Rupa Huq MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about this very complex condition. He mentioned Rory Cellan-Jones, who is well known as a BBC technology correspondent and, as the person who houses Sophie from Romania, a famous dog lover. He is my constituent in Ealing. I totally agree with my hon. Friend; the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, which won the Broadcasting Press Guild’s best podcast of the year award, has shown with such humanity and warmth the ups and downs—a lot of downs—of this very sad condition, which is growing. I assure the 153,000 sufferers in this country and the 10 million worldwide that today’s attendance is a reflection not of the importance of this debate, but of electoral events outside this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Parky charter to encourage more research into this terrible condition that afflicts so many, which Rory lobbies me quite often about, deserves Government funding? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister on the Treasury Bench is also listening.

• 13 Mar 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  From 5 am to 10 pm daily, the Patels’ newsagent, off licence and post office was an Acton staple—until Horizon slapped it with a £123,000 demand, and Mrs Patel had a series of mini-strokes. Will Ministers look into the fact that their compensation was rejected because Mr Patel was the postmaster, and show their love for high-street heroes everywhere by attending a tea organised by the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners on 3 April? You are welcome too, Mr Speaker.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I am not finished addressing the first point. Can we do this sequentially? I will respond to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) first and then I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is interesting to learn that, but my point is that such schools are still going to be quids in after this.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and to see the newly minted Minister in his place—I think it is the first time I have been in a debate with him. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who was the Secretary of State; I sometimes see him on the District line, because we head the same way. I rise to speak on behalf of constituents who have contacted me about this issue—in my inbox, in person at the advice surgery I do every Friday, and on the doorsteps when meeting and greeting voters in the recent general election. This issue comes alongside an array of others raised by mums and dads. I am familiar with the arguments and have read the Government’s response; it contains very compelling figures—94% of schoolchildren in the UK, including my own, attend state schools. I also know that the policy polls very well. However, there is also that 6%, and 14 of those private schools are in the constituency of Ealing Central and Act; in 2023 there were 15, in fact, but one has closed its doors since then. I want to vocalise some of their concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister. Fourteen is a higher than average number of private schools in a constituency, and the petition was signed by 821 people in the constituency—although that is not even in the top 10. The heat map shows that the top 10 seats all have more than 1,000 signatories. I think two of those constituencies are in Surrey, but the remaining eight tend to have a W, NW or SW postcode. What I am trying to say is that the distribution of the signatures and the schools is a fairly west London-type phenomenon. In fact, if we look at the 650 constituencies across the land, the first one on the list is single digits; it is a seat in Wales starting with A—Aberconwy, or somewhere like that. This is not a phenomenon everywhere, but in west London it is not that unusual. The high school of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) was not very far from my high school in my constituency. I was a Notting Hill girl, and I know that he was a St Benedict’s pupil back in the day. The prep school of the Minister who is often sent to respond to this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who is my neighbouring MP—was Durston House, and it is in my seat of Ealing Central and Acton. We should not demonise these parents. In some senses, they are people who I have grown up with and live alongside, and they do have genuine concerns. As a parent, I would never dream of going private, but I can understand and accept that people do. I went to school in the 80s—the dark days of Thatcherism—before the Labour Government reforms that made excellent state schools in my constituency. My parents chose to put me in the state sector for primary school, at Montpelier primary, and as a parent myself, I have benefited from Gordon Brown’s reforms. The child trust fund came to maturity for my son recently; it did go up in the end—it was the one that could go up as well as down. I have not used the private sector as a parent—as a child I did, but it was not my own choice. I completely appreciate that people, like my own parents at the time, make enormous sacrifices to send their children to independent schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) said. I have heard people say on the doorstep, “We have the worst car. We never go on holiday.” That was me in the ’80s. I want to point out some unintended consequences of the policy to the Minister aware. These are people who consider themselves to be working people. The strapline of the Labour manifesto was “No taxes on working people”. We should be careful with our rhetoric sometimes and not seek to—[Hon. Members: “Come over here!”] Hang on—let me carry on. The first unintended consequence—or commonly misstated thing—is that pupils with an education, health and care plan still remain eligible. It is impossible to get one in west London. We have all taken on new wards in our boundaries, so now I do not only represent Ealing borough but a bit of Hammersmith and Fulham too. A head from one of primary schools was saying that they have a large percentage of special educational needs and disabilities pupils. The wards that I have inherited are from the north of the borough—Shepherd’s Bush way. Apparently, by the age that a child goes to school and those issues show up, it is kind of too late. A sharp-elbowed, middle-class parent from the south of the borough might have had their child assessed privately at a very young age, ensuring they have support all the way through, but by school age, there is a waiting list of many years to get the assessment and then it is potluck. The problem is that the words “private school” imply a whole load of things—but they are not all Eton. Some of the comms around this policy have not been done very sensitively. I know that offence was taken at a comment about how they all have astroturf pitches, swimming pools and embossed stationery; that did not go down well with parents and heads in my constituency. They are not all like that. There are smaller SEND schools and smaller faith schools—what I am trying to say is that they are not all Eton, and some of the comms are based on a caricature. We should be careful about what we do in that regard. One parent, Matthew, forwarded me a missive from the private school that his boys are at, which read: “For music lessons with peripatetic teachers employed by the School…VAT will need to be applied at 20%.” He continued: “Traditionally the tax system has been a way of discouraging people from picking up bad habits like smoking and drinking. Not from picking up a trombone”. It seems as though people are capitalising on the policy, and then other things are coming in through the back door. I have been replying and trying to sound sympathetic to these parents. My constituent also said: “you referred to a consultation…on the VAT proposals—yet like most government consultations, what was passed didn’t seem, in any significant way, different to what had been proposed.” Maybe that is a lesson in life for all of us: if we put something out for consultation, we should make it look like we listened, because he is saying that it came back exactly the same. The right hon Member for East Hampshire raised that elitist private schools such as Eton have actually done quite well out of this policy, because they can cash in on windfalls from the new VAT rules on independent schools—they can claim it back on capital projects, such as buildings and land acquisition, over the last 10 years. All the VAT on costs, which is now 20%, is recoverable when factoring in non-business use, so the policy will basically hand money back to schools such as Eton from Treasury coffers. Surely there is a loophole there—an unintended consequence—that needs to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister. There are long lists of such things. The Times says: “Eton spent more than £20 million on a sports centre in 2023 and Winchester College’s”— where I think our former Prime Minister went— “accounts from the same year said it spent £15 million on capital expenditure”. It also says that Radley College, in Oxfordshire has a 20-acre solar farm and 40-acre woodland, and that Charterhouse in Surrey “built two boarding houses in 2021 and is developing a theatre and lecture theatre” Again, costs can come back for the big boys, but not for the little ones.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I would suggest implementing it in a slightly different way, based on turnover—so doing it for the enormous schools that can afford it, but not for smaller ones that have been caught in the trap. There is also an argument for looking at grammar schools, which are a legacy from many years ago. We do not have them in my area, but when I was the Labour candidate in Chesham and Amersham in 2005, they came up as a hustings issue. The argument that the Labour party always gave me in those days was that we respect parental choice. At times, the Conservative party has flirted with bringing back more grammar schools, but they are even more elitist in a way because they take state funds for private school-type facilities. Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham was way bigger than the school I went to; I felt very small when I went there. Perhaps something could be done about the grammar school system, because that is an inegalitarian one. I wanted to vocalise some of the concerns from my electorate and remind hon. Members that one size does not always fits all. In this case, that is far from the truth.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady and I were both girls in those schools, and she talked about her daughter. Does she accept that it is often the parents who want their daughters to have an all-girls education. There are figures from the Girls’ Schools Association. There is also the head of Dame Allan’s girls’ school, who said that girls thrive better in all subjects in all-girls environments and that they choose things such as physics and maths more when there are not boys around mucking about.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to learn that—

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know how parliamentary that language is. I am not going to join in the praise of Eton, particularly because I think the hon. Lady may have been an atypical parent. I imagine that some parents there would be able to bear a 20% increase, and for a school that is clever with its accounts, these things may just be a rounding error. I am talking about smaller schools for which that does not apply. It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) here. I have a massively remain constituency, with 72% of my electorate voting remain, but, perversely for Reform, it is leaving the EU that has made this policy possible—it is a Brexit benefit. If only we had never left the EU, this would not be happening. Usually education is not a taxable luxury good, and there is a fear that if this increase happens, what could be next—nurseries or universities? I used to work in that sector. There is a slight worry that there is a loophole, because the policy contradicts the EU’s VAT directive that specifies there should be no VAT on any form of education. In Greece in 2015, the left-wing Syriza Government wanted to introduce VAT at 23%. They had to abandon that for a slew of different reasons, including because it was contrary to the EU’s VAT directive. University tuition is zero rated, and there is a worry among my friends in the sector there, who say, “You’re lucky to have got out when you did, because they’re closing so many university departments in the UK.” What could be next? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that nurseries and universities are off limits. We have heard all these things—that schools are going to close—and we have heard a lot of catastrophising, but it remains to be seen whether those things will come to pass. One of my schools went in 2023. My worry is that this policy will make an elitist system more elitist. The Government say in their response: “Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision”, but when growth comes, is there a way of undoing it? It was a very clear policy in many manifestos, so I understand that it will not all be undone, but let us think a bit creatively.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), Madam Deputy Speaker, and say that my heart swells with pride to see you in the Chair? We are of the same vintage, as is the Prime Minister: the class of 2015. Here we are on another Friday of private Members’ Bills. I have to say to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) that although he and I were on the same side last week, along with the Minister, and I proudly marched through the Lobby with him—he made a passionate speech on that day as well—I am afraid that today I cannot support his Bill, for numerous reasons. The hon. and learned Gentleman—who is not even listening to me!—delivered his argument with his customary passion and dramatic flair, but I think that the Bill is actually quite dangerous. Last week we were talking about safeguards and limitations of power. That debate was all about oversight. This week we have been talking about mutual enforcement, which removes all oversight. I am a bit worried about all this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister—who made a brilliant speech—that by seeking to disapply section 7A of the Windsor framework, which enables EU legislation to enter UK domestic law, the Bill undermines the Good Friday agreement, one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government or indeed any Labour Government, and attacks human rights protections. The Windsor framework only saw the light of day in 2023; it is not even a finished process, and the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to strangle it at birth. The framework was only the latest instalment of the divorce deal between Great Britain and the EU revisiting border arrangements. We all remember the referendum of 2016, which opened a Pandora’s box and a can of worms—stuff that we had never seen in this country before. I was a passionate remainer, and my constituency was 72% in favour of remaining. There were tears in playgrounds across Ealing and Acton the day after that referendum. However, I am mature enough to realise that the sky has not fallen in, so how do we make Brexit work? I feel that the Windsor framework is one of the things to mitigate. That is what we should be looking at, mitigating, not ripping up international treaties. I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan): we are still hopeful for trade deals with the rest of the world. If we rip up an international agreement now, how is the rest of the world to take us seriously? It is a fundamental breach of trust. Last week we were talking about assisted dying. People of my persuasion used to say that it would be “political suicide” to leave the EU. I have accepted that the sky has not fallen in, and I think that the Windsor framework is a sensible next step. We 2015-ers have been through probably 20 years’ worth of elections in half the time. We had them every other year: in 2015, 2017 and 2019. Those Brexit years—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle remembers them—and those late nights that we had! John Bercow lived on site, in the place where we attended all those Diwali receptions the other day. It was about 1 am, and I remember Stephen Twigg, who was sitting behind me, saying, “Come on, John—we don’t all live here.” We had plenty of those late-night sittings. Brexit, to my regret, divided families and parties. Remember all those things we have put in the recesses of our minds? There was the Cooper-Boles agreement, the Dromey-Spelman amendment—all those things. This debate is giving me weird flashbacks; I am being teleported back to 2017! This is the bit we were getting to function— [ Interruption. ] Yes, that word “Brexit”. I do not think I have even said the word so far—I cannot bring myself to say it. There was “the Chequers approach” and DExEU. Two entirely new Government Departments were created—

• 20 Nov 2024 · Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. Then we will work out the order of who is going when.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support · Hansard source

  More

  Our final Back Bencher, before we move on to the Lib Dem spokesperson, is Lee Pitcher.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  For His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I call Nigel Huddleston.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is not the Opposition Chief Whip’s decision; it lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means. Our rule book says that it is highly unusual. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but hopefully there will not be a back and forth between the shadow Cabinet and Back Benchers.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I have just been reminded by the Clerk that it is very unusual for a shadow Cabinet member to speak in a Westminster Hall debate as a Back Bencher. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but apparently that is not the done thing.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I call the first Front-Bench spokesperson: Will Forster for the Liberal Democrats.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members to bob if they wish to make a speech. We will then calculate whether we need a time limit.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In recent days, there have been protests in Rome, in Paris, in my right hon. Friend’s city of Manchester and in Trafalgar Square over what has been going on in Bangladesh. A three-figure number of student protesters have been killed; we do not know how many, because the internet has been turned off. May I press again for an urgent Government statement on our position, because I was not successful in the ballot for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on Tuesday? We have a historic, unique role in this situation.

• 22 Jul 2024 · NATO and European Political Community Meetings · Hansard source

  More

  It was incredibly pleasing to see the Prime Minister both at NATO and welcoming leaders from across our continent to Blenheim palace, at a historic moment for a reset with Europe after the disastrous legacy that the departing Government left behind. Did the subject of youth mobility for students and suchlike arise, and could his Government look into repairing it for its soft power, cultural exchange and growth-boosting properties that have been so valued, as we are now in a post-Erasmus era?