and unnecessary way to frame this argument.

Imagine being a parent who—like people I know—had a modest start in life but then perhaps went on to medical school and became a GP. They are honest, hard-working people, and the fact that they were not being taxed on that spend means that they are now being made to feel that somehow that has been taking away from the education of other children. That is completely wrong. It really is the worst sort of politics. It was exemplified by the despicable tweet from the Education Secretary, which was rightly and roundly criticised. A private school having a swimming pool does not in any way affect the availability of mental health support in other schools, any more than spending extra money on potholes or defence or healthcare does. I reiterate that the Government have more than £1 trillion to spend every year on what they want, and ways in which to raise that.

It is difficult not to take this vindictive policy of taxing education personally. That is not just because, like many parents in Surrey, we as a family have chosen independent education for our children, or because as a Conservative I support all our schools and I want all our children to have the best start in life; it is because lots of different data points show that the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency will be one of the most heavily punished areas as a result of this policy.

It is interesting to hear the Minister talk about the estimated numbers of children who will move out of the independent sector and into the state sector. I speak to the many independent schools in my constituency pretty much all year round. They have met me, and they tell me that they are desperately concerned about this policy. They have estimated that about 5% to 10% of children will need to move out. That is probably 500 to 1,000 children in my constituency, many of whom have already been disrupted by covid. Many of them are studying for their exams, have friendships groups that will be disrupted, and will potentially be moving to schools that will be unable to provide the same courses or exam specifications that they are currently receiving.

I hear from state schools that already face lots of pressure on places. As the Minister will have heard in my earlier intervention about admissions and the empty spaces that we have in years nine to 11, and the intake for the next academic year there is no space—we have lots of pressures. This policy will cause long-lasting damage to many children. I hope it will not, but in reality it will.

It is clear, given the numbers and the full-throated support on the Government Benches, that this policy is going ahead and we will not be able to stop it. But will the Government, at very least, support our new clause 8? If they are so proud of this policy, which they clearly are, and so happy to defend what they see as the limited impact on young people, why are they afraid of a proper analysis? I would ask them please to think again, but I would be at risk of misleading the House, because clearly they never thought in the first place.

The Liberal Democrats do not support imposing VAT on private school fees. We do not support treating independent schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes, and that is why I wish to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I thank her for tabling the amendment, which would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the VAT provisions in the Bill on pupils with special educational needs but who do not have an education, health and care plan. Of the 615,000 children in private schools in this country, almost 100,000 are being educated privately because they have special educational needs but do not have an EHCP.

The Lib Dems are glad that the legislation exempts from VAT on school fees those privately educated pupils who have an EHCP that requires the local authority to fund a private school place. That is a welcome step, but it does not protect those who do not have an EHCP from a steep rise in fees. The parents of many of those children will find that they cannot afford the increase, throwing the future of their children’s education into doubt.

Moreover, there will be an increase in demand for local authorities to issue EHCPs stating that the local authority must fund a private school place. Local authority resources for special educational needs and disabilities are already stretched to breaking point, and additional demand will be impossible to manage.

The hon. Lady is right. The Government share the analysis that our special educational needs provision in our state schools is under massive pressure already and there is a shortage of capacity, notwithstanding the vast increases in expenditure since 2019. However, the Government’s policy, recognising that, is to tax and therefore deter and reduce expenditure on children with special educational needs out of people’s private pockets. It does not make any sense, does it?

I trust that that means the Liberal Democrats can look to the right hon. Gentleman to support our new clause today, because the inevitable result of the legislation, if unamended, will be thousands of children with SEND forced into the state sector all at once, which will be enormously disruptive, and not just for them but for pupils already in the state sector. It will be potentially traumatic for those children, as well as being immensely difficult for the state schools to manage. New clause 9 would protect both the children and the schools affected by the impact of these measures—the children who have special educational needs but do not yet have an EHCP, as well as the children of families who have applied for one.

However, it is not just children with SEND who will be affected. The parents of many thousands of other children across the country will find that they can no longer afford to keep them in their current school, and those children will experience enormous disruption to their education as they are forced to change schools. Many will face the upheaval of being separated from their friends and a familiar environment. The Government should reflect carefully on whether the benefits of this policy that they are intent on pursuing are worth the damage caused to these children’s education and wellbeing.

The influx will not be evenly distributed. In my constituency of Richmond Park, more than 45% of children attend a fee-paying private school. In common with other parts of London, demand for state primary places is down, so younger children will be easily accommodated, but secondary schools are experiencing great pressure for places and a rise in requests for in-year admissions will be difficult to meet. There may only be a small proportion of children whose parents are no longer able to meet the fees, but a drop in headcount at private schools could see them closing because they become unviable. That means that the effect of children needing to transfer out of independent schools and into the state sector could be much greater than is currently forecast.

I want to reflect on what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), and others have said about the music and dance scheme. The Royal Ballet school at White Lodge in the middle of Richmond park in my constituency is a world-leading ballet school, and it has expressed great reservations to me about the effect of this policy, and I would very much like the Government to reflect on that.

If the survey done by The Times of private school parents earlier this year is accurate, and 25% of parents have to withdraw their children from private education due to the Government’s proposals, that could have a huge impact on children in communities such as mine across the country. The Government propose that their new tax treatment should be applied only to the provision of private schooling, but taxing some forms of education and not others will almost inevitably create loopholes.

Creative accountants will find ways of delivering education services that fall outside the VAT legislation while other education providers that the Government did not intend to tax will unwittingly find themselves caught up in it. The risks of these distortions increase if legislation is hastily framed with insufficient time for scrutiny. Between parents who cannot afford to pay their children’s fees and schools that cannot keep their doors open, the state will need to find space and resources for an influx of new students.

The Liberal Democrats are opposed to the Government’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees because we believe it is wrong to tax education. Imposing this increase in fees will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will create not just hardship for those children and their parents but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. That is why I join the calls of my colleagues to urge the Government to back new clause 9.

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, no doubt saving the best till last.

I am a Hertfordshire county councillor, and it is that authority that will have to pick up the pieces if parents cannot afford the VAT on private schools or if private schools close. A bit like in the farming debate, I have a specific example from my constituency that tears down the Government’s argument on adding VAT to private school fees.

Turnford was a secondary school in my constituency in decline. Academic standards and behaviour were poor and the quality of teaching was inconsistent, leading to students becoming demotivated and achieving less than the national expectations. Staff suffered from low morale and there were significant recruitment challenges. The school buildings, on a poorly laid-out site, were dilapidated. But thanks to a unique partnership with Haileybury, an independent school in my constituency, the tide began to turn. In 2015 the school was relaunched as Haileybury Turnford academy, with Haileybury as the sole sponsor. A generous annual improvement grant was established worth £200,000 a year; that has gone on for about five years, so more than £1 million has gone directly into that state school in my constituency. That has enabled Turnford to recruit much-needed staff and retain high-quality specialist teachers.

Haileybury also gives additional financial support for Turnford’s SEN students and provides opportunities for a wide breadth of academic and extracurricular activities, such as supporting programmes for gifted and talented pupils. Because of that partnership between state and private schools, academic standards have been transformed. We have had new classrooms constructed, and in 2022 Haileybury Turnford was judged by Ofsted to be “good” for the first time in the school’s history.

The hon. Member seems to be making the case that he has been seeing a pilot for this national policy in his own constituency, with higher fees, which presumably funded that £200,000 a year grant to the state school, paid by the attendees of the private school. His example therefore makes the case for exactly the Government’s policy on a wider scale.

I thank the hon. Member. If he just waits for the next part of my speech, he may get the answer to his intervention.

The Government’s plan will put all that at risk. Notably, Haileybury is planning to absorb as much of the financial hit as it can, rather than place the extra burden on parents. To do so, it must look at reducing expenditure and therefore its ability to offer financial support to Haileybury Turnford, painfully contradicting the Government’s argument that their policy will result in more spending on state school pupils. It is not just about money; greater financial pressures on Haileybury will inevitably lead to staff having less time and resources available to share with Turnford, and fewer opportunities for state school students at Haileybury Turnford as a result.

Ministers think that their policy will impact only the rich, but for nearly a decade a genuinely working-class community in my constituency has benefited from a state school and an independent school working together, which is exactly the kind of partnership that we should be encouraging. We should not be encouraging the politics of envy. Sadly, the changes that the Government are introducing through the Bill will bring all that to an end.

In principle, what is the distinction between full-time private schooling and private tuition, from the point of view of what it is right to tax? Will he guarantee that no tax will be put on private tuition?

No, I mean families who send their child once or twice a week for an hour for academic study or something extra-curricular. Why should that be tax exempt, when if it is done for all the hours in the school week, it is not?

We have heard this point time and again from the Labour Benches. I want to say, one more time, that the Liberal Democrats put forward a fully costed programme in our 2024 general election manifesto, which had a range of tax-raising measures that would have paid for the changes we proposed and did not include VAT on school fees, for all the reasons the Minister has heard today.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point; I think he is hitting towards it. The school itself has everything grouped into one fee, which includes the transport, schooling and food. Its contention, therefore, is that it will have to break that all out, which means it will have to deal with all the accounting issues on top of this. It is just another burden to think about. I wonder whether the Treasury has thought about that and whether there will be further guidance—there is literally just one line in a piece of written guidance put out by the Treasury. Is there anywhere the school can raise this issue to work through the exact advice it needs? I appreciate that the Minister cannot give that advice directly to the school from the Dispatch Box.

As ever, the Minister is being very gracious in giving way. If someone were to establish a new educational establishment providing entirely modular educational elements that people could choose between, would that be subject to VAT, individually or collectively, or not?

First, the Minister knows I said no such thing. I spoke about the additional investment that had gone into the high-needs budget under the previous Government, particularly since 2019, and said that there was more to do.

Since I am on my feet, can I ask him to expand on what he just said about capital? What he has just spoken about is capital for places that are already planned, but what if a lot more children present in some places? Has he budgeted for that capital? Does he guarantee that whatever capital goes to the DFE will be on top of the existing capital budget?

I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 51 to 53 stand part.

New clause 6—Sections 50 and 51: impact on private rental sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the cost of private rent in each region within England and in Northern Ireland,

(b) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England and Northern Ireland,

(c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

New clause 7—Review of effects of sections 50 and 51 on housing market—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act, on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the demand for houses in each region within England and Northern Ireland, and

(b) the implications for the housing market of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the housing market in England and Northern Ireland.

This is a Budget to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change by protecting working people, fixing the NHS and rebuilding Britain. The Government are achieving this by taking difficult decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair the public finances and increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and unlock long-term growth. This Finance Bill delivers on a number of the Government’s priorities for tax reform, prioritising stability for businesses making investment decisions and ensuring fairness and sustainability in the long term. We will discuss the full range of manifesto commitments delivered in this Bill throughout its passage, but today, I will talk about an area in which the Government have decided to go further than our manifesto commitment.

The clauses we are debating increase the higher rates of stamp duty land tax on purchases of additional dwellings by individuals and of dwellings by companies from three percentage points above the main residential rates of SDLT to five percentage points. These clauses also increase the single rate of SDLT payable by companies and other non-natural persons when purchasing dwellings worth more than £500,000 from 15% to 17%. They will support home ownership by ensuring that those looking to move house or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing dwellings. These changes will raise £310 million per year by 2029-30, which will be used to support the Government’s first steps and other priorities.

One of our manifesto commitments was to increase the non-resident SDLT surcharge by one percentage point. The Government have decided to go further than that commitment and increase the higher rates of SDLT, known as higher rates for additional dwellings. This will raise more money than the manifesto policy, helping to restore economic stability and address the £22 billion-worth of unfunded pressures, as well as supporting delivery of the Government’s first steps. Increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings will also go further to rebalance the housing market in favour of first-time buyers and those moving house.

The Minister mentions first-time buyers. However, the change to stamp duty is likely to affect them, because they are now being brought into paying stamp duty. How does that help first-time buyers to realise their aspiration of getting into the housing market?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman very confidently that the thing that will help first-time buyers in this country most is building more houses. His Government absolutely failed to do that, but we will be doing it.

Returning to the Bill, we estimate that approximately half of those paying the non-resident surcharge will also pay the higher rates for additional dwellings. This means that a non-resident purchasing an additional residential property worth £300,000 now pays £23,500 as a result of the change in rates, compared with £17,500 before the change, an increase of £6,000. This compares with a UK-resident purchaser buying their first home, who pays no SDLT, and a UK-resident home mover, who currently pays £2,500. This change therefore improves the comparative advantage of UK-resident home movers and first-time buyers—as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) might be pleased to know—while ensuring that no additional barriers are faced by those coming to the UK and buying their first or only home.

Those buying an additional property before they can sell their main residence will be liable for the higher rates for additional dwellings. However, this will be refunded if the previous main residence is sold within three years of the purchase of a new main residence, or longer if there are exceptional circumstances, such as delays in cladding remuneration. This ensures that only those who are genuinely liable for higher rates will be required to pay them.

Clause 50 increases the higher rates of SDLT on the purchase of additional dwellings by individuals and dwellings by companies from three percentage points above the main residential rates of SDLT to five percentage points. This applies to transactions with an effective date on or after 30 October this year and before 1 April next year.

Does the Minister agree that this Government’s decision to raise stamp duty in such a manner is vital for tackling the plague of second homes that we have seen in communities such as Cornwall?

This is something I have seen in my own constituency, so I know what my hon. Friend is referencing. It is our intention to tackle that, but we have had to make these decisions because of our economic inheritance when we got into government, which the Conservative party obviously hid during the election. We have had to make some difficult decisions, and this is how we plan to fix the foundations of our economy.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am surprised she has not declared her interest because I believe she is herself a landlord. She presumably owns another property, so to cast aspersions on people who do as some kind of plague is, I think, a little unfair.

I assume from this measure that the Minister would expect there to be some impact on the rental market. This is designed to deter people from becoming landlords. Given that 90-odd per cent of our rental properties in the UK are owned by people who have two or fewer properties, what is the scale of the impact she is expecting? How many people are likely to either exit being a landlord or, particularly in somewhere like London, not bother being a landlord at all? What will be the wider impact given that in the capital, such as where she represents, lots of people have no option but to rent, because they are unable to accumulate the deposit required to buy a property at an inflated value? Are we going to see fewer rental properties in the capital?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am a landlord, and that is absolutely declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If I was meant to declare it for the purposes of this debate, I do apologise, but it is referenced very clearly in my entry. I would say that, as a landlord, I am very happy to pay extra tax if it is necessary to fix the foundations of our economy.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of London. I think we are more resilient than that, especially in Camden, and I think we will be fine.

Clauses 50 and 51 will provide an advantage for first-time buyers and those moving home, and it will help to support home ownership. The OBR-certified costing estimates that increasing the higher rates for additional dwellings by 2 percentage points is expected to result in 130,000 additional transactions over the next five years by first-time buyers and others buying a primary residence. I hope that addresses some of the concerns of Conservative Members.

Clause 52 introduces special transitional rules to ensure no additional tax is payable for land transactions substantially performed before 1 April 2025. In most cases, SDLT is charged at the point of completion in the property-buying process. In some cases, however, such as where the buyer has performed their purchase by paying for the property or taking possession of it, the tax is chargeable at that earlier point. The clause in question ensures that buyers who have performed their transactions will not pay more tax as a result of the changes in rates brought about by clauses 50 and 51 when they complete their purchase.

Clause 53 increases from 15% to 17% the single rate of SDLT payable by companies and other non-natural persons when purchasing dwellings worth more than £500,000. The single rate of SDLT was introduced alongside the annual tax on enveloped dwellings to deter the practice of buying and owning UK residential properties within a corporate wrapper by increasing the rate companies pay. The single rate applies where companies and other non-natural persons buy a dwelling for more than £500,000 that they do not intend to use for a relievable purpose such as renting the property or developing it. Increasing the single rate keeps it aligned with the highest rate of tax paid on purchases of the most expensive residential properties, so that the tax remains effective as a deterrent to enveloping.

In summary, increasing the higher rates of SDLT will ensure that those looking to move house or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords, and companies purchasing dwellings. The measure will raise more money than the manifesto policy, and go further to rebalance the housing market. The changes will raise £310 million per year by 2029-30, which will be used to support the Government’s first steps and other priorities.

I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

We turn to the important issue of taxes on residential property, and another set of tax rises from this tax-raising Labour Government. I will speak to clauses 50 to 53, and new clauses 6 and 7. Over 14 years in government we delivered 2.5 million additional homes. Our manifesto pledge to build 1 million homes in the course of the last Parliament was met, and we delivered on our commitment to build the homes that people need for a more secure future. The Bill introduces measures that dampen the housing market, increase pressure on housing supply, and reduce labour mobility. The Government talk about helping renters, but experts warn that these measures could increase rents, and they do nothing for those who cannot afford to buy their own home.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the prevalence of second homes is a crucial part of ensuring that people can afford to live and work in the communities they are from?

Indeed, and representing an area with some of the most attractive coastline in the country, I certainly recognise and share those concerns. There has been warning that the measures could make that issue worse. People also need to be able to rent in those areas, and if local people who need to work where the jobs are have to move from long-term lets to short-term, that does nothing to help.

The point is valid. The Government are trying to get more properties for people to buy, but at the same time they are changing back the threshold for first-time buyers. Those first-time buyers will be stifled when they want to buy a house because they will have to pay more tax. Introducing both measures simultaneously seems to cause a rub. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I do. This is just another example of the impact of the Bill. The impact assessments, such as they are, are incredibly thin and do not get into the detail of the measures and the complications that arise. They are, I would say, wholly inadequate. Under clauses 50 to 53, taxes on property purchases will, as the Minister said, go up by £310 million. Clauses 50 and 51 increase the rate for additional dwellings, such as buy-to-let and residential properties, from 3% to 5%. Nationwide estimates that that could bring extra costs of £4,000 on the purchase of a typical rental home. At least clause 52 ensures that if transactions have been substantially performed before the increases come in, no additional tax will be charged. Clause 53 amends the single rate on purchases by companies of dwellings for more than £500,000. Let us not forget that the Government have also chosen not to renew the nil-rate stamp duty threshold, which is currently £250,000 but will halve to £125,000—I do not think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that.

As I said, experts have warned that the changes could have damaging effects on the rental market, making it less attractive to provide homes for private rent; rents could increase as a result of the limited supply. Every hon. Member will know from their constituency the huge demand for rental properties. According to Zoopla, on average around 21 people are chasing every property that is put up for rent. This tax will do nothing to encourage the supply of new, decent, rented housing.

I hope that the shadow Minister shares my surprise at the Minister agreeing to pay the stamp duty retrospectively on her flat. Let us hope that the cheque makes its way to HMRC. When stamp duty reaches penal rates, it not only diverts people away from becoming landlords, but means they may operate differently. Is there not a strong possibility that we might see a large number of properties in places such as London owned by foreign corporations that are domiciled in other jurisdictions? Transfer of those properties could take place by transferring the corporation’s ownership in the Isle of Man or the Caymans or somewhere like that. That would mean that no stamp duty was payable at all on the transfer of the property. If that proliferated, we might find that large numbers of properties in the UK were owned by overseas entities, precisely because of the penal taxation here.

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I bow to his knowledge of the situation in London, which is far greater than mine. Our new clauses are about reviewing the impact of the measure, partly so that if we saw such activity, which would go against the Government’s objectives and weaken the rental market, action could be taken. I hope that the Government will look at the evidence.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also criticised the change, stating:

“It again reduces transactions, increases again the bias in favour of owner occupation, and against renting, and at least part of the consequence will be to reduce the supply of rental housing and so increase rents.”

The National Residential Landlords Association has said that the tax changes in the Budget will make it less attractive to provide homes for private rent. It has warned that the measure will exacerbate the shortfall that Members will all be familiar with, and an assessment it commissioned a couple of years ago showed that increasing the rate to 5% could lead to the loss of more than 500,000 private rented homes over 10 years.

Norfolk county council, which covers the area that the shadow Minister represents, has a housing waiting list of 1,341 homes sought. That is up 400 since he was elected in 2019. If the new clauses are about reviewing the impact of actions, perhaps he could take a moment to review the impact of the last Government’s actions, which saw the housing waiting list increase in his constituency?

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s interest in my constituency. He intervened on me earlier to talk about education in North West Norfolk.

The numbers are from the House of Commons Library.

I do not doubt the figures. I simply note that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which is the council for my constituency, has met the housing need target it was set. Thousands of homes are being built in and around King’s Lynn, which will be a mixture of tenures—to rent and to buy. One of the big blockers is that the Government have not yet approved schemes that the previous Government were committed to—schemes for the roads and infrastructure needed to bring that housing online. I hope that the Minister will take that up with her colleagues, because if the Government are to meet their target of building 1.5 million homes, they need councils to deliver. That means funding the infrastructure. I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to make that point.

We are concerned about the increased cost of private rent and a decreasing supply of rental properties due to this latest tax increase. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the increased stamp duty rates on the private rental sector within six months of the Bill passing into law.

It is important to have transparency. It is not controversial to say that we need more houses—Members on both sides of the House agree—but take Leicester, where new housing targets have been reduced by 31%. We will now have an exodus of people offering rental residences. Will that not compound the problem acutely? We will not have the number of homes. The target has dropped in Leicester, but we will have more people needing to rent. The homelessness rate could go up, because people are leaving the market. The Government need to think carefully about that. The new clauses would give transparency on whether there is a problem.

My hon. Friend draws attention to the unintended consequences of the stamp duty measure. I wonder how much involvement the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department had in drawing it up, or whether it was drawn up in the Treasury just to get a line into the Red Book and fill out the Government’s spending plans.

New clause 7 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact that increased rates for additional dwellings are having on the housing market as a whole, and in particular on the demand for homes in England and Northern Ireland. Pegasus Insight has reported that nearly 20% of landlords across England and Wales sold homes in the last 12 months, significantly more than the 8% who purchased properties in that period. We see increased rents as a result. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show average UK private rents increasing by 8.7% in the 12 months to October. When the cost of living is high and rents are increasing, why are the Government taking steps that could make matters worse for our constituents?

On the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), clauses 50 to 53 may increase the chance of properties switching from long-term to short-term lets, which is a concern in my constituency. We need a balance of properties—some that people can rent and those that people can buy—so that people can live and work in the area where they grew up.

The Government’s stated policy objective for the stamp duty measures is to disincentivise the acquisition of buy-to-let properties and free up housing stock for main and first-time buyers, but nowhere in their impact note is the private rental sector mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Minister what impact she thought the changes could have, and what modelling had been done of the effect on the rental market; I am afraid that answer came there none. Hopefully she will have had some inspiration by the time she winds up the debate and can give some answers, because the impact note does not have any information on that point. I find that surprising. Once again, that is why it is essential that we review these measures to see what the real-world impact is on the rental market. Our new clauses would enable us to do just that.

Encouraging home ownership and helping first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder is the right thing to do. However, that should not come at the expense of the private rental sector. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), put it in the Budget debate, activity in the housing market will be dampened and people will be discouraged from downsizing, which will put pressure on housing supply and labour mobility.

I am proud that while in government, the Conservatives helped more people get on to the housing ladder through schemes such as First Homes, shared ownership, right to buy and the lifetime individual savings account, and doubled the threshold for stamp duty. However, with only one in eight renters able to afford to purchase a home in the area where they live, renting is the only viable option for many. What is the Minister’s response to those who say that increasing stamp duty will reduce the supply of rental housing, and that rents will increase as a result?

I must briefly address the structural tax issues that the clauses create. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Taxation for the discussions that we have had. There is now a top residential rate of 19%, compared with a top rate of 5% for purchase of a non-residential or mixed property, so taxpayers may be incentivised to argue that the property that they are buying is non-residential or mixed-use—for example, it may have a paddock that they would use—to take advantage of the lower rate. A number of those cases have come to the first-tier tribunal and higher court. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the risk that she sees there, and told us what HMRC has advised her and whether increased compliance costs will arise as a result of the divergence.

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about people who may wish to claim that they have a paddock at the back of their house. Does he have any numbers to back that up? If he does, I would be really interested to know them. I am racking my brains, thinking of how many homes in Stoke-on-Trent Central could claim that they had a paddock that allows mixed-use tenure. He may have that information to hand; I do not.

I am sure that Stoke-on-Trent is a great place, but not everyone lives there. As I said, a number of such cases have gone to the first-tier tribunal, so the hon. Member can probably look that information up or ask the House of Commons Library. The point is that none of that information is in the impact note that the Government have provided on a measure that they are bringing forward. The onus is on the Government to give the information to Parliament, and they have failed to do so in this case.

We share the concerns of experts about the impact that the increases will have on the private rental sector and the wider housing market. The Government have ambitious plans for house building, which we have mentioned, but debates on their proposed changes to the planning system to enable that are for another day. This afternoon, our focus is on whether people looking to rent will find that harder to do as a result of the measures that the Government are introducing, with reduced supply and higher costs. Our new clauses would make the Government publish an assessment so that we can tell.

I declare that I am a landlord, and I happily paid the 3% stamp duty that I was required to pay, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.

For too long the dream of homeownership has been unachievable for young people in my constituency. Properties are snapped up by landlords, and that is even more acutely felt in our coastal towns, where so many properties are locked up for large parts of the year and used as holiday homes, sometimes for only a few weeks.

I am from Cornwall. The point was made earlier that this change will help us. Some of our coastal villages are 50% second homes. In Cornwall, 5% of our houses are second homes. This change can do nothing but good in Cornwall. We do not have the long-term lets that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about dissuading. We have short-term lets and second homes. I welcome this measure.

Increasing rates of stamp duty land tax for second properties to 5% more than those buying their home will free up housing stock for first-time buyers, and hopefully stop prices continuing to skyrocket. Before I came to this place, I was a property solicitor in a high street firm in my constituency. Part of the reason I loved that job was that I got to be part of so many brilliant projects that transformed communities, but I was always so happy when I helped first-time buyers who would come through my door, proud that they had saved up and were able to buy their first home. They would tell me their plans for the future. We would overcome mountains of paperwork. I love being part of the moment when they got the keys to their first home, and they were finally homeowners.

I got to know my clients well. Each new homeowner would talk to me about how they would become part of their local community—supporting the local football club, or working at local businesses, hospitals and schools. They were planning to have kids who would go to local schools and shops in the town centre. But the longer I worked in that role, the fewer first-time buyers came into my office. Becoming a homeowner became out of reach for most young people. There are already half a million fewer young homeowners than in 2010. Millions are stuck in expensive, poor quality and insecure rented housing. The average cost of a home is over 10 times the average income of my constituents.

The Conservative party left a legacy of the most acute housing emergency in living memory. This Government could have ignored it and let more people miss out on becoming homeowners, but they decided to act and boost the supply of affordable homes. In addition, this policy will free up more housing stock for first-time buyers. For those who can afford the luxury of a second home, it will bring much-needed income into the Treasury in the form of an increased one-off tax—stamp duty land tax—that will help to pay for the much-needed improvements in health and education that this Government promised to deliver.

The status quo is unacceptable. Our housing market is not a fair market, and I am glad that this policy will help to remedy that. It will ensure that those buying properties as investments pay a fair level of tax at the start, so I urge all Members to vote for this important change.

We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned against what has become, in some places, the scourge of second homes. In too many cases they disrupt or destroy local communities. However, I argue, as does my party, that this is not the best way of doing it. Clauses 50 to 53 raise the stamp duty surcharge on second and subsequent homes. I can see why it is attractive—it is an easy way of raising tax revenue for central Government—but it does not tackle the root problem. I urge the Government to look at the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would do both.

The impact of holiday homes, and short-term lets in particular, has been well rehearsed in the House over the years, but without any action by the previous Conservative Government to tackle it. In my constituency we have seen an absolute explosion of Airbnbs, which have become a magnet for antisocial behaviour and noise. Properties are taken out of the rental market, increasing demand and pushing up rental costs, squeezing many people out of the market and out of our area all together.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), highlighted the risk that this measure may pose of properties being moved from long-term let to short-term let. It may come as some surprise that the previous Conservative Government failed to regulate short-term lets properly. Indeed, when this House was considering the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Bill to give local authorities the power to regulate the number and location of Airbnbs—a power that is desperately needed. Every single corner of our country should be able to strike the right balance between tourism and homes for local people, where they can build their lives and their community.

We also called for a separate planning class to be created for local authorities, and we want local authorities to have the powers to levy higher council tax for newly bought second homes, with an additional surcharge on overseas residents. That would provide regular income for our hard-pressed councils, not just infrequent money for central Government.

We all know that we have a national housing crisis, but it is also a local housing crisis, because it presents differently in different parts of the country. We urge the Government to look at our proposals to raise regular tax revenue for our hard-pressed councils while tackling this problem at its root. I invite Ministers to speak to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we can give our local authorities the power to regulate the number and location of short-term lets such as Airbnbs, so that our communities are no longer disrupted and destroyed.

I call the Minister.

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate today, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor)—it is refreshing to hear someone with genuine knowledge of the housing market speak in the Chamber. I point out gently that the Office for National Statistics’ private rents index shows that renting in England is now 50% more expensive than 14 years ago, and that rents in London reached a record high this February, when we were not in government.

I am slightly perplexed as to why the Opposition continue to disagree with this policy, which is almost a replica of one they introduced a few years ago, for exactly the same reason. Why do they continue to oppose it? They fail to understand that landlords did not stop buying properties to rent out and rich people did not stop buying holiday homes just because they had to pay a little more in a one-off tax.

I have to admit that I have found this debate a little baffling, given some of the arguments made from the Opposition Front Benches. However, I will respond to some of them now.

Our concern is that there has been no assessment of the impact on the rental market. All that the Opposition new clauses are asking for is a review, because no evidence has been adduced in this debate. There are three people who have spoken in this debate who have second properties—who are landlords—and that is completely fine. What we are saying is that there will be an impact on future landlords and on future behaviour from this tax, as there was from the tax that was introduced by the previous Government.

The second thing to say—forgive me for the slightly extended intervention, Madam Chair—is that when the Government are setting levels of tax, there is an optimal point at which to levy tax in order to collect the maximum revenue, beyond which it starts to become penal and has a deterrent effect on activity. I suppose what we are saying is that we have got this far, and wish to go no further.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech. I will be referencing everything; he should probably listen carefully, because I will be responding to all the points he has made about private rental markets and the impact this policy will have.

I will turn to some of the new clauses tabled by the Opposition—I do not think the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) is present. New clauses 6 and 7 would require the Government to report on the impact of the changes introduced by clauses 50 and 51 on the cost and supply of private rental properties and on the housing market, respectively, in England and Northern Ireland. Although it is important to understand the impact that the measures could have on rental costs, supply and the housing market—and, in turn, tenants, who have been mentioned—the Government consider the new clauses to be unnecessary because the information is publicly available. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publishes regular updates, as the House will know, on the level of housing supply in England, as well as the English private landlord survey, which provides data on supply in the private rented sector. In addition, HM Land Registry publishes extensive data on house prices in England, including regional and local authority area breakdowns. HMRC also publishes statistics and data on property transactions and stamp duty land tax receipts.

On housing supply, the Budget set out a series of new investments to kick-start the biggest increase to social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. This is an important step to providing the conditions needed for the market to deliver 1.5 million homes—homes that are desperately needed by our constituents. The Government recognise that the rented sector is often a key part of someone’s home ownership journey. The Renters’ Rights Bill will improve the current system for both the 11 million private renters and 2.3 million landlords in England. It will give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their own homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness.

The measures in the Bill to increase the highest rate for additional dwelling are intended to support home ownership among first-time buyers and those moving home, giving them an advantage in the housing market. The OBR certified costing assumes that increasing the higher rates of SDLT by two percentage points is expected to result in 130,000 additional transactions over the next five years by first-time buyers and other people buying a primary residence.

In summary, the Government have already considered the impact of clauses 51 and 52 on the private rented sector and housing market. We will continue to publish housing market statistics in the usual way, keep all tax policy under review and evaluate the impacts of all changes. Therefore, the proposed reports are unnecessary and I urge the House to reject the new clauses. I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Members who tabled the new clauses that the additions and changes are just not necessary, for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject new clauses 6 and 7.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6

Sections 50 and 51: impact on private rental sector

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the cost of private rent in each region within England and in Northern Ireland,

(b) the effects of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England and Northern Ireland,

(c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 50 and 51 of this Act.”—(James Wild.)

This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact increased rates of stamp duty for additional dwellings are having on the private rental sector in England and Northern Ireland.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.