Middle East: Economic Update

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not our war—we chose not to join it, unlike the Conservative and Reform parties, which were egging us on to do so. However, we do need to become less exposed to global fossil fuel markets. That is why we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will enable us to build the energy infrastructure we need. It is why we signed off Sizewell C and a fleet of small modular reactors; it is why we are giving planning permission to solar farms; and it is why we have ended the effective moratorium on onshore wind—the cheapest form of electricity—to keep prices down for families, businesses and pensioners.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Chancellor said in her statement:

“Every choice I make will be about keeping costs down for families and businesses”.

However, when I speak to small business owners on high streets across my constituency of Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons—especially café and restaurant owners—they tell me that the soaring energy and food prices that are a result of war are only compounding the pain they were feeling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices to hike national insurance for employers and, in some cases, double their business rates. What action will she take this month and this quarter, not in a year’s time, to help those businesses stay afloat? We need them to stay open for the sake of our communities.

[Rachel Reeves]

The best thing we can do as a Government is to keep inflation and interest rates down. Since I became Chancellor, wages have risen faster than prices in every single month, giving people more money to spend, and interest rates have been cut six times—which will benefit all of our constituents, but those in London perhaps most of all, given that house prices are more expensive in places such as Twickenham—putting more money in people’s pockets. Today’s announcement about the British industrial competitiveness scheme will take up to 25% off energy bills for 10,000 businesses from this month, and decoupling will help all businesses with their energy costs. The electricity generator levy will bring in money this year, and then the new contracts for difference will reduce volatility and price spikes for all businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. I cannot comment on individual cases of covid fraud and tax, but that person would not be the first member of Reform who took a fraudulent covid loan—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) is here just in time. I am not sure whether he is still the shadow, shadow, shadow Chancellor or not.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T6. Given that the Chancellor has just confirmed that today’s U-turn will support only our hard-pressed local pubs, what message does she have for independent restaurants and coffee shops, such as Bones in Twickenham, that are struggling to survive, let alone grow?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

When the Liberal Democrats had the chance, what did they do? They put up VAT on hospitality businesses. Now they are coming up with ideas, without the plans to pay for them. They want to increase borrowing over and over again, rather than ensure that we support businesses in a fair and sustainable way over the years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question relating to his constituency. It is a shame that the Conservative party did not invest in extending those platforms when it was in power for 14 years. I am very happy to discuss with my colleagues at the Department for Transport how the his constituents can benefit from the extra £120 billion that this Government are putting into capital investment.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Over the summer, Heathrow finally published its proposals for a third runway. It is very clear that a lot of supporting road and rail infrastructure will be needed if that expansion goes ahead. Could the Chancellor outline to the House what estimates her Department has made of the amount of public investment that will be needed? Heathrow execs have been clear that they are not going to fully fund it themselves.

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government back a third runway at Heathrow. We are a country that is open to global trade and investment—we have done three trade deals with countries around the world and have secured £120 billion of inward investment. Heathrow Airport Ltd and others have now put forward a bid to build the third runway, and have been very clear that they will be investing in the infrastructure to make that possible. I welcome investment into Britain, and I hope that parties all across the House will do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the Dorset clean energy super cluster opportunity, which was announced by her council at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum only recently. Offshore wind, hydrogen, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage are frontier technologies and industries that are at the heart of our clean energy sector plan, and they will create opportunities in every part of the country, including in the south-west.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The infrastructure plan reiterated the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow, a project that the Chancellor has repeatedly stated will be privately funded. However, given the vast amount of rail and road infrastructure that will be needed to support a bigger Heathrow, as well as the huge risk a private company would take on, which it would want underwritten by Government, could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline to the House how much taxpayer cash has been earmarked as needed to enable a bigger Heathrow?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that we are waiting to receive detailed proposals from Heathrow for the development of the third runway. The Government will consider those proposals in due course and make further announcements when decisions have been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to welcome the investment of Universal Studios in Bedfordshire, which will be a massive boon to the county’s economy.

On supporting the adoption of AI, we are doing two key things. First, we are supporting that sector investing in the UK, and the deal we secured with the US will help bring more investment into our digital sector. Secondly, and crucially, we are improving the productivity of our public services. The hon. Gentleman will see more about that when we publish the spending review on 11 June. We are absolutely determined to boost productivity in the public sector, after the mess in which it was left by the Conservatives.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

13. What steps she is taking through the tax system to support vulnerable families.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The Government are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible. The personal allowance means those earning below £12,570 pay no tax. At our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds, which was implemented by the previous Government.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but what short and long-term assessments have Ministers made of the cost to the taxpayer of the deep cuts in grants for therapy for some of the most vulnerable and traumatised children in our country through the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Given the Treasury’s intransigence in putting more money into the fund to meet rising demand, it is likely that adoption and kinship care placements will fail, resulting in more children in the care system in the short term. In the long term, sadly, we know that care-experienced children are four times more likely to end up with a criminal conviction. There is a moral and economic case to support this fund properly.

[James Murray]

I very much recognise, both as a constituency MP and as a Minister, the importance of making sure that adoptive parents can build a strong family unit with their adoptive children. If I may make a broader point, the only reason we can invest in public services is because of difficult decisions we have taken around taxation. The problem with the Liberal Democrats and other parties on the Opposition Benches is that they are happy to support the extra funding for public spending, but not the tax rises necessary to pay for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

20. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the planned increase in employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The Government have taken difficult decisions to repair the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the employer national insurance contribution changes

“will reduce the level of potential output by 0.1 per cent at the forecast horizon”.

It also predicts that growth will pick up next year and that living standards will rise faster during this Parliament than during the last, and in the long term it expects the autumn Budget policies, if sustained, to increase the size of the economy permanently.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions was one of the toughest decisions that we took at the Budget, but it was necessary to restore stability to the public finances. It is only on the basis of having stable public finances and fiscal responsibility that we can boost the investment and growth that will make people across Britain better off.

[Munira Wilson]

As the poor growth figures show, the Chancellor’s jobs tax is really hurting businesses, not least in our hospitality sector. In my constituency, pubs such as the Eel Pie and the King’s Head, as well as the family-run restaurant Shambles, are really struggling with soaring costs and putting off hiring people. If the Chancellor will not reverse her jobs tax, will she at the very least consider extending the current 75% business rates relief for hospitality until the new system that she has announced is in place?

[James Murray]

The hon. Member speaks about business rates relief. We have to remember that the business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure was due to end entirely in April 2025 under the plans we inherited from the Conservative party. Despite the toughest of contexts, we decided to extend the 40% relief for another year before the permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure come in from April 2026.

Finance Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 9, tabled in my name. It would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the imposition of VAT on school fees on pupils who have special educational needs, but who are without an education, health and care plan.

The Liberal Democrats have been absolutely crystal clear: we are opposed to this tax on education, and we call on the Government to rethink their decision. It is an unnecessary, unfair and counterproductive policy. In our manifesto for the general election, we laid out our ambitious plan for education, from putting a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school to expanding free school meals to all children in poverty and tripling the early years pupil premium. At the heart of that vision was the principle that education is the single best investment we can make. All our children deserve the opportunity to reach their potential, yet too many children are not being supported to achieve that potential. In our manifesto, we set out a whole host of fair tax rises to pay for our ambitious plan, which did not penalise parents for choosing to invest in their children’s education.

I gently point out to Conservative colleagues—who have rightly pointed out that this is the first time we are seeing a tax on education, which is quite wrong in principle—that the only reason why the Labour Government are able to do this is Brexit. The Conservatives supported the Brexit deal, so I gently point out to them that this is something that they supported in principle.

[Graham Stuart]

Like so many Liberal Democrats, the hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that her party was the first major party to call for a referendum. Brexit was supported by the British people, not the Conservative party. The leadership of the Conservative party at the time was in favour of remain. The people decided. It is about time the Liberal Democrats learned to respect the people’s choice.

[Munira Wilson]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who negotiated the Brexit deal. I want to put that on the record.

Colleagues from across the House have spoken frequently in recent months about the crisis facing SEND provision in this country, and we have heard so many stories of struggling families fighting within a failing system to get their children the education they deserve. After years of Conservative neglect, the system is on its knees. Just this week, we have heard from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the scale of the problem. Once again, its report laid out clearly the huge costs that have left local councils on the brink, while failing to deliver better outcomes for children. Two out of every three special schools are oversubscribed. Just half of education, health and care plans are granted within the statutory 20-week limit, and 98% of those rejected are granted on appeal when parents go to tribunal.

It is clear that the system is failing families and our vulnerable young people, so is it any wonder that parents who feel that their children’s needs cannot be met in the state system are turning to the independent sector if they can just about manage it? Small schools of less than 100 pupils make up some 40% of the independent sector. In so many cases, those are the schools that struggle and strive each day to provide desperately needed support for SEND pupils—support that, sadly, is all too often unavailable in their local state school. Those are the schools that will be punished under this measure, and the families who will need to bear the load. The Government have said that pupils who have been placed by a local authority in an independent school to fulfil the terms of their EHCP will be exempt from the VAT hike. Taken in isolation, that is a welcome mitigation to this damaging policy, but there are a whopping 100,000 SEND pupils in the independent sector who do not have an EHCP, and their families will be saddled with this VAT hike.

One such family came to see me in my surgery a few weeks ago. The parents were in tears in front of me. Their son has autism and various other needs. When he was in an excellent local state primary school, he was at risk of exclusion because of the behaviours that were manifesting as a result of his additional needs, which could not be supported in that state primary school. Those parents made the difficult decision to remove him and put him in a local private school, where he is thriving. He is coping well and his conditions are being well managed. His parents are not just paying the basic school fees; they are paying an extra £18,000 a year on top of the school fees for the additional support their child needs. All of that will be subject to VAT, which is why they were in my office in tears. They do not know how they are going to meet those costs to keep their child, who was at threat of being excluded from a state school, thriving. That is the individual human reality of this policy, which the Minister just waves away with numbers, as if these statistics do not have human stories and faces behind them.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member is doing a fantastic job representing her constituents, but she is describing a failed system where people with money can get access to better treatment for their children. No one envies a parent put in that position, but my hope and expectation is that through this policy we can improve outcomes for all children. I expect that she shares that objective, but we cannot do it by defending the existing system at all costs. This measure will raise income to solve the very problem that she describes.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman says that I am describing a failed system, and I am; I set that out. The SEND system is failing many children across this country, but I say to him gently—I made this point to the Minister in a similar debate a few weeks ago—that I do not think the level of investment that this measure will make in our state SEND system will fix that system. That will take many years and many billions of pounds, which I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have, and I do not think the answer to that is to penalise those who have scrimped and saved to be able to offer their children opportunity.

If I may, I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of another constituent who emailed me. She remortgaged her home, cashed in her pension plan and is struggling to be able to send her children to a local independent school after the local state school could not meet her children’s special needs. She said something that I think partly echoes what he is saying:

“Is this fair when other children with the same difficulties as mine are not able to access the same level of help? No. Definitely not. Believe me, I would never have chosen this route but I have been left with no choice. Is it fair to punish us further financially for the failings of the state education system? No!”

So I think the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, but I do not think the state SEND system is going to be fixed quickly or adequately enough, and I do not think the answer to that is to level down everybody’s opportunities. We need to level up opportunities for all and not penalise the parents who have made the often very difficult choice to ensure that their child has the opportunity that they wish to give them.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), one of the complicating factors in Scotland is that we have no way of knowing for sure whether the money raised from VAT on schools throughout the United Kingdom will go back into our state education system in Scotland, which is struggling just as badly as the system in England, if not more so. On the point about parents of children with SEND, is there not a danger that, rather than paying the extra fees, because they cannot pay them they will take their children out of independent schools and put them into the state sector, whose already overstretched resources will then be stretched even further, and everybody will suffer?

[Munira Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. I am interested in how this money will flow back into the Scottish system, if at all. The point, raised not just by me but by a number of hon. Members in the various debates we have had on this issue, is that this will actually put a much greater strain on the state system, and particularly the SEND system. That is my real concern here.

Faced with the coming price hike, many of the families I have described will be forced to choose between returning to the overstretched state sector, as my hon. Friend has just said, where their child’s needs may not be met, and trying to home-educate their child. This choice has wide-ranging implications not only for those individual families but for our economy and our society. My new clause 9 would force the Government to see through the implications of this damaging measure.

I repeat that my party and I are opposed on principle to the imposition of VAT on school fees, but if the Government insist on pursuing this damaging and counterproductive measure, they should do so with their eyes open. They should be clear about the damage this measure will do, they should be clear about how it will affect parents, and they should be particularly clear about how it will affect children with special educational needs and disabilities. New clause 9 aims to ensure that by laying bare the impact of this measure on those families and children, who are already struggling with a broken SEND system. It would also require consideration of the additional children who will be coming forward to apply for an EHCP, so that their parents may be spared the fee hike the Government are imposing on them for trying, as any parent would, to do the very best for their child.

I received an email from one parent who, when his child was in an excellent local state secondary school, was discouraged from applying for an EHCP because of the challenges involved. He made the decision to send his child quite far away to an independent school where his child is doing well. This gentleman emailed me to say: “Well, I am now thinking that we might try to get an EHCP because, over a seven-year period, it will save us an awful lot of money if our son is eligible for one.” We know the EHCP system is overloaded and in crisis, so how much more pressure is going to be put on that system? New clause 9 seeks to measure that.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support the new clause, and I urge the Minister once again to rethink this ill thought through policy.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The reason why the Liberal Democrats hear this time and again from the Government Benches is that, time and again, they want all the benefits of investment without having to pay for it. That is a pattern that we see again and again in this Chamber.

[Munira Wilson]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for their comments. I feel that I am duty bound to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend for Loughborough on his engagement.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is not in his place—sorry, he is at the Bar. Perhaps he could come and take a seat on the Benches. He asked an important question to try to get some clarity about the VAT treatment of combined fees that cover school meals, transport and other services. I hope that my earlier answer gave him some reassurance on that.

I reiterate that I cannot provide advice for individual schools, but it is worth emphasising that the general principle is that if a school supplies a package of education for a single fee, that will normally be a single supply for VAT. That package could include a number of other elements such as transport or meals, alongside the main element of education. If it is a single supply, it is a single VAT liability. However, where a school supplies education and also supplies other elements for a separate fee, that will normally be treated as a separate supply. For example, if a school offers school meals alongside the education for a separate charge, those will normally be two different supplies, and they may have different VAT liabilities. Although the education would be subject to the standard rate of VAT, the school meals may be exempt, if they meet the conditions.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The way that we are approaching the reimbursement of employer national insurance costs for Departments and public sector employees is similar to what the previous Government did with the health and social care levy. It means that money goes to Departments, local governments, and public sector employees directly to help compensate for the increase in employer national insurance. For other people who are paying employer national insurance, if they have a contract with the public sector they are treated as contractors or private organisations. If they have concerns about their cost base they should talk to their sponsoring Department, the NHS, or whoever they have a contract with, so that those considerations can be taken into account in the round. It was the same for adult social care, and it is the same for other organisations that are funded through the public sector.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Let me pick up on the point about local authorities and public services. I pressed the Minister on that this morning during Treasury questions, and I fear he did not give me a clear answer. Richmond council, my local authority, delivers children’s services through an arm’s length body called Achieving for Children. As a result of these measures, with all the employees who deliver services for vulnerable children in Richmond upon Thames, it faces a bill of £588,000 in employer’s national insurance. Will the Minister assure local authorities up and down the country that operate similar models for delivering services that these arm’s length bodies will be exempt from the national insurance rise? Otherwise he will be damaging the very public services that he claims to be investing in today.

[James Murray]

We are protecting public services by providing relief directly to Departments and other public sector employers. Third parties, private organisations, or those who have a contract with the public sector are dealt with differently and they should approach their local council, or whoever is sponsoring them, to talk about their funding arrangements. I might draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that local government financing is increasing by 3.2% next year as a result of decisions that this Government have taken. I expect she would probably support that increase in funding, but sadly she does not have the guts to support what we need to do to raise the money in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I take it that the hon. Lady must oppose the large investment in public services that the Government are proposing, and that she opposes the Government’s industrial strategy, which is one of the ways we will grow the economy. I remind Opposition Members that workers in small and large businesses depend on the NHS. As others have already said, many workers have continued to be out of work, which has a massive impact on our productivity. We should make no apologies for investing in our public services.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman keeps accusing those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches of not supporting public sector investment. We have championed it, and we have said that the big multinationals—the big banks and the social media giants—should bear the brunt. Just yesterday, at the Small Business 100 reception here in Parliament, the owners of Shambles, a popular family-run restaurant in Teddington, told me that the impact of the Budget on them next year will cost £50,000 to £60,000. What are they doing? They are freezing all recruitment for the next few months. How will that deliver the growth that the Labour party is apparently desperate to achieve?

[Luke Murphy]

As I have already said, we are protecting small businesses through this Bill and we have an industrial strategy. We are delivering record levels of public investment in the economy, and I doubt very much that the measures that the hon. Lady set out would deliver the kind of funding that this Bill will deliver. We need serious investment to fix the mess left by the previous Government.

We are providing businesses with certainty through a corporate tax road map, as others have said, and upholding our commitment to maintain corporation tax at the lowest rate in the G7. I am proud to support the investment in our country, in our NHS, in education and in rebuilding the infrastructure on which hard-working people across our country rely. We are bringing the funding needed to kick-start a decade of national renewal. While the Conservatives sit back to have their cake and eat it, this Government have acted decisively to invest strategically and build for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a long-standing debate about the relationship between financial and real economy growth, on which there is no consensus. The Government are clear that we see the financial services sector as a key part of our future economic success. The growth of the UK economy and our wider missions will not be achieved if we do not champion one of our biggest assets—the growth of the UK’s financial services sector—and mobilise it towards achieving those goals.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Achieving for Children is the arm’s length body of Richmond council that delivers its vital children’s services, yet because of the rise in employer’s national insurance, it now faces a staggering bill of £588,000 because the employees are not directly employed by Richmond council. When the Chancellor looks at her local government settlement, will she build in reimbursement for councils such as Richmond, or indeed exempt arm’s length bodies?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Member will know, we announced in the Budget an increase in local government funding of 3.2% next year, and the Chancellor announced extra funding for early years providers to deliver Government-funded childcare places, meaning that total funding will be over £8 billion in 2025-26. I look forward to the hon. Member’s support for all that extra funding.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Munira Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right that we, as a Government, are focused on improving state education for children across the country, because we know that every parent aspires for their child to get the best possible education. That is what our plans seek to achieve, and I would welcome it if the Opposition supported our efforts for the good of children across the country.

Members will have the chance to scrutinise the detail of this Bill in Committee, but I will now spend a few moments outlining how the Bill’s provisions are intended to operate.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that many independent schools, such as Lady Eleanor Holles school and Hampton school in my constituency, are involved in a huge amount of partnership work with schools in disadvantaged areas, like Feltham’s Reach academy, to help disadvantaged children to have opportunities that they would not otherwise get? Does he recognise that both the measures in this Bill and the introduction of VAT on private school fees will lessen that partnership work, which will have a detrimental impact on many state schools?