John Lamont
MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“They do not want vital healthcare decisions taken further away from the communities those services exist to serve. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working staff NHS Borders, and call on an increasingly centralising SNP Government not to forget rural and remote communities in Scotland?”
“There seems to be growing chatter on the Government Benches about an early general election, with some Labour Members apparently wondering whether the new Prime Minister might even go to the country before Christmas.”
“I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the business and, of course, the recess dates. It is always good to look forward to the next recess. Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the appalling terrorist attacks on the United States.”
“Instead, as Russell Findlay put it, we got more “meddling” and “gimmicks”—more centralisation, more bureaucracy and yet more attempts to distract from the SNP’s dire record in office.”
“A quarter of a century on, we should never forget the victims, nor should we ever waver in our determination to confront terrorism and defend the freedoms and values that those responsible sought to attack. I turn now to matters closer to home.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer, but of course for my constituents it is not No. 10 North, but “No. 10 Midlands”. According to a freedom of information request, tens of thousands of pounds have already been spent setting up No.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for John Lamont, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Throughout the debate, I have struggled to understand the point put forward by Labour Members that while they rightly acknowledge that farming is not profitable, they support a policy that will take even more cash away from farming businesses. Does she, like me, find those two policies hard to reconcile?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but does he agree as a fellow Scottish MP that our farmers are facing a double whammy? Not only do we have to deal with the vindictive family farm tax being imposed by the Government opposite, but we face the hostile environment that the Scottish National party Government are creating towards our farming communities in Scotland.”
“The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about the challenges that her constituents in South Devon are facing. Many of those challenges are similar to those in my own constituency in the Scottish Borders. Does she agree that all decision makers, whether in the Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities or banks, need to do much more rural-proofing of their policymaking process? Before they announce these policies, they need to understand more clearly the impact they will have on those in constituencies such as the hon. Lady’s and my own in the Borders.”
“The draft order’s preamble mentions that the Government have consulted Scottish Ministers. Can the Minister say whether the Scottish Government support these proposals? Did they make any contrary suggestions?”
“May we have a debate on access to banking services in small towns and rural communities? For years, big banks have treated loyal customers very badly—they have shut branches and reduced services, especially in more rural and remote areas, such as my constituency in the Scottish Borders—and last weekend I had to contact cash machine providers because Selkirk and Eyemouth ran out of cash. Will the Leader of the House back my call so that the residents of small towns and rural communities can get access to the cash and banking services they need?”
“The SNP Government continue to be opposed to nuclear energy, despite the huge economic benefits it would bring to Scotland. We can see that in the jobs and investment that the Torness power station generates. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that investing in nuclear would help bring down bills for our consumers, help the environment and create many more jobs?”
“I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland and an elder of the Kirk. I very much support the Bill, but the Minister will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it would have preferred consultation before the Bill was introduced. Does he have any reflections on that? I think that its particular concern was about wider religious discrimination on the statute book that could have also been dealt with as part of this process.”
“It is estimated that, in Scotland alone, 6,000 pupils will have their learning disrupted by being forced out of the sector. That is 6,000 young people in Scotland who will suffer for no good reason. What the Government are inflicting on young people is wrong, but they seem to neither listen nor care.”
“To make matters worse, that could happen to those young people at a critical moment in their education—for instance, in an exam year or when they are about to choose subjects that will influence their later career. How can it be fair to inflict that on young people? What have they done to deserve such upheaval? Why could this policy, if it had to be brought in, not have come through with a delayed introduction period so that parents could, at least, plan with a bit of warning? It is clear that this policy is not an attack on wealthy parents but an attack on vulnerable children. As I have also already noted, many of those young people will have additional support needs and may not be well suited to a sudden change of environment.”
“It is not meant to help the country; it is intended to appease the left-wing fringe of the Labour party. The third problem is the dreadful consequences on some young people who will be forced to move school. The policy could be devastating for those who will have to start again somewhere new. Students forced to move schools may be ripped out of a friend network or taken out of the stable set-up that they are used to. They may be forced, through absolutely no fault of their own, into a very different learning environment. Have the Government not made any assessment of the emotional and mental health damage that will cause to our young children, or do they just not care?”
“In fact, in most cases, money cannot buy a place at a top independent school—only merit can. As the SCIS highlighted, children in receipt of fee assistance will be the most at risk of being forced out of independent schools. It stated that the finances of those families have “already been rigorously means tested and assessed as at the limit of what they can afford therefore we know they cannot pay any more. Being forced to move school will be particularly detrimental to children with additional support needs.” None of that seems to have been properly, or even slightly, considered by this Labour Government, who charged ahead with this policy at breakneck speed. They did not sit down to have discussions about the impact that the policy would have on vulnerable children; they charged ahead, because this is an ideological and political move.”
“As the Independent Schools Council’s chief executive, Julie Robinson, has said, the policy will, “cause huge disruption for thousands of families and children, especially those in low-fee faith schools, specialist arts education, single-sex schools, or those who need special needs support.” The Scottish Council of Independent Schools has also endorsed that point, saying: “Pupils with additional support needs will be affected the most by disruption to their education.” The policy will also have an impact on people on the margin of being able to afford independent schooling for their children. The ISC claims that around a third of independent schoolchildren are not paying full fees; they are there because of special needs or academic excellence, not because of how rich their parents are.”
“He highlighted that the policy treats everyone who sends children to independent schools as wealthy, as well as the fact that it is simply not realistic to raise taxes by 20% with no warning. That is a good point: there are few other instances in which the Government would even consider introducing a 20 percentage-point tax rise in a single year. The second issue that Labour has created is the impact on vulnerable pupils, who seem to have been neglected entirely. There seems to be no recognition from the Government that independent schools do not cater exclusively for wealthy children, but for young people who may need extra support.”
“As a result of the lack of care when this policy was brought in, Labour has created serious issues that will impact pupils, parents and the public purse. First, the policy will burden parents with huge costs when bills are already high; they have already been taxed on the money that they earn, but they will now be forced to pay tax on it again. As the Independent Schools Council has stated, this policy is “a blanket tax that assumes independent schools are a stereotype”. It assumes, wrongly, that all parents who send their children to independent schools are immensely wealthy and can afford to pay more and more. That was also noted by Matthew Dent, who is the public affairs and policy officer at the Independent Schools Council.”
“Before I turn to the negative impact that the policy will have, I will briefly mention my constituency in the Scottish Borders. We are lucky to have excellent schools in the state and independent sectors across the Scottish Borders. St Mary’s in Melrose is the only independent located in my constituency. However, many of my constituents send their children to independent schools in Edinburgh, East Lothian and across the border to Longridge Towers school near Berwick-upon-Tweed. St Mary’s school was founded in 1895, and has been providing an extraordinary educational experience for boys and girls between two and 13-years-old. All those young people will be directly affected by the policy, so I have received many letters and emails from concerned parents and teachers.”
“They have been deliberately divisive, because their goal is not to improve education for all or even some young people. The decision was taken for purely political and ideological reasons. It is a direct result of the politics of envy and bitterness that extreme elements of the Labour party subscribe to and champion. It will do damage to young people, directly and indirectly, but the Government are not listening or even pretending to listen. In truth, Labour Ministers do not care about the negative impact of the policy, and they have not considered what may happen as a result of it. As the Independent Schools Council has made clear, independent schools were shocked at the rushed nature of the introduction of the policy. In my discussions with representatives of independent schools, they have said that it has not been well thought through.”
“The petition states that “the Government needs to understand that not all independent school parents are wealthy, appreciate the benefits of independent schools and do better due diligence… We think this policy will split children from established friend networks, familiar environments and place the burden and cost on public schools.” I will build on those points throughout the debate, but those succinct statements go straight to the heart of the issue. I commend the petition organisers on being so direct and clear. I will turn to my own view on this issue. The topic is divisive; usually, that would cause a Government to approach it with caution, respect and careful deliberation, but this Labour Government have taken the opposite approach.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. The petition is on an important subject and has gained over 114,000 signatures in two months. The lead petitioner, Hugh Beckinsale, is in the Public Gallery today with his daughter Amelia—someone who will be directly impacted by this policy decision. The petition has a straightforward ask of the Government: do not apply VAT to independent school fees or remove business rates relief.”
“They have made that choice about how they want their children to be brought up, and I think it is wrong that the Government are potentially taking that choice away or making it much more difficult for families to send children to the very good schools that he supposedly represents.”
“The hon. Gentleman represents a part of Scotland where the proportion of young people going to independent schools is among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. I have had conversations with constituents and the teaching staff at a number of schools in his constituency, so I know how concerned they are. A number of parents are now considering taking their children out of the sector because they can no longer afford to pay the fees. The hon. Gentleman knows from his discussions with those parents that they are not necessarily wealthy. During the last election, I spoke to parents who had made really tough choices about how they lead their lives to ensure that they can pay school fees—very often in schools in his constituency.”
“The kicker is that the real test will come in September 2025, once this policy really hits parents hard. All those pupils will now have their education delivered by the state, and taxpayers will have to pay for it. Now that I have outlined the great damage that the policy could do, let me turn to what the Labour Government have said in response and rebut some of their ridiculous claims. The Government stated in response to the petition that the policy “will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to deliver the Government’s commitments for children in state schools.” Except that may not be the case. It may not raise anywhere near that amount, because that is an estimate, not a hard fact. That claim also does not fully take into account the cost to the public finances of so many young people joining the state school system all at once.”
“Those students did not cost the Government any money, but now their entire education will be met at a cost to the taxpayer. The Government think that they have been clever by raising a tax to support public services, but they have not come to the obvious realisation that they are also raising the cost of providing public services. Just look at the number of students: there are 30,000 pupils in independent schools in Scotland alone. Survey data from the Independent Schools Council shows that, across the UK, 8,500 children have already left independent schools or did not start last September, and another 3,000 are expected to have left in January. The Independent Schools Council has stated that that is nearly four times the Government’s estimate for this year alone.”
“The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Many young people, particularly in the city that she represents, go to schools in the independent sector, so the effect of this policy will be disproportionately higher in her city and the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), than in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is disappointing how dismissive Labour Members are of the concerns raised by the schools that the hon. Gentleman supposedly represents. My fourth point, which really undermines Labour’s stated reasons for going ahead with this policy, is that there are huge potential costs to state schools arising from pupils moving out of independent schools. Every pupil who moves from an independent school to a state school will incur more cost to taxpayers.”
“The last Government increased revenue expenditure in our schools during our time in office. If fewer pupils go into the independent sector, the Labour Government will have fewer opportunities to charge VAT, so the policy will not raise the anticipated revenue. I am intrigued to know whether, in the discussions that the hon. Gentleman has had with the multiple independent schools in his constituency, a single one indicated any support for the policy. I am more than happy for him to intervene again if he can name one school in Edinburgh that supports the policy.”
“I would be amazed if the voters of Edinburgh endorse the policy in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. He should put that suggestion to some of the Facebook groups that support the directly affected Edinburgh parents—some of his constituents are directly affected by the policy—and see how many of their members say they support the policy. I suspect that very few will. If he paid any attention to those groups, he would know how much animosity there is towards the policy among parents in Edinburgh.”
“The Government estimate that in the long term, 37,000 pupils will leave or never enter the UK private school sector as a result of the VAT charge. That number may also prove to be nonsense; if it is, the Government’s entire basis for doing this will fall apart. If the number is higher, the cost to the public finances will be higher and less revenue will be raised. That is a potentially vicious double whammy for the Treasury, inflicted entirely by Labour’s own design.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right, and that leads me neatly to my next point. Let us look at what else the Labour Government have claimed. They said: “Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people.” That supposed extra funding is far from guaranteed. The policy is unlikely to raise what has been stated, and it may well incur far greater costs to taxpayers than anticipated. Let me state it plainly: nothing about this decision was necessary. This did not need to happen now or in this manner. At the very least, it could have been considered in detail, with all the repercussions weighed up.”
“It is not about what is best for the country; it is a move to placate the left wing of the Labour party. It will cost pupils, parents and taxpayers. It will leave both independent and state schools worse off. Labour promised change—well, here it is: change for the worse.”
“The Government have said: “These policies will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs.” That is plainly false. It is not even close to the truth. The Independent Schools Council, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and individual headteachers all say the opposite. The Government’s policy will have an impact on vulnerable pupils with additional needs. It is simply shameful to claim otherwise, and does a huge disservice to the many parents out there doing their best for young people who just need a bit more help. I conclude by thanking the petitioner again and all those who have signed this important petition. I look forward to hearing from other right hon. and hon. Members about their views of the petition. I believe that this reckless policy is being pursued for political and ideological reasons.”
“It is very sad that the lives of young people will be disrupted as a consequence of the policy. The Government also stated: “Many of the resulting moves into state schools are expected to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of exam courses.” That is pure assertion. It is made up. It is fantasy. The Government have no guarantees that that will be the case. There is no evidence to suggest that pupils will move only “at natural transition points”. Many parents will be unable to afford the extra bills and will have to move their children immediately, and not at a “natural” time. As I stated earlier, that could easily be at a critical moment in the child’s development.”
“If the hon. Lady engages with the parents and schools affected, as I am sure she has, she will know that one of their criticisms is the haste with which the policy was introduced, and the inability of schools and parents to make plans to adjust to this severe tax. I cannot think of another example of a Government trying to increase a tax by 20% in one go. One of the main reasons schools and parents are so concerned is the failure to engage, discuss and properly understand the impact, as well as the suggestion that only wealthy parents will be affected. The hon. Lady will know from her constituency that people are making tough choices about whether they send their young people to one of the local independent schools; they are making choices about how they lead their lives, and budgeting accordingly.”
“There was no recognition that there might need to be a review of this policy in future and of how it will affect the independent sector and the opportunities of young people. Again, I thank Hugh, the petitioner. One of the highlights of the day was meeting his daughter, Amelia, who is in the Gallery. I hope that she has enjoyed the debate and has found it interesting, although I suspect that the purchase of a House of Commons teddy bear before the debate will be the high point for her. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools.”
“Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who gave a very important contribution. I was struck by all the contributions about the impact that this policy will have on young people with additional needs, and the fact that it is not simply about wealthy families choosing to send their children to independent schools. There are lots of young people who go into the independent sector to get the educational support that they need to be able to achieve their full potential. Many of them will be deprived of that opportunity because of this policy. We also heard from a number of hon. Members about the impact on military families, which I had not previously considered. I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s response, as I am sure all the petitioners are.”
“I am conscious of the time and that the House of Commons is about to vote. I will not detain hon. Members much longer. I thank the petitioner for bringing forward this petition and the 115,000 people who bothered to sign it. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. I think it is telling that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members spoke against the Government’s policy regarding the VAT charge on school fees and the removal of business rates relief. The empty Government Benches are also very telling, although there were notable exceptions in the hon. Members who did come to try and defend their Labour Government’s policy. It was interesting to hear some of the caution that was also being expressed, however, most notably by the hon.”
“Some come from Edinburgh, but the police reports suggest that Newcastle and the surrounding urban areas present us with particular challenges, so I ask that there be more engagement between the police forces on both sides of the border. That happens already, but more needs to be done to ensure that we are ahead of the game. Rural crime in the Scottish Borders is a growing issue that demands our attention. Although the challenges are unique to rural areas, there are solutions that apply across the board. By working together, giving the police adequate resources, leveraging technology and supporting local communities, we can ensure that people in rural communities such as the Scottish Borders feel safe, secure and supported. Our rural communities are the lifeblood of this country and we must do all we can to support them.”
“They contacted the police, which allowed officers to trace the van, resulting in the thief being arrested. Finally, we must work collaboratively with farmers and landowners to develop strategies for crime prevention and resilience. Farming is at the core of the Scottish Borders economy and it is essential that we protect those who sustain it. Engaging farmers in conversations about crime, sharing best practice on security and offering training on how to protect a property will help to build a more secure and resilient agricultural sector. In the light of much of this policy space being devolved, as I mentioned earlier, will the Minister commit to ensure proper cross-border engagement? Many of the challenges that we face in the Scottish Borders come from the urban conurbations further south.”
“Rural watch schemes, whereby communities come together to report suspicious activity and share information, are another effective means of prevention. By encouraging the use of such technologies, we can create a more proactive approach to tackling rural crime. Although technology and policing are vital, local residents and communities have an important role to play too, so we must empower them to be part of the solution. Community-led initiatives such as neighbourhood watch schemes and local crime prevention workshops can provide valuable support to law enforcement. This effort resulted in some good news in my constituency just last week, when Scottish Borders police reported that a quad bike stolen from Jedburgh was recovered after a member of the public saw it being loaded into the rear of a van.”
“It is unfortunate that no SNP Members are here today to explain why they do not fund my local police in the way we would expect. We must provide additional funding for policing services in rural communities, and ensure that officers have the training and equipment they need to address the unique challenges of rural crime, and we must improve communication between local farmers and the police. We also need to recognise the role of preventive measures —as rural communities become more connected through technology, we must harness that power to reduce crime. Surveillance technologies such as CCTV cameras, automatic number-plate recognition systems and livestock tagging can be used to monitor activity and deter potential criminals.”
“It is clear that rural crime cannot be tackled through traditional policing methods alone. A more comprehensive, multifaceted approach is required. First and foremost, we must ensure that police forces in rural areas are properly resourced. I pay tribute to the local police officers in the Scottish Borders who do a tremendous job in engaging with the rural community and farmers in my constituency. They do everything they can to protect those people and prevent this type of crime from happening, but their hands are tied behind their back because the SNP Government have not done enough to resource local policing. The SNP focus too much on the central belt of Scotland and do not allocate enough resource to rural areas such as the Scottish Borders.”
“The impact of the crimes goes far beyond the immediate financial loss: it disrupts the day-to-day operations of those affected, causing distress to families, and results in significant delays that can affect the wider rural economy. What can we do to address this issue? Much of this policy area is devolved to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. My MSP colleague Rachael Hamilton recently presented a Bill to the Scottish Parliament that would replicate UK legislation enacted in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who highlighted the importance of his legislation and what it will achieve when it is finally fully enacted. The Scottish Bill introduced by my colleague in the Scottish Parliament will help to tackle rural crime in Scotland head-on.”
“Livestock theft remains a particularly disturbing issue, with cattle, sheep and even horses being stolen from fields or transported to markets without detection, with NFU Mutual claiming that that cost around £2.7 million in 2022. Another crime that has been on the rise is the theft of agricultural equipment. Tractors, trailers, quad bikes and tools—vital assets for those who work the land—are all being stolen, sometimes in broad daylight. According to NFU Mutual, of the £1.8 million estimated total cost of rural crime in Scotland in 2023, £1.1 million related to machinery theft. These are not just petty thieves but sophisticated and organised criminal gangs, often travelling up from England. [ Interruption. ] I apologise to colleagues—I will explain later what I mean by that. I am not coming out with an anti-English rant here.”
“As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this important debate. The Scottish Borders is home to many people who rely on agriculture, forestry and tourism for their livelihoods. These communities are tight-knit, with deep-rooted traditions, but they are also isolated. This geographical isolation often makes them more vulnerable to crime. Livestock theft, vandalism and break-ins at farmhouses and outbuildings are just a few examples of the challenges faced by farmers and rural residents. As we have heard, rural crime is going up, and going up fast, rising by 34.9% in 2023 compared with the previous year. It cost the UK £52.8 million in 2023, according to NFU Mutual.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that, with many councils closing tips and other community services, there is almost no other option for some residents to dispose of materials? Obviously, fly-tipping is illegal, but when councils cut back services such as tips, there is often no other alternative but for residents to do that. That is not a defence, as the action is totally unacceptable, but if there is no other option, some people are forced to do it.”
“We should be supporting sports facilities across the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government provided the Scottish Football Association with more than £20 million to build and improve football facilities between 2021 and 2025. Do the Government have any plans to invest further in grassroots football in Scotland?”
“Lifts that do not work, toilets that do not flush, taps that do not work, leaks in the roof, heating that leaves rooms either too hot or cold, and escalators that break down—by any standard, Portcullis House is not working as it should. My concern is not for right hon. and hon. Members, but the staff who work for us in Portcullis House. It is clear that it is no longer fit for purpose. Can we have a further update from the House of Commons Commission on its work to make Portcullis House fit for the 21st century?”
“Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate about the importance of keeping our roads and highways clear of litter and rubbish? I recently spent time with Ronnie and Darren from Scottish Borders council, who do a tremendous job emptying bins and keeping the A1 in Berwickshire clean and tidy. They are supported by many volunteers, including Candy Philip and Alison Currie from the Berwickshire Anti Litter Group, who spend many hours a week cleaning litter from lay-bys and grass verges. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Ronnie, Darren and the volunteers who do this important work keeping our countryside clean and tidy?”
“My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a great champion he is for Stockton West and why he has a reputation in this place for being one of the hardest-working MPs in Teesside. Does he agree that high streets are a lifeline for our local communities? In the Scottish Borders, I am fortunate to have a whole number of small and vibrant high streets, but their businesses are being hammered, not only by the Labour Government’s tax hikes through national insurance but the SNP Government’s tax hikes through business rates.”
“In a rare moment of consensus, I agree with the hon. Member’s criticism of the SNP Government. Does he agree with me that one of the changes that could be made in Scotland is to the planning system? If we allow our high streets to be more flexible in how they respond to challenges, that is a way to get new life into something that has been traditionally at the heart of the community.”
“My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On behalf of Scottish Members, can I also recommend a deep-fried Mars bar supper and a haggis supper, which are other delicacies that fish and chip shops might be able to provide?”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I visited Israel recently as part of a delegation from this place, and met politicians from across the political spectrum. Some support the Israeli Government’s current approach, while others do not, but what unites them is their criticism of the UK Government’s continued support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Will the Government please reconsider that support?”