Taxes
Ben Spencer Excerpts(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
I am very happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman and all Members that what the Chancellor set out in her speech last Tuesday were the values and principles that will guide her in taking the right decisions going into the Budget at the end of the month. The importance of protecting the NHS, bringing down the cost of living and getting debt down—those will be the guiding principles for the Chancellor going into the Budget. That is important, because it sets out to the British people the challenges we face—some of them deep scars in the economy caused by the Conservatives—as well as the values that will guide us and the Chancellor in taking those decisions on 26 November.
The official Opposition is entirely entitled to ask questions and indeed put forward what it would do differently, but the problem with this Opposition is that when it does so, it simply exposes its total lack of any credibility. Remember last year, when we took the difficult decision, referred to earlier, to raise employer national insurance to support the NHS? The Opposition claimed to oppose that tax change but have refused to say whether they would reverse it—or, indeed, whether they would cut the NHS. As the shadow Chancellor pointed out earlier, more recently, at the Conservative party conference, they said that they thought they could find some £47 billion of cuts to public spending.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister just said at the Dispatch Box that national insurance contributions for employers were raised “to support the NHS”. Was that hypothecated or not?
James Murray
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the way the system works is that national insurance generally supports the NHS and pensions, but, more broadly—
James Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? More broadly, the revenue that goes into the Treasury is not formally hypothecated. But the point is that if we are going to support public services, get the NHS back on its feet and get waiting lists down, we need to take the difficult decisions to raise the tax revenue to put into that. That was an important principle that we had to take last year in the Budget.
James Murray
I agree with one of the sentiments in the points that the hon. Gentleman made: we need to ensure that people get into work wherever they can and that the safety net is there for people who can never work or are unable to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading that work to ensure that we get young people into work rather than being on a life of benefits and written off as they were by the Conservative party in office.
As I was saying, it was frankly quite some cheek for the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) to lecture about welfare spending, given the enormous increase in welfare spending on his watch when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If the £47 billion came from cuts in public services instead of from some of these fantasy welfare cuts, what would that mean? It would mean 85,700 fewer nurses; cutting every police officer in the country twice; or cutting the entire armed forces. Funnily enough, none of that detail was mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s speech.
When we took office, the Chancellor introduced tough new fiscal rules. Those required day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing, while protecting the long-term investment in our country. Now, I realise that fiscal discipline is an alien concept for some Members on the Conservative Benches.
Dr Spencer
The Minister has just talked about the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. Who was it who changed the fiscal rules?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman said “the Chancellor’s fiscal rules”, so I suspect that it was the Chancellor who introduced those fiscal rules. He gave it away in how he phrased the question.
The point is that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the Budget last year, it was on the basis of the fiscal rules: day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing and debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP, to enable investment in the long-term future of the country. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is struggling to get his head around why that sense of fiscal reality and credibility is important, but we on the Government side believe that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal stability, to ensuring that we have that responsible attitude in government and to providing the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for opening it. As Members will know, I take any opportunity to speak or to intervene, but a couple of weeks ago I missed an opportunity when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) asked whether any Labour Members wanted to lower taxes. I have two excuses for not intervening on that occasion. The first was that I had only just walked into the Chamber, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) has found, someone cannot intervene if they have only just walked in. The second reason I did not intervene on the right hon. Gentleman was that I have to declare an interest when it comes to tax: I am the son of not one but two of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax inspectors—[Interruption.] I know; I am turning into the Prime Minister and talking about what my parents did for a living. I am also the grandson of an HMRC tax inspector, so I have to declare an interest as I would not be standing here if it were not for tax.
Dr Ben Spencer
Tax collection and working for HMRC are important jobs. Obviously the tax collector gets a bad rap in popular culture, but I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman’s parents and family for what they do.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. I like the fact that, even in a debate about tax in which we have opposing views, we have been able to come to some sort of consensus—my speech has already done its job, one might argue.
The answer that I thought of giving the right hon. Member for Braintree about tax was that I would love residents in Harlow, particularly those in low-income families—23% of under-16s in Harlow live in low-income families—to pay less tax. However, we have seen underfunding in our local services, with the hospital and schools falling apart, and roads that frankly look like the surface of the moon. If we were to live in a low-tax haven—I do not suggest that all Opposition Members say we should—it would lead to those local services suffering, and it is those lower-income families who cannot afford private healthcare, private schools, or to get their car fixed every time they go over a pothole, who would suffer.
John Slinger
No, I will not.
The consequence? Chaos. Under the Conservatives, prisons were full. We had a lack of prison places and a crisis so bad that it led the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is said, to go to the country early. Local government was underfunded. Schools were literally at risk of collapse. Waiting lists were at a record high. Every time I knock on a door, people tell me of the lengthy waits they are undergoing. They often say that there is no difference between the parties and that all politicians are the same. Well, the Conservatives increased waiting lists, and we are getting them down faster than we promised; they are at the lowest level for two years.
On promises, the Conservatives are in no position to lecture us. In 2019, they pledged to build 40 new hospitals. Where are they? I am waiting. In 2019, the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, said:
“We will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared.”
Where is it? How did that go?
In 2010, 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives promised to bring net migration down to the “tens of thousands”. When was it that net migration peaked? It was in June 2023, when it peaked at 906,000.
Dr Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument. As I understand what he is saying, does he stick to the manifesto promises on which he was elected?
John Slinger
I absolutely believe we should implement the manifesto that we stood on, and I am proud to do that.
Laurence Turner
No. I have already taken two interventions and I want to make a bit of progress with my speech, but I might come back to the hon. Member.
I hope that the Opposition do publish more detail, because, if they do not, it will be widely suspected in the country and the House that they know that their claims do not withstand the lightest of scrutiny. It will also be concluded that the real function of that document is to act as an exercise in wishful thinking, and that it is designed to avoid the taking of difficult and unpopular decisions.
Some parts of the Opposition’s claims can be dispensed with briefly. They tell us that they would save £3.5 billion by closing asylum hotels; I think my constituents would choke on their cornflakes on that one, because they know that the Conservative party was the originator of hotel use, just as small boat crossings were not an issue before 2019. I am glad that, under Labour, hotel placements in Birmingham are down by 50% compared with their peak, and I look forward to their use being eliminated completely.
The greater part of the Opposition’s claimed savings is £23 billion of supposed cuts to the welfare bill, but, again, we have had only the scarcest of details. Let us be clear about the scale of what is being discussed: £23 billion is the equivalent of a quarter of the universal credit bill, more than half the disability social security bill, and two thirds of housing costs.
To give her credit, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said last week that she would be happy to share a further breakdown of those savings. Again, that has not been brought forward. If the Opposition are to ask the House to have any confidence in their proposals, they must provide that information—not examples of proposed cuts, but the cuts in their totality.
Dr Ben Spencer
One of the striking features of this debate is how much time the Government Benchers have spent discussing our record in Government and our future plans. It is almost as if they are lingering, cheering on, and desperately in need of a change of Prime Minister. Will they facilitate that?
Laurence Turner
When Opposition Members talk about defenestration, I do listen—because of their greater expertise in these matters. And, of course, “What’s past is prologue”—the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to the Zinoviev letter, but that might be one for another day. However, I have actually made only one brief reference to the last Government’s record. We are scrutinising their motion and their proposals; this is an Opposition day debate, and that is a proper function of Parliament.
The other part of the Opposition’s document that I want to comment on is their intention to axe 132,000 civil servants. Some of those people are my constituents—as has already been noted. Not only is this pledge a rehash of a “here today, gone tomorrow” promise once announced by Boris Johnson and never seen again, but it is unclear where exactly the Opposition see those job cuts falling. Is it the additional trade and customs officials hired since 2016? Is it the additional Department for Education staff hired as a result of academisation—effectively a transfer of functions from local government to central Government? Is it the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government staff hired as a result of the growth in statutory burdens on our local authorities? I think all our constituents who work in those roles deserve at least clarity on what the Opposition’s intentions are.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
One thing that this Government are really good at is creating a feeling of fear and worry, particularly among my constituents. They are looking at what has happened to them as a consequence of decisions that were taken in the last Budget. I am talking about people from all walks of life, across the board—people who employ people, people who are employed, people who work in hospitality and people who work in the charities sector, who have had to make very difficult decisions as a consequence of the impact of the last Budget.
Jerome Mayhew
We have talked about the fear that our constituents have, but there is another fear held by businesses. My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted to the worst level on record, and investment decisions taken by businesses have been delayed because businesses are worried about the impact of this terrible Budget that we are facing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the speculation fuelled by the anonymous briefings from No. 11 are already damaging our economy?
Dr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This is a serious point. People who are worried about the financial situation in the country will save rather than spend, whether they are private individuals or business. But is not the very aim of this debate to fuel that speculation and make people feel more anxious?
Dr Spencer
We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying.
Lincoln Jopp
Would my hon. Friend agree that the corollary of taxes is expenditure? We have tried to elicit some clarity from Government Members about whether they would like to raise the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £3.5 billion, or leave it where it is. Given the Chancellor’s kite-flying exercise in the media recently, would my hon. Friend be prepared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who suggested that we were the ones spreading uncertainty?
Dr Spencer
I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions.
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My home town is Kirkcaldy, and a former MP for Kirkcaldy is Gordon Brown, of course. In the Blair-Brown Government, he did a lot of work to cut child poverty, which is something I am really proud of, and he cut pensioner poverty as well. Conservative Members should be absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK. I and my colleagues on these Benches, I am sure, will do everything we can to reduce child poverty—including, I hope, removing the two-child cap.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.
Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend.
Sam Rushworth
I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I read out a list of the billions of pounds of profligate spending by the Conservative party in government. I am pleased that this Government have stopped that and that he is a convert to our cause.
Dr Spencer
I have to say that I am getting a bit exhausted by this “14 years” narrative and this recurrent chewing over the past. I want to talk about the future and decisions now. I want to talk about bringing hope for the future again. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the past, we can talk about the past—the dodgy private finance initiative deals under the previous Labour Government, or Gordon Brown selling the gold. We can talk about the International Monetary Fund bailout. I might go back to the future, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to continue in the past, I can do so. I am happy to take an intervention.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend was seeking an intervention—from the Opposition Benches, I think, but I thank him for taking one from me. Is not the tragedy that we are stuck for the rest of this decade with this Government? They are clearly not going to hold a general election while they are bombing in the polls. The country is in their hands for the rest of the decade, but all they want to do is talk about previous decades. What must our constituents and their constituents be thinking when they hear this sort of stuff?
Dr Spencer
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Our constituents are hurting. They are in a difficult situation and very worried about what is going to happen in two weeks’ time. They look at this place and see Government Members just wanting to talk about the past over and over again.
Charlie Maynard
Let us talk about trade, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it extraordinary if we look at the future. I think it was Stephen Bush in the Financial Times who talked about the permanent lobotomy that the Tory party needs to have when talking about Brexit. If we are talking about getting money into the Exchequer, let us get our economy moving again and get growth back into the economy. Let us open up a customs union with Europe and get our economy growing. Let us look to the future.
Dr Spencer
I have to apologise to the hon. Member. I came into the House in 2019, and it strikes me that this debate is probably better suited to 2018, before I was elected.
On the situation that we find ourselves in, many Labour Members have spoken about the Chancellor or the Government bringing in free this and free that. The Government do not have money and the Chancellor does not have money. It is not even just taxpayers’ money that they are pledging to spend; it is our children’s money. That goes to the core of the problem that we face.
The decisions that the Government are taking to keep on and not cut spending and to keep on borrowing and borrowing are not on my head. They are not on the heads of anyone in this room. Those decisions are on the heads of our children. Families know how to budget, and this is the equivalent of a parent saying, “We fancy going on holiday to—I do not know—Lanzarote this year and we are going to borrow money to do it. I am not going to borrow it on me, though; I am going to borrow it on my kids. They will take out the loan and they can pay it back in future.”
It is fundamentally and morally unacceptable that we are in this position and that the Government do not have an approach to try and drive down the deficit and pay back the debt. That is why I am so pleased that the Leader of the Opposition announced the golden rule for making sure that policies going forward recognise that we cannot keep on spending money that we do not have.
In the last Government, from 2010 onwards, we worked really hard on driving down debt, and we had almost got there, in terms of reducing the deficit, when covid kicked off. Can people imagine the situation we would have been in if covid had kicked off without the work we had done to balance the books and without the fiscal firepower that we had to get through it? I remember the debates that we had around covid, and I remember well the first year—I am sure everyone in this Chamber does, whether they were a Member or not. I remember early on being desperately worried that the shadow of covid would loom long and loom hard, and that, over the next decade, we would see the impact of turning off the economy for two years.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Spencer Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for being the first parliamentarian today who has not asked me, “Who will you be backing in the Labour deputy leadership contest?” I appreciate that very much.
When it comes to small businesses, in particular those in hospitality, overall employment has increased by 380,000 since the Government came to power. This week, I will be having discussions with members of UKHospitality to think about how we can support the sector more through the changes to business rates announced last year. We will come forward with more details on that in the Budget later this year.
Dr Spencer
I am not particularly interested in who the Minister is backing in the deputy leadership contest, but I welcome him to his place. Lebanese Please is a fantastic restaurant in Weybridge, but like many hospitality companies, it is struggling with the impact of national insurance increases. If the partly new Treasury Front-Bench team are considering going for a team lunch, I recommend the warm hospitality of Runnymede and Weybridge, where they can see for themselves the impact that this horrid, harmful tax is having on local businesses across the country.
Dan Tomlinson
I would not presume to know where the next Treasury ministerial awayday will happen, but perhaps we will have to consider the restaurant in the hon. Member’s constituency. He is a strong advocate for the businesses in his constituency. I hope he knows that I advocated from the Back Benches—and will continue to do so in government—for policies that we can implement to boost economic growth and living standards, so that more people have more money to spend in businesses such as the one he mentions in his constituency.
Spending Review 2025
Ben Spencer Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the desperate need for more social and affordable homes in all our communities, including those in Bolton. That multi-year commitment and £39 billion of investment will help us to build the social and affordable homes that our country desperately needs, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will work with local authorities to bring forward those plans and get Britain building the homes that we need.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
What is most interesting about the spending review is what is not mentioned: there is no mention of the River Thames scheme, no mention of our rivers, no mention of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in New Haw, and no mention of improvements to rail, despite the nationalisation of South Western Railway. In fact, there is almost no mention at all of the south-east, despite the Chancellor saying that this a spending review for the whole UK. However, she has effectively confirmed the third runway at Heathrow, despite there being no local engagement. May I invite the Chancellor to come to Runnymede and Weybridge to meet people and see if their priorities are indeed hers, as she claims?
Rachel Reeves
It is difficult to understand exactly what the Conservative critique of this spending review is. The shadow Chancellor says that we should spend less, but the hon. Gentleman has just asked us to spend more. If hon. Members on either side of the House want to spend more, they need to say where the money would come from. I am not sure that he has an answer to that.
UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue
Ben Spencer Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
We just have to look at what the businesses have already said about the deal we managed to secure last week. There are tangible benefits for British businesses exporting to China, helping to create more good jobs paying decent wages here in Britain. It has been welcomed by businesses. It is a shame that the Conservative party no longer stands up for British businesses.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have an embargo on Russian oil and gas. China continues to import it, and apparently Russia will be China’s No. 1 supplier this year. Did the Chancellor raise this with her counterparts on her trip to China, and what assessment has she made so that her deal does not inadvertently support the Russian war effort?
Rachel Reeves
As I have already said in the House today, I raised the issue of Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that last week, alongside the United States, we increased sanctions on Russian oil and gas to make it harder for Putin to continue to conduct his illegal war.
Public Finances: Borrowing Costs
Ben Spencer Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
I did not realise that the hon. Member knew my mum and that I am apparently the future. It is very kind of him to say so; very few have that in their thoughts. He talks about lefty experiments. Fiscal responsibility is not a lefty ideology. Economic responsibility is not a lefty ideological and political experiment; it is what the British people expect. One of the reasons why the Conservatives had such a historic defeat at the last election is that they lost all control and all sense when it came to the public finances. For a party that is supposedly the best-performing in western democracy, and which has had great leaders in the past, is it not a great shame what the Conservative party has become? Given its performance over 14 years and its descent into disinformation, I feel very sorry for Opposition Members.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I hope that the Minister can quickly turn this situation around for my constituents and the country, and I wish him all the best in doing so. Given the challenges of business confidence and the markets, I had hoped that he would come to the House this morning with a plan that lays out the scope of the problem and the solution to fix it. Instead, he has spoken more about the Conservative party, rather than Labour’s plan for the economy. Is that because the Chancellor is not here today? When will she come back?
Darren Jones
I am very happy to set out the Government’s plan, as I have done repeatedly today. The hon. Member will have seen in the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn a clear plan to wipe the slate clean, to deal with the mess that we inherited, to protect working people, and to invest in our public services. He will have seen it in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, which sets out the direction of this Government over the years ahead. We will put more money in working people’s pockets across the country, get our public services back on their feet and make sure that this country is in a strong position. The hon. Member will know that the Government are working through our spending review, which I run as the responsible Minister. I have already confirmed that we will come back in June to confirm the spending plans for Departments, which will have to live within their means and in line with the fiscal rules in the years ahead. I cannot think what more he would want.
Finance Bill
Ben Spencer ExcerptsWednesday 11th December 2024
(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2025 View all Finance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
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?
James Murray
Local authorities and schools already have processes in place to support pupils who move between schools at any point in the academic year. Analysis carried out by the Department for Education under the previous Government suggests that each year, almost 60,000 secondary school moves take place not at normal transition points or over the school holidays. We fully expect the majority of moves to take place at natural transition points or in the school holidays, rather than within the school year.
I have been clear that ending these tax breaks for private schools has been a difficult decision, but it is necessary to secure additional funding that will help us to fulfil the commitments we made to improving education for all.
Dr Spencer
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.
Dr Sandher
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.
Dr Ben Spencer
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.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
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.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Ben Spencer Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the farmers who visited me in the House for the good and respectful conversation that we had. I reflected their concerns to Ministers, and will continue to do so.
The Conservative Government trashed our economy. Mortgage rates went up, interest rates went up, prices went up, and taxes on working people, including farm workers, went up. The Conservative party smashed public services, with unprecedented and often unnecessary cuts to the services that our country relies on, including farmers—our roads potholed; GP surgeries under-resourced; a lack of mental health provision; schools struggling, sometimes crumbling; housing unaffordable, especially in rural areas. I could go on.
The Conservatives dashed the hopes of farmers when they were in government. They tried to sell out farmers with their trade deals, often gleeful about cheaper imports or hinting at support for chemically treated or hormone-injected meat. They gave farmers the chaos of delayed stop-start support schemes; cuts to the police, including rural policing; neglect of flooding in rural areas; and the incompetence of not even managing to spend £300 million that they had not managed to cut.
Now the Conservatives speak—perhaps exaggeratedly —about the impact of this Government’s plans. Where was their outrage when 12,000 farmers and agribusinesses were forced out of business from 2010 onwards, or when services were being cut by their Government? They are unabashed in their defence of the status quo on inheritance tax, which means that they are content to see the top 7% of the wealthiest claimants account for 40% of the total value of APR, costing the taxpayer £219 million. They are unashamed in their overall position on a Budget that, as a result of the tough decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, has provided £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, the largest ever budget for sustainable food production, £60 million for farmers affected by last winter’s wet weather and £208 million to protect against future diseases.
Contrary to some recent campaigning, Labour is investing in British farming. Equally, the Government’s Budget is investing in our entire nation—in our economy and our public services—and we will build the growth and prosperity that we all rely on. We have made our decisions; now Opposition Members, especially Conservative Members, must justify why they continue to support the status quo, why they oppose our Budget with its funding for farming, and why they rail against our Budget’s investment in the economy. If they oppose this, they owe it to people outside this House to say which taxes they would increase, which public services they would cut and how much they would increase borrowing by.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
When the hon. Member considers how much money will be raised by the family farm tax, how many hundredths of a percent is it against total annual Government spending?
John Slinger
The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not have that precise detail to hand.
To those who trashed our economy, who smashed our public services, who dashed the hopes of farmers over 14 years, who are unabashed in their defence of the status quo and who refuse to set out a credible alternative to our Budget, I say we will decline their advice today. I urge hon. Members across the House to do the same.
Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions
Ben Spencer Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am amazed by the Conservative Opposition’s chutzpah when they talk about special educational needs. No one would have thought that they had been in power for the last 14 years and overseen the running down of the system so that it is almost impossible to get an education, health and care plan—these days, 98% of tribunals award plans against councils. We have a system without special educational needs co-ordinators. We have a special educational needs system that, thanks to the legacy of the Conservative Government—14 years of decline— is failing.
I speak as someone who was for 14 years the governor of two special schools near my constituency. I am proud of what the last Labour Government achieved: £1 billion into services for disabled children and young people and their families, and lots of new rights for those people. Under the Conservatives, we have gone backwards, and the situation in the special educational needs sector is dire. As a result, young people cannot get the EHCPs they need.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Ben Coleman
Let me make a little bit more progress. Cash-strapped councils are having to send their constituents’ children to private schools because state provision is not available. Parents from my constituency have written to me saying that their only reason for sending a child to a private school to meet their dyslexia, neurodivergence or other needs is not that they are ideologically in favour of doing so, but that they cannot do anything else. The provision is not there locally, and that is because of 14 years of Conservative decline. It is absolutely extraordinary.
Dr Spencer
Bearing in mind that around 15% of children in independent schools have special educational needs and only around 5% have an EHCP, given the move back into the state sector that this policy will cause and given the hon. Gentleman’s experience and personal concern about EHCPs, will he be voting against the policy?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Dame Caroline, to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I am so pleased to speak in it.
I support all our schools and I am proud to have a range of independent schools in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. I declare an interest: my children, like one in five children in my constituency, go to an independent school.
I want to take the opportunity that we have today with a Treasury Minister responding to the debate, because Treasury Ministers are all over numbers and impacts. I am pleased to see that it would seem that, following the election, the Treasury has looked at Labour’s manifesto commitments and actually thought about them, to the extent that we are starting to get various leaks and stories that it will abandon them. I hope that the Treasury will do the same thing with this awful policy.
I know that a Treasury Minister will not make a decision without an impact assessment and I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will express his concerns about the absence of an impact assessment for this policy. However, while he is considering what the impact of the change—I hope he comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us the numbers around it—let me share some information from my constituency, where about 7,500 to 8,000 children attend independent schools.
My schools tell me that about 5% to 10% of these pupils will move because of the imposition of a tax on education. That means there will be far more pressure on our local state school system and there will also be disruption for those children. It also means that the 10% to 15% of children with special educational needs who do not have EHCPs will start seeking them, which will mean more cost for the taxpayer and more transfers between schools, which would be a backwards policy. Most egregiously of all, the Government are going to do that halfway through the educational year, with no consideration for our constituents’ GCSE, A-level and baccalaureate exam results. Will the Minister think again and persuade the Secretary of State for Education to abandon this ridiculous policy?
James Murray
I am going to make some progress. Those recovered costs can be used to offset the increases to feepayers. We are already seeing that some schools have committed to absorbing the VAT liability entirely, while others are choosing to cap fee increases at 5% or 10% to keep fees as low as possible for parents. Members have asked today why we will introduce this policy in January 2025. The reason for doing so is simple: we want to raise the funding we need as soon as possible to deliver our education priorities to state schools across the country.
James Murray
I do not have much time and I need to address the other points that hon. Members have made in this debate. Importantly, a January 2025 start date means that schools and parents will have had five months to prepare for the VAT change. HMRC is ready to ensure that schools are supported in delivering this change. To respond to the shadow Minister’s comment, HMRC will put in place a number of measures to ensure that all private schools can be registered ahead of 1 January 2025, including publishing bespoke guidance on gov.uk ahead of 30 October, updating registration systems and putting additional resource in place to help process applications.
Ahead of the policy being implemented, the Government have carefully the considered the impact the changes will have on pupils and their families across both the state and private sectors, as well their impact on state and private schools. The Government’s costings of this policy are currently being scrutinised by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor will confirm our approach to the measures at Budget, where we will set out our assessment of the expected impacts of the change in the normal way.
We recognise, as some hon. Members have raised, the changes may lead to some pupils moving into the state education sector. However, we believe that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of the changes will represent a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector and such switches will take place over several years. We are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils.
VAT: Independent Schools
Ben Spencer Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
I have given way quite a lot, so I am going to make a bit of progress.
Alongside the announcements about VAT, the Government announced in July that private schools in England with charitable status would lose their eligibility for business rates charitable relief from April 2025, subject to parliamentary passage of the legislation. Those changes were set out in a technical note that was published online alongside draft VAT legislation, which together formed a technical consultation. As part of that consultation, the Government—both at official and ministerial level—have engaged with a broad range of stakeholders, including the devolved Governments.
We have listened carefully to the points that people have raised with us. We recognise that while this policy will raise revenue to help support improvements in the state education sector, it may lead to increased costs for some parents and carers whose children are in the private education system. However, let me be clear: while private schools will now be required to charge VAT on the education services and vocational training they provide, we expect that most private schools will be able to absorb a significant portion of this new VAT charge and keep fee increases affordable for most parents. They will be able to make efficiencies and recover the VAT they incur on the things they buy. Those recovered costs can be used to offset increases for fee payers. We are already seeing that some schools have committed to absorbing the VAT liability entirely, while others are choosing to cap fee increases at 5% or 10% to keep fees as low as possible for parents.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I had a pop at getting the Minister to give way during the debate this morning, and I appreciate his doing so now. I love the irony of what he is saying, which is, “We need to do this to raise all this money, yet it isn’t actually going to raise all that much money because it can be reclaimed.” On the impact assessment, it is really interesting that one line in the consultation document that went out this summer says:
“The government understands that moving schools can be challenging.”
How many of his own constituents have contacted him to say they will have to move schools as a result of this policy, and how do we measure the damage that moving schools is going to cause for so many children in our constituencies?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Families and schools in my constituency are deeply concerned about this policy. They have contacted me to underline the pressure that it will put on them. Many have already started applying for state school places. Our independent schools reckon that about 5% to 10% of their students will move into the state sector. As we have heard, the measure will have a disproportionate impact on kids with SEND.
In my constituency, roughly 8,000 children are educated in the independent sector. That means a lot of pressure on local state schools. A lot of kids who have their special educational needs met by independent schools are now applying for EHCPs, which means extra pressure on assessments and provision. I support all my schools; I am aspirational for all the children in my constituency. This policy, if enacted—as I expect it will be—will cause great harm.
I would like the Minister to be able to quote back data, analyses and stats to me, and to say, “Ben, you’re wrong. Don’t worry your silly little head—it’s all going to be fine, and here is the data to back it up.” But he cannot; the data is not there because the Government have not done the analysis. This debate has, sadly, been driven by ideology. About one in five children are educated at independent schools in my patch. I must declare that I have chosen independent education for my children.
We will really suffer from this policy. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), is a good man. I know that Members across the House, especially new Members who are finding their feet in this place, are starting to think about policies and decisions going forward. I say to them, as I said to the Minister: “If you cannot see the data and analysis for this policy, please ask why.” Please ask for it.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Listening to the Conservatives and the amount of fearmongering they do, one might think that a previous Government had totally trashed the state sector; I think that is quite obvious.
Dr Spencer
As I said, schools in both the independent and state sectors are concerned about the policy and the sudden movement of children, in the middle of the year, into the state sector, which will struggle to find them places. Those children may be studying for exams and have already experienced covid disruption, and the state schools that they move to might not have the right courses. I plead with the Minister to look at the data and do the analysis to see if the policy will make money or lose it, and to consider the impact on children.
I go back to the brutal, bitter words of the consultation document that went out this summer:
“The government understands that moving schools can be challenging.”
If I were a child going through my GCSEs or A-levels, and was forced to move into the state sector because of this policy—the analysis of which I cannot see, because the Government have not done it or will not publish it—and I read those words, I would say, “Please delay this policy. Think again. Look at it, and try to mitigate the impact on children with special educational needs, on armed forces families, and of disruption during the school year. Please, if you are not going to stop it, at least delay it and do the working out.”
Winter Fuel Payment
Ben Spencer Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Swallow
Three million food parcels were distributed last year. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government. And the triple lock that the Conservatives purport to defend? They broke it in 2022.
I also support the extension of the household support fund to help the families most in need this winter, as well as the Government’s commitment to introducing tougher regulation to the energy market, which has let customers down for too long. I am working hard with Bracknell Forest council to ensure that pensioners in the Bracknell constituency who are in need but not claiming the support to which they are entitled are identified and encouraged to get help. I urge any pensioner who is concerned about their finances to go to Age UK’s benefits calculator to see what support they may be entitled to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
What did the hon. Gentleman say to pensioners during the election campaign?
Peter Swallow
I said that the Labour party would restore the broken economy inherited from the Conservative party.
In the long term, there is only one permanent solution to ending fuel poverty: we must end our dependence on volatile foreign energy markets and deliver lasting energy security. The Conservative party failed to do that in Government, leaving energy bills higher for every household, including those most in need. That is why this Government’s plan to create GB Energy, a new national energy company, is vital. It will bring energy supply back into the hands of the British public and help to get prices back under control. That is the long-term solution to fuel poverty: home-grown, British-controlled power.