National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly.

Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that?

[Dr Sandher]

As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time.

The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose.

All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments, and I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to talk about the services that are so integral to our communities, because they are the ones on which our constituents rely. I am talking about GP surgeries, dental practices and pharmacies. I am also talking about our community hospices; the charity hospices that care for our loved ones through the most difficult and heartbreaking of times; the hospices that our constituents work so hard to raise funds to keep going. including our children’s hospices.

I listened very hard to what the Minister said, and he talked really dispassionately about difficult decisions. Has he no shame? This is a choice, and the Government have chosen to impose this jobs tax on children’s hospices and the services that support families going through the most unimaginably difficult and painful of times.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend speaks with so much knowledge and passion, and she is a real advocate for her constituents. When we look across the Chamber, we see that the Labour Benches are threadbare. Is that not testament to the fact that Labour is actually trying to defend the indefensible?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is absolutely right. There are over 400 Labour MPs, but just four of them are sitting there to try to defend this indefensible jobs tax on our most vulnerable. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Do they not have children’s hospices in their constituencies? Do they not have hospices and other settings that their constituents work so hard to raise funds for? They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[Joe Robertson]

Perhaps I may suggest an easy decision, rather than a difficult one? The Government, instead of giving £9 billion away to Mauritius, should use some of that to support social care and charities.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That would be an excellent decision, and I am sure the Naomi House children’s hospice and Jacksplace, which do so much invaluable work to support families going through the most unspeakable difficulties in my area, would advocate for that.

I want to talk about childcare settings, which ensure that our smallest but most cherished family members are cared for and given the very best possible start in life. It is incomprehensible that the Government have taken this decision to imperil some of the businesses and services that our constituents most rely on—nursing homes, for example. The owner of one nursing home, with 35 years of service in the Gosport constituency, told me that the tax rises in the Budget will add £90,000 on top of its annual costs. This business is particularly vulnerable because a very large proportion of its bed spaces are occupied by local authority patients. Its costs are going to go up by 12% this year, driven mostly by changes to the minimum wage and this jobs tax—the national insurance contributions change—on his 75 members of staff. The council, which is having difficulties of its own, can provide only a 4% uplift to cover it. Quite simply, this an existential threat to his business, and he is not alone.

It is the elderly, the vulnerable, disabled people and their families who are going to pay the price, and we know that these costs will go to those having to foot the bill. If people are not privately funded, some nursing homes will be forced to hand back their local authority contracts and increase the proportion of beds commissioned privately. Since the Budget, I have received messages from individuals who have already seen the cost of care going through the roof. One wrote to me:

“Directly due to the increases in Employers National Insurance contributions the Chancellor has managed to cause an increase of 7.8% in my brother’s care home fees that are already north of £8000 a month… I shudder to think of the overall cost nationally of this increase across all those with relatives and loved ones in care.”

I also want to talk about early years settings. Early years providers are facing a squeeze that many just will not be able to stomach. Just as care settings have their revenue dictated by local government, nurseries are limited by childcare ratios and the fees they get from their local authority for their 30 hours’ free childcare. Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across my region, has told me that these changes will add £1 million to its overheads. It says that, in order to make up the shortfall, it is going to have to put its fees up by 10%, and that 10% will be passed on to my Gosport constituents. How can parents in Gosport face such an uptick in fees? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that will have on parents, on people dropping out of the jobs market or out of the workforce, and, most especially, on women? At the end of the day, we all know that when it comes to childcare, rightly or wrongly, the buck always stops with us. What will be the disproportionate impact of this on women?

I could mention so many other organisations that are facing the prospect of scaling back their activities. They include hair and beauty salons, which are warning that this will result in billions of pounds lost, and many will shut up shop or encourage staff to go freelance. They have previously taken on so many apprentices, but they warn that by 2027 there will be no apprenticeships left in this sector because they will be too expensive.

The common thread is that this national insurance change will hit businesses for which labour is the highest cost and there is no digital solution, and businesses that are unable to find efficiencies because of the nature of their overheads. The amendments passed in the Lords would go some way towards alleviating those cost pressures. In many cases, they would be a lifeline for the businesses and services that our constituents so desperately rely on, and those that by their very nature are reliant on the public sector for revenue. I urge the Minister to change his mind, to show some compassion, to show he cares, to listen to his constituents and to support these amendments.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I am on record previously as calling for more support for hospices, but I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the issue of home-to-school transport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That relates to Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, and I wish to consider those today.

For many children with SEND, their school transport is a lifeline to education, friendships and independence. Without it, these children risk being cut off, left behind and denied opportunities that they deserve. If these Lords amendments are rejected, local councils and transport providers will struggle, families will face uncertainty and, I believe, the fundamental right to education will be compromised. This is not just a technical change to national insurance rates and thresholds; it is a direct threat to the futures of vulnerable children and their families. These dry words on a page have a massive impact in the world outside this place.

There is a genuine fear that the cost of removing these Lords amendments, which will ultimately see more children kept out of school, will actually be greater than the additional revenue raised through the national insurance changes. In reality, to exempt SEND school transport from the national insurance rise is not going to bankrupt the UK. We know that local councils, even with additional funding, are already struggling with the impact of 14 years of austerity. I believe that we could certainly raise the money we need if we had a wealth tax and introduced other changes to capital gains tax. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained why we are unable to compromise on this issue and find a way to exempt SEND school transport from the changes he proposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I find it hard to believe that we are listening to those arguments being made by Labour Members. The unintended consequences of the Labour Government’s choices are not just disappointing but callous. They are so harsh on some of the most vulnerable communities and vulnerable people in society.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she agree that it also shows a deep lack of understanding by the Labour party of the way our communities are constructed and the organisations we rely on so much to keep them going?

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. What we see instead is Labour Members continuing to blame their economic inheritance. That is simply not correct. The chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility said:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”.

I wonder what the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, makes of all this. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, he endorsed Labour.

What many people now see is a Government who do not really understand the role that so many charities play in supporting the NHS, communities, older people, young people, families, and patients—people who are sick and sometimes terminally ill. For example, why would they protect the public sector and the rest of the NHS from the national insurance tax, but not general practice? Analysis from the Institute of General Practice Management estimates that it will cost each practice an average of £20,000 a year. How many staff hours is that equivalent to? How many hours of a GP’s time or a practice nurse’s time is that?

I have spoken to a number of local charities, and we have heard from others today. Every pound that the Labour Government squeeze out of them through the jobs tax is an extra pound that cannot be spent on frontline services—an extra pound that they have to find just to stand still. I find it so hard to believe that this Labour Government are also taxing those who provide vital hospice care. How can they talk of helping palliative care with one hand, while clobbering hospices and care providers with extra taxes with the other?

I can be cynical at times but I see a complete lack of business expertise, knowledge or experience among those on the Labour Benches. Just visiting businesses is not enough to understand how a business operates. I speak to them in my constituency on a weekly basis. The chair of the CBI has stated that

“business has been milked as the cash cow”.

We simply cannot expect small businesses, or indeed any business, to just be squeezed and squeezed, thinking, “Well, they’ll just increase their costs and pass them on to the end user.” The end user cannot afford them, as we have heard this afternoon. Ultimately, something will have to give: hours, training, development and jobs.

Just yesterday, we were in this Chamber debating the Government’s welfare reform. At the heart of the issue, I really believe people want to get back into work. They need support to do that, but they also need employers and businesses to have vacancies so that they can support them back into work. What I, like others, see in this legislation is the Government taxing businesses out of creating the vital jobs that this country so needs to get the growth that we do not have at the moment.

As I mentioned, attendance on the Government Benches is somewhat threadbare, giving the appearance that the Government do not care. We have heard from Labour Members who do care, just like we on the Opposition Benches care. I draw my remarks to a conclusion by urging Members on the Government Benches and those listening outside to reflect very carefully. We all have the opportunity today to do the right thing—to protect and help charities and hospices and, by virtue of that, to protect and help some of the most vulnerable in our country and society. We have the opportunity to protect jobs and help businesses to create opportunities and, by virtue of that, to help working people who aspire to a better life. I end quite simply by urging those on the Government Benches to think again and to do the right thing.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to join Conservative colleagues in calling on the Labour Government to stop this farm tax. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and to have heard what he said about those false promises before the general election. Perhaps he, too, wants his Government to think again about what they are doing.

The other week, thousands of farmers took the extraordinary step of coming to Westminster to protest against this misguided policy. Unfortunately, the Government have put their head in the sand and are pursuing this policy. I hope this debate will make them think again and make them listen. I give the Exchequer Secretary 10 out of 10 for appearing in the Chamber today, even though he is a junior Minister at the Treasury—he certainly pulled the short straw by being put on the Front Bench today. I ask Ministers not just to come here, but to listen to what is being said and to really listen to the needs of our farming community.

We have heard a lot today about what British farmers do—they are stewards of the land, guardians of our food security and the backbone of the rural economy—yet the Government show a fundamental lack of understanding of how their policy will affect the industry. They are pushing ahead with it, even though it jeopardises not just farmers’ livelihoods but the very future of our countryside.

The numbers speak for themselves. While the Government claim that only 27% of farms will be affected, the National Farmers Union has warned that 75% of family farms will be affected. If I were in government and I saw the discrepancy between those numbers, I would go back to the drawing board, check the figures and ask why those discrepancies are there, not dig in deeper. I think the curse of this Labour Government and what they will be remembered for is their distinct lack of grasp of detail and of how the economy works, rural and otherwise. [Interruption.] Yes, this Budget has been a disaster of a Budget.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making excellent points. Does she agree that there is not only a lack of grasp of detail, but an astounding sense of arrogance—an inability to listen to those who know what they are doing, the farmers, and who have the experience and the expertise? There is just a blank inexplicable unwillingness by this Government to listen to the voices of expertise and of experience.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the House. This debate allows those on the Labour Benches to say, “Actually, let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s look at this discrepancy in the numbers.” For all their talk of growth—I return to the Budget—this Government’s policies are delivering the exact opposite of growth, with the change to employer national insurance contributions and the change to rights from day one. They are talking down the economy and crushing growth in the economy, with the forecast being revised to be lower than it was.

Even if the Government do not want to hear this from me, and even if they do not want to hear it from the farmers, I want them to hear it from a Labour-supporting tax expert, Dan Neidle. He has eventually come to the conclusion that Labour’s farm tax is a dog’s dinner of a policy. Originally, Dan had criticised what he saw as “over-the-top coverage” of the impact these tax changes would have, but he says that on closer inspection he has reversed his decision, remarking that these Budget changes would hit

“farmers too hard and tax avoiders too lightly.”

He argues that the policy needs to change. Dan Neidle has said that the Treasury should raise the inheritance tax cap dramatically to around £20 million so

“only the largest and most sophisticated farm businesses become subject to IHT”.

Those on the Labour Benches might not want to listen to me, but I hope they will listen to one of their own tax experts.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a rare intervention, but this Bill is about business rates in England. Some of his wider points may relate to the removal of the VAT exemption for private school fees in other countries and nations of the UK. Those provisions will be debated as part of the Finance Bill on Wednesday and, if he repeats his comments, I might be able to address them more specifically.

Today, we are addressing the business rates system that applies in England. This is important because every parent aspires to get the best education for their child, and we as a Government are determined to ensure that those aspirations are met. At the Budget, the Government announced a real-terms increase in per pupil funding, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding.

This funding increase needs to be paid for so, to help make that happen, the Government are ending the tax breaks for private schools, as set out in our manifesto. This includes ending charitable rate relief eligibility for those private schools in England that are charities. This Bill will do that, and its measures operate alongside the ending of the VAT exemption for private school fees, which is being delivered through the Finance Bill that I will be moving on Wednesday. Together, these measures will raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Bill makes provision for maintaining the charitable status of institutions that are wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for pupils with an education, health and care plan. Will the Minister set out the definition of “wholly or mainly”? What support will be put in place for councils to afford the burden of extra pupils moving into mainstream education? Schools will be facing the double whammy of losing charitable status and VAT being imposed on school fees. Hampshire county council is already under financial strain, and it will face a crisis point by 2026-27 under these proposals.

[James Murray]

As I will explain, the test of “wholly or mainly concerned” is 50% of pupils, or more, having an EHCP specifying that their educational needs can be met only in a private school. I will provide some more detail in a moment.

Of course, the Government have prioritised funding for the state education system in this Budget. The £2.3 billion increase, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding, is possible only because of the difficult decisions that we have taken on taxation, including in the Bill.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the removal of VAT and business rates exemptions for independent schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. This debate matters for various reasons. I have always been and will remain committed to supporting education across the board, including our excellent state schools. I want all schools to be adequately funded to present opportunities for children from all backgrounds. I say that as someone who was proudly educated in state schools and who cares about the life chances of everyone.

I have secured this specific debate to highlight how Labour’s ideologically driven plan to remove VAT and business rate exemptions for independent schools is an inherently flawed policy. If Labour will not abandon the education tax I will also suggest some improvements that the Government could make to lessen the impact of the policy on pupils, parents and school staff in Bromsgrove and across the country.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. We seem to have a problem with the sound—it seems to be everybody’s microphones. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to plough on while we see whether we can change a few plugs and get it rolling again. In case he was put off by the tinny quality of the sound, we are trying to get it rectified. Please plough on.

[Bradley Thomas]

Thank you, Dame Caroline. Education is an investment in our future. It is in everyone’s best interests that children are well educated so that they can make an engaged and positive contribution to our society. We do not charge VAT on many types of private healthcare, as that is beneficial when people use their own money to pay for a service that the state would otherwise provide. We do not charge VAT on university or nursery fees, so why should schooling be any different?

There are approximately 2,500 independent schools in the UK educating more than half a million children. They are often small schools: more than 40% of independent schools have fewer than 100 pupils according to Department for Education data. The reality is that the policy will not fulfil its aims and will displace children mid-education. State education must be funded by the state, supported by taxpayers. The VAT exemption encourages greater use of independent education, reducing the number of state school pupils, meaning more money available per pupil in the state sector.

The Times recently stated that 71% of parents felt that rising school fees would influence their future decision about independent schooling. Additionally, 26% of parents said they would have to withdraw their children from independent schools if VAT is introduced.

An Adam Smith Institute report provides a detailed examination of the potential economic impacts. If 10% to 15% of students transfer, the net revenue could be negligible. Alarmingly, in a scenario where 25% of students switch from the independent sector to state schools, the tax could cost the Government £1.6 billion.

Currently, independent schools’ significant economic benefits include supporting 328,000 jobs, saving £4.4 billion from the education budget, and supporting £5.1 billion in additional tax revenue. They do this while saving the state £4.5 billion by removing the requirement to fund the education of 7% of children as the result of parents exercising this choice. Furthermore, independent and state boarding schools are a unique subset of the schools system, with the additional feature of attracting overseas students to the UK. Some 62,700 pupils are international students in independent schools, making up 11% of the population. This is a key export for the country, adding £2.1 billion to our economy annually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. A lot of people want to take part in this debate, so I remind everybody that they need to bob if they wish to be called. Given the nature of the debate, I recommend that Members declare any interests if they have them. I am going to kick us off with a three-minute limit on contributions because 19 people are down to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

I am desperately trying to squeeze everybody in, but, as we can see, a lot of people want to speak, so I will now take the time limit down to two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

This is a reminder that there is a two-minute time limit and, in order to get through the remaining speakers, I am now not going to add an additional minute for each intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. I want to bring up a specific Northern Ireland and constituency-based concern. When the addition of VAT to special schools was first proposed, I was contacted by the administrator of Newtownabbey Independent Christian school. I want to quote what he informed me:

“We receive no revenue or capital funding from the Department of Education to run our school therefore our parents have no choice but to pay fees when, out of religious conviction, they chose to send their children to our school. We are not an elite school, nor do we practise academic selection in any form. We believe this policy lacks fairness. Some of our school parents are on low incomes, demonstrated by pupils being entitled to free school meals. An added cost of 20% will deprive them of their religious based choice to send them to a Christian School.”

That is important not only in a Northern Ireland context, but in the context of this Government’s intention to add VAT to independent school fees, because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, public authorities must

“have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity”.

Adding this VAT fee to a religious-based school deprives the protected characteristic of religious belief. The administrator also believes that the addition of VAT may well be an infringement of parents’ religious freedom and liberty. Article 2, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights states:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. We have to move on to the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.

As the MP for Wimbledon, I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich and diverse education offering, including fantastic primary and secondary schools in both the independent and state sectors. I am deeply concerned about the impact that the removal of the VAT exemption will have on many of these schools. Private school enrolments have already dropped in expectation of the tax hike, and there is growing concern that the numbers leaving the private sector and entering the state system will be much higher than the Government estimate.

As the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made clear when she said it did not matter if imposing VAT resulted in state school class sizes increasing, this decision is ideological, not practical—levelling down, not up, with red meat to show that the red flag is still flying, or at least fluttering. It will be rushed through in just three months’ time, in the middle of the academic year, giving institutions with no tax expertise little time to register for VAT, let alone assess and adapt.

Labour can only do this because the UK left the EU. Who said there were no Brexit dividends? Not for the first time, my party is in harmony with Brussels, and believes that education should not be taxed. We are a party that believes in giving individuals agency and supporting them in making choices about their and their families’ lives.

For many, such decisions are made because they know their child would not receive the support they need within the state sector. Independent schools in my constituency, such as the Hall school, Willington and the Study, to name but three, do a huge amount to support children with special educational needs. I have spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices in order to send their children to these schools. They speak of the barriers to their children receiving the support they need, including long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. According to the Independent Schools Council, 90,000 children are receiving SEND support without an EHCP.

In short, this Government should be aiming to improve all schools, regardless of their status, and they should be pursuing policies based on evidence, not dogma.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

I thank all Members for their forbearance and efficiency this morning. We have managed to get through everybody. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for forgoing a little bit of their summing up time. I call Sarah Olney for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

Will he apologise?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As for provision, as my right hon. Friend will articulate this afternoon, more than 200,000 EHCPs were issued with SEND provision. We provided more support than the Labour Government ever did.

If, as many predict, there is displacement of children with SEND and EHCPs into the state sector, is there capacity? Is there adequate additional financial support for local authorities to deal with the predicted surge in demand? If the answer is no, or I do not know, to any of those questions, the Government must delay this policy.

Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to have the decency to recognise the apparent hypocrisy of so many Members on the Government Benches, including himself, who attended independent schools or send their children to one, yet are now determined to increase the costs on others, depriving many families of the choice that they benefited from.

I also ask him to apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education for her appalling divisive tweet over the weekend, which betrays her lack of awareness of the realities of independent schools across the country. Headteachers, teachers and parents in both the state and independent sectors, unions, tax experts and think tanks are all appealing to the Government to think twice about this policy. I appeal to the Minister to listen and act accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I have only a few moments left to address a number of points, so I will make some progress. Several hon. Members in their contributions today also raised their concern about the impact of the policy on pupils in private schools with special educational needs. We have carefully considered that element of the policy. Our proposed approach makes sure that pupils will not be impacted where they have acute additional needs and an education, health and care plan—in England, or its equivalent in other nations—specifies that those can be met only in a private school. In such cases, where a pupil’s needs can be met only in a private school, local authorities will fund their places and will be able to reclaim VAT. Similarly, on business rates, the Government are developing an approach to address the potential impact of the changes in cases where private school provision has been specified for pupils through an EHCP. More widely, as a Government, we are committed to transforming the system for supporting children and young people with SEND in all schools. We need to deliver better outcomes in a financially sustainable way.

I close by again thanking all hon. Members for taking part in this debate. In our consultation about the technical detail of this policy, we have been engaging widely and in depth, and of course the views of MPs are an important part of that. As I said earlier, it has been a tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. We believe it is the right decision and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding we need to deliver our priorities for state education in our country. We are determined to improve the education that is available to all, because that is how we will ensure that the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their children can be fulfilled.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Bradley Thomas has one minute to wind up.

Winter Fuel Payment

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I have taken several interventions, so I will make some progress.

The point of this debate is to focus on why we have to take difficult economic decisions, even if they risk us being unpopular. We know that the universal application of winter fuel payments was already recognised as unfair. In the face of our dire economic inheritance, it is simply unsustainable.

We should be clear that, when the winter fuel payment was introduced in 1997, a higher percentage of pensioners than people of working age were in poverty. That is no longer the case. Put simply, there are now pensioners receiving winter fuel payments who do not need them and that is a reality we cannot afford.

Let me put it in financial terms. Over a quarter of pensioners have wealth of more than £1 million, half have wealth of over £500,000 and a fifth of pensioner households have gross incomes equivalent to £41,600 a year. That is why it is right to means-test winter fuel payment.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Pensioners in my constituency will be saddened by the way the Minister is caricaturing pensioners as wealthy and not in need of this winter fuel support. Age UK has said that, in the Gosport constituency alone, 15,000 pensioners stand to lose their winter fuel payment. These are not wealthy people; they are people who, in many cases, are just outside the pension credit limit and are hanging on by their fingertips. Does he agree that caricaturing them as wealthy and not in need is unbelievably insulting?

[James Murray]

I think the hon. Lady unintentionally misunderstood my point. I will put the question back to her. Does she feel that pensioners who have wealth of over £1 million or who earn more than £41,600 a year should get the winter fuel payment in the context of the financial circumstances? The argument we are making is that, given the dire economic situation we face and given our dire inheritance, we should means-test the winter fuel payment.