Pensions: Expatriates

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. For over 70 years, successive Governments have upheld the frozen pension policy. The result on those impacted has been not only a severe financial toll, but a heavy emotional burden. These individuals built their lives and careers in the United Kingdom, contributed their share through national insurance, and then, often later in life, moved abroad, in many cases to join family members. In doing so, they found themselves victims of an outdated policy. Most of them first became aware of the policy only after noticing that their state pension was not increasing in line with policies such as the triple lock, proudly founded by the Conservatives.

Let me be clear about what the frozen pension policy entails: British citizens who retire in certain countries—for example, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth, in fact—are denied the annual inflationary increases to their state pension. A person retiring to the USA sees their pension uprated yearly, but if they cross the border into Canada, those increases stop. That can result in elderly pensioners receiving as little as £60 a week on average, despite the current basic state pension being £176.45 a week. As many as four in 10 frozen pensioners report struggling to afford most necessities such as food or medicine.

It may be tempting to dismiss this as a problem “over there”, but British overseas pensioners are citizens who have lived, worked and grown up here. They remain citizens here; they are constituents, and, with the changes to overseas voting rules in 2024, many are now registered to vote in United Kingdom elections again. That means there are up to half a million voices who feel forgotten, neglected and increasingly betrayed by successive Governments.

Geography should not be an excuse for a lack of morality. British overseas pensioners are making their voices heard; over 75% want their representative to commit to ending frozen pensions. In 2016, at an all-party roundtable event, the now Deputy Prime Minister called for a change on frozen pensions and a commitment to finding a solution. I am glad she did so then; I am concerned that the Government are not doing so now. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is still the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed, the Government.

Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons last year, I have read and heard many compelling stories—for example, that of Anne Puckridge. Now 100 years old, Anne remains an inspiration to all of us, having served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during world war two—I repeat: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—serving six months in each branch. It is fair to state that she has paid her dues to this country. After the war, she lived and worked for the vast majority of her life in the United Kingdom, until she moved to Canada in 2001. She is one of around 60,000 veterans affected by the policy.

The emotional impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Many of those affected say that they were never informed that their pension would be frozen when they moved. Anne was not told, and the campaign reports that 86% of pensioners affected had no idea the policy even existed before they were impacted. That is too little, too late.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this timely debate. He just referred to a 100-year-old. Does he agree that the frozen pension issue is not just about the fact that people are seeing a relatively small pension compared with the one they would have had if they were still a UK resident? Because of the policy, in their final years of existence on this earth, they will have a paltry pension to pass away on.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to some of that later. He is absolutely right that there is not just a severe financial impact, but a moral impact. Constituents of ours, who have paid their dues—and, in Anne’s case, more than paid their dues given what they have done for this country—will end their days on pretty much nothing when inflation is taken into account.

Last December, I challenged the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions on his decision not to meet Anne during her visit to the UK—a visit that required an 8,500 mile round trip, which is no mean feat at the age of 99. She was not offered a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Anne’s story is sadly emblematic of a much wider injustice that continues to be perpetrated on our elderly. Only this year, we saw continued poor treatment through policies such as the removal of the winter fuel payment and the betrayal of the WASPI women, both causes that were vociferously supported by the Labour party in opposition. Labour is happy to freeze pensioners and happy to freeze their pensions.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet Anne is symbolic of a Government who are, I regret to say, unwilling to listen to some of the most elderly and vulnerable among us. That brings me to the crux of today’s debate: the Government do not seem willing to engage in any meaningful way with the overseas electorate affected by the policy. I remind hon. Members that 158 parliamentarians from across the UK and Canada wrote to the Government last October calling for an end to the policy, and more than 140,000 people signed Anne’s petition to meet the Prime Minister in December.

The most concerning aspect of the Government’s current line of response is the estimated cost of ending the policy altogether. Based on calculations made annually, the Government quote the figure of £950 million a year to uprate and backdate all pensions, but that is not the ask. The End Frozen Pensions campaign has made it abundantly clear that it is not calling for retrospective compensation. It is asking simply to receive the same annual increases going forward that are awarded to pensioners living here, and in the USA, France and a host of other countries.

The cost of such a policy change is a mere £55 million a year—a fraction of the overall pensions budget. Will the Minister agree to meet the End Frozen Pensions campaign to accurately assess the cost of what is being requested by pensioners? Will he work with us, in good faith, to find a solution that reflects the modest and realistic nature of the appeal?

Beyond the severe individual hardships, there are important and growing geopolitical consequences to the point where the policy is now creating serious diplomatic tensions with some of our closest allies, as pensions are frozen in 50 out of the 56 Commonwealth nations. How can we speak proudly of our Commonwealth partnerships while refusing full pensions to veterans in the Falkland Islands, British-born nurses in Barbados or former civil servants in Canada? Those are countries with deep and historical ties to the UK, yet they are forced to subsidise our negligence.

Australia and Canada have made their frustrations clear. Canada has been formally requesting a resolution to the issue for more than 40 years. In October, 103 Canadian parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to address the issue. The Canadian and Australian Governments already provide full state pension increases to their citizens living in the UK. Meanwhile, they are left picking up the tab for British citizens residing in their countries.

With Canada and Australia having just held national elections, and with new trade discussions likely on the horizon, what assessment has the Minister made of the policy’s impact on our future ability to trade and meaningfully engage with those countries? Will he look at how reciprocal barriers to the policy may be overcome?

As I draw to a close, let me return to the heart of the matter. The policy causes financial hardship for a large number of affected elderly people. It also causes indignity and isolation; their repeated dismissal by the Government is leading to their political disenfranchisement. Putting an end to this blatant injustice is not only achievable but affordable—£55 million a year is not beyond our means. What is ultimately lacking is not money, but political will.

I have one practical ask of the Minister: will he meet campaigners to more fully understand their demands? If not to resolve the issue outright, will he at least commit to acknowledge the request for uprating on a going-forward basis only? Will he agree to work with me and campaigners to explore how, at a minimum, awareness of the policy might be improved, given the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy’s existence prior to moving overseas? All that those pensioners are asking for is a level playing field, so that those who have contributed can live out their retirement with dignity and security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I think I have 22 minutes; I usually get about 22 seconds to wind up, so this is a luxury, but I will not test your patience, Mr Dowd, by taking the full time.

We have had a very wide-ranging and helpful debate today. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) who brings a significant amount of experience from many years on this issue. It was interesting to hear his historical knowledge and, indeed, the potential solutions that he raised.

This is very much about the social contract, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) suggested. People have paid in, so they should expect to receive an equitable and fair playing field, whether they happen to have moved to somewhere in the European Union, the Philippines, Canada or Australia, or they are still living in this country.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted exactly why this is morally unfair—it is by not just the dint of the policy itself, but its impact on people. There are people living on very small incomes who are having to choose between paying their heating bills in those countries and their medicine and food. That is clearly not appropriate, especially as we have discovered many people who have paid into this country not just financially but in terms of the things they have done, for example, serving in the armed forces.

It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the Welsh perspective and his interesting idea for a number of MPs for overseas citizens. I am not sure whether that is Lib Dem policy.

[Sarah Olney]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

It is not; the Lib Dem spokesman is shaking her head, but it is an interesting idea. Before entering Parliament, I have to confess that I had no idea this was an issue. People might say that is because I am so young I would not even had to have thought about it—I can see what you are thinking, Mr Dowd. But it has come up time and again. The case of Anne Puckridge really highlights it, but many other Members have mentioned other people who have been affected. I thank the campaigners on this for highlighting it to me and to others. Without them, this issue would really have died a death.

Even after having understood this issue, I did not fully grasp the nature of the problem. I understood that we did not have reciprocal arrangements, and we were not paying uprating in places such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries, which I did not agree with, but I could just about understand because they are foreign nations. I was contacted yesterday by a representative of the Falkland Islands Government—the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory, and is essentially Britain in all but name. There are 80 people there in this situation, many of whom have served in the armed forces. It seems bizarre that even for our overseas territories we do not uprate the pension. I reflect on that, and I hope the Minister does.

I was disappointed but not surprised that the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), decided to get in some political digs, conveniently forgetting that her party had a Pensions Minister for five years in the coalition Government who did absolutely nothing about it. I think that her comments do her, this campaign and the pensioners no service at all.

In contrast, I thought the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the Conservative spokesman, were measured and sympathetic. I wanted to correct her on one thing: Anne Puckridge is now 100, and I do not think she would want to be known as that. I suppose it was heartening to the campaign, but disappointing overall that my hon. Friend, like so many of us, has had so many people contacting her about this. She was right; we have a new Government and new Ministers, so we could have a fresh look at this.

I do not lay the blame at the feet of the current Minister, or indeed, the current Government. As I said at the start, this is a multi-generational, cross-party problem for which we all should take some responsibility. However, it is in the current Minister’s hands to fix the problem now. As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, given everything else this Government are doing to pensioners—whether that be personal independence payments, WASPI, winter fuel and so on—this issue could be one where people see they are actually on the side of pensioners.

I am afraid I was a little bit disappointed with the Minister’s speech. I accept there will be a cost to the taxpayer, though I think it is disingenuous to say there is a trade-off between this particular policy and cuts to the NHS. It is a more complex situation, and I get that, but I fear he has been captured—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said—by the Treasury solicitors. That is unhelpful.

Finally, I go back to the requests I made. Will the Minister agree to meet with the campaigners so that we can go through the cost-benefit analysis and have a discussion about whether his figures or the campaigners’ figures are accurate? Will he at least commit to looking at some of the reciprocal pensions arrangements that we have with some of the countries that have been mentioned today, including Canada? Will he commit to doing everything in his power to make sure that first, people understand this policy and where they can and cannot get their pensions uprated? Even if he cannot commit today to sorting this out, will he commit to it still being on his radar going forward? If he has the opportunity —if finances allow—will he look to remove this policy so that every person, wherever they live, gets the pension they deserve?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

Winter Fuel Payment

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

rose—

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

rose—

[Louise Jones]

I will just make a bit of progress and then I will let the right hon. Member and the hon. Member intervene. I do not think there is a single Labour Member who is not conscious of the impact of the decisions that we, as a Government, are making. We rightly laud our achievements, but we recognise that we have had to make tough decisions.

Pensioners are not the only group facing poverty in this country. Child poverty has rocketed over the past decade to a shamefully high level. Not one of those children ever received a winter fuel payment. Plenty of others have been facing the effects of poverty, and shamefully that includes a rocketing number of people in work. As a Labour Government, it is our task to ensure that we are ending the scourge of poverty once and for all, whether for children, people in work or pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones]

Sadly, it is a feature of this debate that it is very easy for Members across the Opposition Benches to say, “You shouldn’t do something,” but very difficult to say what should be done instead.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Louise Jones]

I will keep going, because I have been speaking for a long time and I know that lots of Members want to get in. I am terribly sorry.

To cut to the chase, the Government are determined to fix the foundations of this country, sort out the systemic issues that we face, tackle the cost of living and deliver an NHS fit for everybody in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In politics, in my opinion, it matters hugely how we make arguments. My generation of politicians, many of us newly elected, have grown up in an era of ceaseless turbulence. Our world has become more insecure, our economy has flatlined, and our democracy is sometimes strained. That means we have responsibilities as elected politicians in how we make arguments, and that matters for this debate.

First, over several decades this House has ceded too much power to unelected and sometimes unaccountable bodies—agencies, quangos and administrators. Elected representatives must have the power to change the things for which the public holds them accountable.

Secondly, the public are tired of being told that we have no choice, that our hands are tied and that we must do this because lawyers or economists said so. Our job is to make arguments to the public on the basis of principle and not solely of necessity. After all, why vote, if the people we vote for are not in charge, but lawyers, economists, quangos or agencies are? What is democracy for, if the people we elect do not control the things that affect our lives?

To restore trust in politics, we must show that politics matters. That is why it is vital that we articulate our choices in terms of principles.

[Gregory Stafford]

rose—

[Josh Simons]

Hopefully, what I am about to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.] If it does not, he is welcome to come in. Let me make clear the principle behind the reforms that we are debating today: those who need support to heat their homes must get it. Nobody should be cold at home because they cannot afford to turn on their heating. When Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payments—

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I am sure that, like me, he has received hundreds, if not thousands, of messages from pensioners saying that they are suffering and cannot heat their homes. If his point is one of principle, then clearly he must vote to overturn this policy so that the people who I am sure are contacting him as well as me will be able to heat their homes next winter, as they were unable to do this time round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I am finishing on the intervention that I just took; I might then come to another.

Many constituents in Wirral West really suffered through Tory mismanagement on the economy and on public services. That mismanagement saw a status quo fail our pensioners and fail all of us. Getting the country back on track required us to support those who need it most. No one in my constituency thinks that the very richest in society like Sir Richard Branson need Government support to get by.

[Gregory Stafford]

There is probably unanimity across the Chamber that Richard Branson does not need the winter fuel payment, but it is the poorest pensioners—those who are earning just above £13,500—who are losing out. Let us not have the nonsense about Richard Branson or people swigging champagne; let us actually talk about the people who are suffering and will be going into hospital because they are cold and may end up dying. Those are the people we should be talking about.

[Matthew Patrick]

I will come to that, but I gently make the point, as was just said, that the Conservatives were paying Sir Richard Branson the winter fuel allowance every year. They could have changed that, but they did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I do not know whether it is incompetence, pig-headedness or callousness, or indeed all of the above, that has led this Labour Government to take the winter fuel payment away from some of the poorest in society. So often today from the Government Benches we have heard about tough choices, but tough choices do not automatically mean the right choice; in fact, in this case it is entirely the wrong choice.

I expected to see the panoply of the usual greasers and crawlers from the Labour Benches here today, but they are not here. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, we have seen Labour Members who seem to have donned the hair shirt and decided that this should be their cause célèbre to demonstrate, either to themselves or to their party, that being tough somehow means that they are being a strong Government, which is absolute nonsense. All that the scrapping of the winter fuel payment will lead to is excess deaths. We had warm words from the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), but warm words will not heat the pensioners who are freezing in their homes this winter.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, more than 18,200 pensioners will have lost the winter fuel payment, and many of them are just above the income threshold for the pension credit benefit. These people are contributing to our society but earning only £13,500 a year. They are not the champagne quaffers that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) talked about; they are the people who fought for and served this country. They have put money into the system and rightly expect a tiny bit back to heat their homes.

At a pension credit surgery I held in October, pensioners shared their fears and frustrations. One word kept coming up: betrayal. That is betrayal by this Labour Government of their vote. They are not asking for luxuries or for anything like a handout; all they want is to be able to heat their home in winter. They want to live with dignity, and they want to do so without having to choose whether to heat their home or put food on the table.

The idea that this Government would do this without an impact assessment and, subsequently, without doing any monitoring of the impact is shocking. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister commit to doing a full impact assessment to see the rate of NHS admissions and the mortality rates that he talked about, so that we understand whether this policy has killed people? This is not about money; it is about values and decency. Those who built this country should not have to shiver in their homes because of this cruel policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

No, I am not giving way.

That small sum of money allowed pensioners to keep the heating on, helping them to make it through those cold winter nights, and supported them in not having to choose between heating and eating. Wherever I go in my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, I have conversations with older people, and the word they use is “betrayal”. It is a betrayal felt deeply in their hearts, particularly by those who helped build this country.

Let us not forget that 348 Labour MPs are complicit in taking the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners, and 71% of disabled pensioners have lost that vital support. Labour Members have repeatedly told us that theirs is the party of the NHS, but let us face the facts: they are all complicit in costing the national health service an additional £169 million, which is the cost of looking after the 100,000 pensioners who have been left out in the cold.

[Gregory Stafford]

We have heard the argument from Labour Members that taking away the winter fuel payment somehow benefits the NHS, because money is going into it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief executive of NHS England has said that actually, every single penny that the Government are putting into the NHS this year is being wiped out through national insurance rises, inflation and drug price increases?

[Mr Bedford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The numbers simply do not stack up.

In comparison, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the triple lock and increased the state pension by almost £4,000. It was a Conservative Government who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by more than 200,000, and it is the Conservatives who have pensioners’ interests at heart.

Welfare Reform

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I do understand the worry and anxiety. I hope I have made it clear to the House today that I do not start from a position of being tough: I start precisely from a position of compassion for people who can work and are being denied opportunities and for severely disabled people who will never work. That is one reason why we are overhauling our safeguarding processes to ensure that those who can never work are never reassessed, to give them the confidence and dignity that they deserve.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I welcome any initiative that will see more people getting back into work. Although I have some concerns about the wrong people being targeted—and the fact that there will not be the jobs for them to go to, because of the national insurance contributions increase—I will press the Secretary of State on the detail. I find it strange that she can tell us that this will save £5 billion, but she cannot give us even a ballpark figure—I do not expect it to the penny—for how much she will spend beyond and above the £1 billion she has already announced. I know that it will come out through the OBR, but can she not give us a rough idea of how much her changes will cost?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman may know that Government Members strongly believe in and support the independence of the OBR and the processes behind it. We can give overall figures today, but he will have to wait until the OBR assessment is published at the spring statement for the individual costings, how many people will be affected and by how much.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an egregious lack of transparency and accountability at the heart of this case.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The hon. Member is being generous with her time. It is not just the ombudsman in which faith could be shaken. The public are rightly concerned that dozens if not hundreds of Labour Members of Parliament previously supported the WASPI women but have turned their backs on them now that they are in government. This is not just about the ombudsman; this is about parliamentary democracy and our constituents having faith that what we say will actually happen.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Now I will make some progress.

As a result of the changes, between 6% and 15% of affected women have fallen into poverty. Recent surveys show that 84% worry about energy bills, 76% worry about their financial future and, tragically, 71% avoid leaving their home to save money. I want to highlight the case of Marion Bond, one of my constituents in South Cotswolds. During a lifetime spent as a teacher, Marion made many sacrifices, including turning down promotions and working part time to care for her children while her husband worked long hours. Despite supporting his career, her divorce settlement was based on the assumption that she would receive her pension at 60. Instead, she unexpectedly faced a delay, losing six years of pension. The small compensation recommended by the ombudsman is a fraction of the £40,000 that she calculates she lost as a result of the lack of communication.

Marion’s story is not unique. A survey on Facebook that asked “What would you have done differently?” yielded over 1,500 heartrending stories as women shared how their lives would have been different with proper notification. The stories include escaping abusive relationships, continuing with much-loved careers rather than taking voluntary redundancy, and fulfilling care responsibilities for grandchildren or other relatives. Although men and women should have equal retirement ages, that is not the issue here. The issue is the communication failure. The mishandled roll-out of the change left many women stranded, facing unemployment and reliant on benefits. That in turn affected their mental and physical health and placed financial strain on their families, impacting childcare and the social and healthcare sectors.

There is a fundamental question about how we value women in our society. We must recognise that women face invisible financial penalties due to gender, including pay gaps and unpaid labour burdens.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Taylor]

I simply do not agree. I refer to my earlier point that this policy was in Labour’s manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024. It is a long-standing policy of the Labour party.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

If I understand the hon. Lady’s point, it is that because the Labour Government now have a stonking majority, this policy is therefore approved by the British people. Is she therefore saying that in 2017 they rejected this policy, in 2019 they rejected this policy, and then suddenly in 2024 the majority of the population converted to supporting this policy? Or is she really saying what we all know, namely that the British people did not vote for Labour based on this policy and they did not understand the effect that it will have, not just on the independent sector but on the state sector?

[Alison Taylor]

I think my point refers to the timing point that the hon. Gentleman has been making. I will carry on.

In Scotland, it is up to the national Scottish Government to decide how to use the significant additional funds that they receive through the block grant. As expenditure on education in England increases, so do the resources available to the Scottish Government, but despite Scottish families being taxed more than families in any other part of the UK and despite Scotland receiving the largest increase in the block grant since the Scottish Parliament was formed, there is little to show for those things in state schools in Scotland. In spite of the incredible hard work of teachers and support staff in schools in Scotland, the attainment gap continues to increase, and standards and results continue to fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on leading today’s debate. I declare an interest as the father of children who currently attend an independent school.

I am afraid it is not a pleasure to speak today about the vicious, vindictive and, ultimately, financially valueless policy that the Labour Government have brought in. As has been said, no other country—no serious country—in the world taxes education. The sorts of schools being taxed are faith schools; arts, drama and music schools; single-sex schools; and independent schools to which armed forces parents send their children. As a side note, a member of our armed forces said to me last week that, in their view, this policy was a breach of the military covenant.

This is not about a tax break, as Labour Members have said. Tax has never been levied on education in this country, so this policy is an additional tax on education. It is not a tax break. As other hon. Members have said, parents who make the sacrifice to send their children to the independent sector are saving money for the state sector.

Across my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, we are lucky to have 11 excellent independent schools that cater both to junior and to senior pupils. But unfortunately, only last Friday we discovered that one of those schools will close at the end of this academic year. The Royal school in Hindhead has been a cornerstone of education since 1840. It was formerly the Royal Naval school, and was specifically set up to educate girls—the founder had the ambition for girls to become independent members of society, and it was a pioneering school in that effort.

As other hon. Members have said, single-sex education has worked wonders for girls in terms of not only their education but their social mobility. The school became co-educational more recently but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) said, this is a real problem. I recognise that the school had ongoing financial difficulties, but it is deeply unfortunate that the Labour party’s policies on low-fees schools—those that charge around £3,000 per term—seem to have been the final blow to the school’s long-standing viability.

The Royal school has been not only a significant education institution for generations of pupils but a key part of the fabric of our community, employing people and helping the state sector with areas where it cannot produce. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to its dedicated teachers and staff who have worked tirelessly over the years, and to acknowledge the sense of loss felt by all of us in the Haslemere community. However, it is equally important to highlight the profound impact that the closure will have on the parents and families who are now faced with the difficult task of finding alternative provision.

Mr Chancellor, a single father of an adopted child, spoke to my office only this morning. He took on the financial strain of a fee-paying place at the Royal school to allow him to drop his child at school and know that, between the hours of 7.45 am and 5.30 pm, his child would be cared for, fed and looked after. That allowed my constituent the flexibility of extra time to work on his small business. That is the sort of impact there is on the hard-working local people the Labour Government profess to want to support. Families such as Mr Chancellor’s will either have to seek places in other independent schools or, regrettably, be forced to turn to an already overstretched and underfunded mainstream education system.

Although Mr Chancellor has commended the work of Surrey county council admissions team—who were also left in the dark about the school’s closure—there is clear anxiety for parents whose children’s fate is currently unclear. State schools across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook are already bursting at the seams. The fees charged by independent schools are often only a quarter, or even perhaps half, of the cost of state school provision per pupil. That has meant that for decades independent schools have taken huge strains from the state system in educating a percentage of pupils from nursery age until they are young people.

Last October, following a meeting I organised in my constituency with the then shadow Chancellor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt)—and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I wrote to the Department for Education and the Treasury. The Exchequer Secretary’s reply emphasised that the policy was supposedly forecast to raise around £1.8 billion, but realistically, even if that were true—the Opposition dispute that heavily—that is a mere drop in the ocean for Government spending, particularly when TaxPayers’ Alliance research reported that the policy comes at a net loss for the Treasury, as state spending has been forced to stretch per capita to facilitate 35,000 pupils now expected to be educated in the mainstream schooling system. Last week, Surrey county council admitted to me that it does not have enough state school places to accommodate children transferring to state schools. When will the Government understand that these policies are crippling local authorities that are trying immensely hard to cope with the volume of displaced children?

It is not just about the fact that there are not enough places in the state sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire will know all too well that Alton Convent school in his constituency closed last year. During the general election campaign, I knocked on the door of a gentleman whose children had just got a place at that school, only to find that they now would not have it. But they could not get a place in the local state school because he had not sent his children to the local junior feeder schools. He would not have been able to get a place at the local school even if there had been one.

In my constituency, no group has been more profoundly affected by the Government’s damaging policies towards independent schools than the parents and families of children with special educational needs and disabilities. The closure of the Royal School and the narrowing of available educational options serve only to exacerbate the already significant challenges faced by these families.

Across my constituency, we are fortunate to have three special schools: Undershaw, Pathways and More House. Since my election, I have met multiple headteachers, including Jonathan Hetherington, the headteacher at More House, a renowned SEND school for boys in Frensham.

Only this morning, I attended a meeting with 25 parents from the Last Wednesday SEN support group in Farnham. Because Wednesdays are not great for Members of Parliament, they were charitable enough to change their name to “First Monday” this week, just for me. I joke, but one lady was in tears this morning about the impact that this spiteful policy will have on her child. Many will be forced to navigate a new school and new academic curricula, all while receiving little to no support and without a formal education, health and care plan.

Some of my constituents, across both counties—Surrey and Hampshire—are having to wait 24 months to receive their EHCPs. Between 2019 and 2024, the uptake of EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire —both well above the national average. When he responds, can the Minister tell us what is being done, and what conversations he is having with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to expedite that process?

In my local area, I am genuinely concerned about the fact that 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support, but only 6% of them have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or who are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners:

“Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.”

So there is no assurance for those children and those parents. I did not receive any assurance in last week’s debate on SEND education support, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent sector who receive SEND support but do not have a formal EHCP will not be included at all in the SEND education support plans, as the Prime Minister seemed to outline in June.

Increasing VAT on independent school fees to 20% is not just a fiscal policy; it is a direct assault on the educational choice and social mobility of our constituents. This policy threatens to attack thousands of students in an already strained system, undermining the very fabric of our diverse educational landscape. The influx from the independent sector will exacerbate existing pressures, leading to larger class sizes and diminished resources for all.

Is this really the legacy that this Labour Government want to leave: a society in which educational diversity, which leads to educational excellence, is sacrificed at the altar of a misguided and malign fiscal policy fuelled by class envy? I urge the Minister to reverse this punitive tax and champion a system that upholds choice, fosters excellence and truly invests in the future of every child.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, for this debate secured not by an hon. Member, as is often the case, but by public petitioners, including some who are present in the Public Gallery. The public paying attention to an issue is good grounds for it being debated. I also thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate—also, for closing it shortly—and all hon. Members who have spoken during it.

There are lots of things that are not common ground on this issue, as I will come on to, but I will start by noting that we are all motivated by the same determination to support the aspirations of every parent in the UK to get the best education for their children. In that context, we should all congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on her good news and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) that we all know people who have made a wide range of decisions about the educational choices for their children and that no one here is judging other parents’ choices.

The best education for children is also what motivates the Government to break down barriers to opportunity to ensure that every child has access to high-quality education—and every child includes the 94% of children who attend state schools. The reforms to VAT and business rates that we are debating will raise about £1.8 billion a year; I will come on to the questions about the costing shortly. That will help to improve state education.

In the autumn Budget, the Government announced a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget, and it is to deliver such commitments—not for any other purpose—that we have made the tough but necessary decisions that we are debating today. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) called for even larger increases in spending on schools, but it was noteworthy that he did not set out the means by which such increases would be paid for.

I will briefly outline the policy changes that the Government are making, before turning to the important issues that hon. Members have raised during the debate. Since 1 January, education services provided by private schools have been subject to VAT. While private schools are now required to charge VAT, they are also able, as has been discussed, to recover the VAT that they incur when purchasing goods and services. The Government are also legislating to remove the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England. This is intended to take effect in England from April; it is already the case in Scotland and is being taken forward in Wales.

As I have said, the goal of those changes is to provide additional funding for the state education sector. However, I fully recognise that they will increase the cost for some parents and carers who have chosen a private education for their children. This change is necessary, but I am not hiding from the reality that any rise in costs is unwelcome for those affected by them.

[Gregory Stafford]

We disagree on whether this change is going to raise any money. However, I want to understand the policy point being made here, namely that to raise the money to fund the state education sector, the Government have decided to raise tax on the independent education sector. Why did they decide to raise money from the education sector rather than from any other sector, or from any other rich individuals?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I might be a bit more sympathetic to Conservative Members focusing on this change if I saw them supporting any of the revenue measures that we have had to take to start turning around public services and improving the public finances. They oppose this measure, they oppose changes on national insurance, and they oppose cuts to the winter fuel payment and the rest. Now, I will make some progress.

On the timing of implementation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) pointed out, this change was clearly signposted in Labour’s manifesto. Also, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working hard to support schools through this change by providing bespoke support to schools alongside comprehensive guidance on how they can register for VAT. A dedicated mailbox for queries has also been made available to schools and their tax representatives.

Several hon. Members have discussed the impact that the changes will have on pupils and their families, and on state schools and private schools more widely. Many Members have understandably returned to questions that were addressed in the tax information and impact note, or to the Government’s response to the consultation that was conducted between July and September last year.

The issue of costings was raised by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). The underlying methodologies used were certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, and the costings take into account exactly the issues that he raised about behavioural responses.

On the issue of pupils moving schools or sectors, we recognise that there will be some movement of that kind. However, we believe that the number of students who will switch to the state sector represents less than 0.5% of all UK state pupils, so we are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any change.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) raised the issue of school closures. The evidence suggests that around 50 private schools close each year during normal business. Although we would expect some additional closures, we have not seen any evidence to revise our view that the overall number of extra closures will be modest—perhaps something in the order of 100 schools over three years.

We also recognise the concerns that have been raised about the impact on pupils with special educational needs, including by the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). That is why we will ensure that those pupils with the most acute additional needs, whose needs can be met only in private schools, will be unaffected. For example, in England, where attendance at a private school is required by a child’s EHCP, that child’s parents or carers will not pay VAT and councils supporting them will be able to reclaim the VAT. In Wales, post-16 provision of this kind is funded by the Welsh Government rather than by councils. They cannot reclaim VAT in the same way, so ringfenced funding will be provided until 2028-29, when responsibility will pass to local authorities.

More broadly, we are committed to transforming the system of supporting children and young people with SEN, because it is badly needed, as the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) clearly set out. The Budget announced a £1 billion uplift to high needs funding in 2025-26, providing additional support for more than 1 million children in the state sector with special educational needs and disabilities.

The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin) raised the issue of service families, but I fear they downplayed the increase of more than 12% in the continuity of education allowance from the Ministry of Defence. The issue of faith schools was also raised. They are an important part of our educational landscape, but the argument that private faith schools should be exempt from these changes is not compelling. An exemption would reduce the revenue available for pupils in state schools, including those of faith, and would be inconsistent with this Government’s strong view that a state education is suitable for children of all faiths and for children of no faith.

Support for Pensioners

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately for people living with dementia and their families, and he makes a very important point. It is another shameful decision by this Government not to support the most vulnerable in our society, and people should be shocked by it.

Another constituent told me that they have stopped using their cooker and that they now find it difficult even to dry their washing. This Government promised that they would be on the side of pensioners. However, as a constituent recently summed it up for me, they feel

“terribly let down by the Government”.

They are right to feel like that. This Government have let my constituents—indeed, all our pensioners—down. They have balanced the books on the backs of people earning less than £1,000 per month. Even if someone is still eligible for winter fuel payments, they will get them only if they have signed up for pension credit.

The arbitrary barrier of the pension credit threshold will mean that many of our poorest pensioners—Age UK estimates that around 1 million people have weekly incomes of less than £50 above the poverty line—will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. Potentially hundreds of thousands of even poorer pensioners will miss out on vital support, because the Government expect them to answer over 200 questions—two hundred questions—to access the help they need.

Perhaps I am being unfair.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

No.

[Blake Stephenson]

My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement.

Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate, and indeed for his strong speech. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), or “strapping of Strangford”, as I think we are going to have to call him now. As other hon. Members have alluded to—not only alluded to; it has been stated quite openly—it is appalling that not a single Labour Back Bencher is here to defend the Government’s policy. That is because, thus far, I have not heard any credible defence from the Labour Benches for the removal of the winter fuel payment.

I remember the Minister from Oxford, and I know he is a doughty champion of all things socialist, so I look forward to an equally strong defence of this policy. I say to him gently that it is clearly the wrong policy, and I am afraid that he has been given a hospital pass, to be frank, to have to come here today to try to defend it.

Under the last Government, more than 20,000 pensioners across my constituency of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages received Government support to assist them financially with energy bills and daily costs through the most challenging of times, such as covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. Now, since only 1,200 pensioners in my constituency are eligible for pension credit, nearly 19,000 pensioners have been left in the cold by the Government.

At a pension credit surgery that I held in October to assist with pension credit applications for those who might not have access to the right technology, I met Diana. She told me that the extra money from the winter fuel payment was essential to heating her home—for her and for her husband, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Now that it has been withdrawn, Diana told me that she has to choose between heating her home and eating food.

The scale of this issue is hugely concerning. Age UK has reported that 82% of all pensioners living on or just above the poverty line will lose that payment—a total of 2.5 million people. Independent Age has confirmed that raising the pension credit take-up from 60% to 100% would raise 440,000 pensioners out of poverty.

Energy costs continue to rise under this Labour Government—by 10% in October, when I was running that pension credit surgery, and again in January—meaning that pensioners are paying, on average, an extra £170 since the beginning of this Labour Government. It is remarkable that the Government are not taking advice from industry experts and from charities on how to reduce the healthcare strains and increase the welfare of our pensioners.

Currently, our pensioners are having to make difficult choices, as other hon. Members have said, including opting to stay at home to ensure that they are not taken ill by the cold weather, or indeed choosing not to eat at all for days. I have heard that at first hand, through a survey that I ran to assess the impact that the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is having on pensioners in my constituency. I am not going to go through every single response, but Sheila, a talented craftswoman, told me that the cold is forcing her to have to sit in multiple layers of jumpers and is heavily affecting her ability to sew and knit, with the cold worsening her arthritis.

Now that my constituents are unable to rely on Government support, I am routinely attending local pensioner support groups across my constituency, including those run by the brilliant Farnham Assist and the Hindhead lunch club, which brings people together fortnightly to provide them with a hot meal, conversation and the opportunity to socialise in a warm community hall.

As someone who spent their career prior to becoming a Member of Parliament working in the healthcare system—including, latterly, in NHS England—I am hugely concerned about the pressure that withdrawing the winter fuel payment is putting on our NHS. The Labour party’s own assessment of the issue when it was in opposition said that it would cause 4,000 deaths. When I pushed the Health Secretary on that figure at the Health and Social Care Committee some weeks ago, he could not give me an answer as to why those 4,000 deaths were suddenly not going to happen. On top of that, we know that the £10.6 billion that the Government allocated to NHS England in the Budget will be eaten up by national insurance rises, inflation and pay increases for staff. Not a single penny of it will go to improving patient care, including patient care for pensioners.

Last October, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) asked the Department of Health and Social Care what the potential impact of introducing means testing for the winter fuel payment was on hospital admissions. The Minister’s response pointed him to the extra funding given to the household support fund in the October Budget. However, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the Minister has since admitted in a letter that the fund was not designed to support pensioners.

If the Government are unsure on the impacts of the household support fund in my constituency, perhaps I can help them. The south-east receives the second-lowest funding amount from the household support fund at £30.57 per pensioner per year, whereas the winter fuel payment gave pensioners up to £600 depending on their circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how pensioners such as Diana and Sheila can be supported through the loss of the winter fuel payment when they are not eligible for pension credit.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Member that she came into the debate very late. I do not wish to embarrass her in any way, but if she wants to intervene, she needs to be here at the start of the debate.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am sure that I would have agreed with whatever point the hon. Lady was about to make.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the hypocrisy of this Government telling pensioners prior to the election that they were going to be fine—indeed, they were told that things would get better for them. Instead, things have become markedly worse. As other hon. Members have also mentioned, we have also seen that with WASPI women. To be frank, Diana and Sheila are just the canaries in the coalmine for the larger issue of the Government’s worrying treatment of our pensioners.

At my Monday morning surgery, a pensioner asked me, “Why does Labour hate pensioners?” I could not give her an answer. I have no idea why the Government have decided to punish pensioners—perhaps we can understand that from the text messages of the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne). That is why the Government must listen to the experts in the industry, in the charitable sector and in the health and social care sector who are raising the issues and presenting them with the figures.

The Government must reverse this treatment of our elderly and vulnerable and ensure that this winter, next winter and every winter that this terrible Government are still in power, every pensioner is warm, safe and looked after.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

18. What estimate she has made of the number of pensioners in poverty who will not be entitled to the winter fuel payment in winter 2024-25.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

24. What estimate she has made of the number of pensioners in poverty who will not be entitled to the winter fuel payment in winter 2024-25.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

May I say briefly, Mr Speaker, that as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, 7 October last year was the deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, and we stand firm in our commitment to bring the remaining hostages home and secure the immediate ceasefire and aid that civilians in Gaza and Lebanon desperately need.

An estimated 880,000 of the poorest pensioners are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to, so they do not get the winter fuel payment or pension credit of up to £3,900 a year. That is why we have launched the biggest ever drive to increase pension credit uptake and ensure that the poorest pensioners get the support they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Again, I say to the right hon. Lady that the reason so many of the poorest pensioners are missing out is that her Government failed to increase pension credit uptake. We have launched the biggest ever programme to increase uptake of pension credit. For the first time, we will be writing to all pensioners on housing benefit, and I urge the right hon. Lady to work with her local council and others to make sure that the poorest in her constituency get the money they are entitled to.

[Gregory Stafford]

Over 18,000 people in my constituency will lose the winter fuel payment, but this is not about figures; it is about individuals, which is why I am running a pensioners advisory service on Friday to help them with this issue. This is about people, so what does the Secretary of State say to people such as Rita in my constituency, who is looking after her husband who has multiple sclerosis and who will not be eligible for pension credit and therefore the winter fuel payment?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has focused over many years on health and healthcare issues, and I would say to him that we are in this situation because his Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Unlike Conservative Members, we take our responsibilities seriously, and I would urge him to work with his councils—they have received £7.1 million in Hampshire and £5.3 million in Surrey from the household support fund—to make sure that all pensioners get the money they are entitled to.