Draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) (No. 3) Regulations 2024
Joy Morrissey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition support the draft regulations. I am happy that they address the technical changes needed to complete the work of abolishing the lifetime allowance.
During the pandemic, a significant number of workers aged 50 or over left the labour force. In response to that challenge, the previous Government introduced the ambitious Back to Work plan, supported by £2.5 billion in funding, alongside initiatives such as the midlife MOT and returnerships. We also abolished the lifetime allowance from April 2024. This reform is essential to ensuring that highly skilled professionals such as NHS clinicians are not disincentivised from remaining in the workforce. No one should be punished or pushed out of work for tax reasons.
We welcome the Government’s decision to continue with the previous Government’s plan for the lifetime allowance. It simplifies our tax system and incentivises experienced and productive workers to stay in the workforce for longer. I would, however, like to take a moment to reflect on the Government’s somewhat changing position on lifetime allowances. Some Members may recall that the day after the previous Government announced our plans to abolish the lifetime allowance, the then shadow Chancellor pledged:
“Labour will reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 1005.]
I am happy to see that there has been a roll-back of that decision and that we are going with the previous Government’s plans. The Opposition support that, of course, and are happy to wave it through.
VAT: Independent Schools
Joy Morrissey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as ever, makes important points. I too am disappointed that the Education Secretary is not with us for this important debate. I will make progress, Mr Speaker, because I do not want to go on longer than I should.
To be clear, we want to talk first and foremost not about revenue, but about education, schools and children—all children. [Interruption.] No, I have been talking about schools and children throughout. If the Government insist on ploughing on with this divisive policy, they must at least exempt certain groups of children for whom it would be especially unjust or counterproductive to impose this tax. Surely, schools that charge the same as, or even less than, the average cost of a school place were not in the Government’s sights when they devised this scheme. There are small religious groups that have no state sector provision for their denomination. Why should they be disadvantaged? The continuity of education allowance exists expressly to support families who are serving our nation in the armed forces. Surely they should be protected.
The Government acknowledge the role of centres of advanced training and performing arts schools that come under the music and dance scheme, because, again, there is no equivalent specialist schooling available in the state sector. Then there are the many children who receive special educational needs support, including those with an education, health and care plan, whether or not they are at the school named in the plan, and those children who are applying for a plan.
Damian Hinds
I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me, as I must make progress.
As for children whose parents are priced out of a school, or face its closure, disruption to learning can be difficult at any time, but it is even more problematic when pupils have started a public examination course. Their next school might not even offer the subjects that they were taking, or the exams might not be marked by the same exam board. We need to think about those children. The tax levy should be postponed until pupils who are now in years 10 or 11, or in the lower and upper sixth form, have finished their exams—until 2025 or 2026.
The widest impact of all will be felt by state schools. Ministers have said repeatedly that there is no problem because there are plenty of spaces in state schools. We have repeatedly pointed out that that is of no help at all if those places are in the wrong places or the wrong year groups. They need to be where and for whom they are required.
Joy Morrissey
In Buckinghamshire, we do not have the places. We have a lot of children in special education needs and disabilities schools, faith schools and other private schools. We cannot cope with the capacity loss. We have parents who are sacrificing everything to send their child to a SEND school. There is no provision in the county for them. The policy will result in a crisis of transportation and places, and children will suffer as a result.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for their interventions. Indeed, there are many places, particularly at secondary school level, where there are insufficient spaces available to accommodate a significant minority being displaced from independent schools—places such as Bristol and Bedford, Salford and Richmond, Worcester and Wycombe, and Bury North and Bolton North East.
Let us be clear: local authorities have a duty to find spaces for children. They take that duty very seriously, and a number of them are considerably worried about what may happen. In-year admissions can be especially complicated in any case: they can involve not only governors but the fair access protocol panel and, ultimately, a Secretary of State direction, all of which can add up to months out of school. Creating additional physical space in schools obviously takes time, and building new schools takes longer still. Time is needed to adjust, which is why our motion further calls on the Government to
“postpone imposition of the VAT charge for schools in areas where state schools in the relevant key stage are already on average”
almost full.
This Government barely have their feet under the table, and already they are a Government in chaos. That chaos is exemplified by this destructive, disruptive and divisive education tax that will interrupt learning; create place demand where it cannot be accommodated; put further strain on the SEND system; hit specific groups that we ought to be trying to protect; likely generate much lower revenue than anticipated; and quite possibly even end up as a net cost to the public purse. In their headlong rush to make a political statement, the Government appear simply to not have thought through the consequences. We call on them now to announce immediately that they are abandoning the unrealistic January implementation date, to publish a proper impact assessment, and then to entirely rethink this entirely counterproductive tax.
Winter Fuel Payment
Joy Morrissey Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I find it slightly ironic that we are debating this policy today. This is about political choice. A policy that was brought in under Gordon Brown—a social democratic policy of inclusivity under which everyone buys into the state—is being scrapped in favour of a neoliberal means-tested policy, one that I think most actual Labour socialists would be ashamed of.
I declare an interest: I am a member of Care Campaign for the Vulnerable, which helps elderly residents who have medical issues or are in care. One of the issues for those elderly people is heating. These are the elderly who fought for the reconstruction of Britain in post-war London and across the UK, had rationing for years and years and paid their taxes. We have built this country on the back of their hard work and sacrifice, only to turn around and say, “No. We did not scrap this policy under 14 years of a Conservative Government, but we are scrapping it as the first thing we do as a Labour Government.”
I am not even blaming the Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). I knew the Minister and his parents when they were councillors with me in Ealing—true socialists, for the many, not the few. I am not sure that applies here. This is a political choice to give Labour’s union paymasters a pay rise over vulnerable pensioners. This is about paying £8 billion or £9 billion for an energy company that will not generate a single watt of energy. This is about political choice and political will. If we, the Conservatives, could keep a Labour policy for our entire time in government, it is shocking and disheartening that the Labour party is making this choice now.