Welfare Spending

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

It is the inability to have difficult conversations and make difficult points that puts Labour Members on the wrong side of these issues and on the wrong side of British taxpayers, who understand the complexity of these things.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Not right now.

I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I think we need to look at the absolute poverty figures and at what difference we can make to them—and what makes a long-term difference to the number of people in poverty of any kind is employment. We reversed the decline in employment, but we are now seeing it get higher every day under this Government’s policies. That is what is bringing even more people into poverty—their record on the economy and on employment.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I want to finish my speech.

Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent.

Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he, like all Conservatives, believes in personal responsibility, living within our means and fairness to the taxpayer.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will not take any more interventions.

Many thousands of couples think every year about whether to have children. They make that choice based on several factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Under the previous system, pre-2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness in the system. A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every time they had another child. That is not true for a family not in receipt of benefits. Why is it that someone on benefits should not have to make the same choices and sacrifices as someone in work? Why should a taxpayer who is unable to afford to have more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?

The welfare bill in this country is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Unemployment is rising, thanks to the action of the Government, and more people than ever are receiving disability benefits, but this Government seem completely powerless to do anything to reverse that trend. The Prime Minister says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”, but the truth is that he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by his own Back Benchers and has had to totally gut his plans. Scrapping the Government’s PIP reforms means that the welfare Bill will make no savings at all—indeed, the total package will end up costing the taxpayer about an extra £100 million a year. What a fiasco!

The Government set out to save £4.5 billion, and have ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. No thought was given to the burden on the taxpayer, or to the extra debt that the Government would incur and the interest that will have to be paid on it by our children. The fact that so many Labour Members want to remove the two-child benefit cap is testament to the irresponsibility with which they treat the public finances. Their solution is always to spend more money—preferably belonging to someone else.

Now, we have the spectacle of the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), saying that he also supports scrapping the two-child cap, despite having been an outspoken supporter of it when it was introduced. Reform supporters in my constituency are rather puzzled by his decision. It suggests that the hon. Member is not guided by any political principle, but is chasing votes in the red wall, where he hopes to win seats from the Labour party. In my view, that confirms that he is wholly unserious about governing this country. There is only one party in this House that is serious about sound money, and that is the Conservative party. We are the only party that is serious about stopping the creeping reliance on welfare, and that cares about taxpayers keeping more of the money they earn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

We must have a fair welfare system—one that provides vital support to those who need it but does not create a barrier to finding work. We need a financially sustainable system that delivers fairness for the taxpayer and does not entrench dependency. The Government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill—which I think has now been shortened to the Universal Credit Bill—barely saves any money. In fact, I think we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that it will cost more money, and it will make no impact on helping people back to work. That highlights the Government’s complete failure to reform our welfare system.

The welfare bill continues to rise, and economic growth is being strangled as a result. With thousands signing on to incapacity benefit every day, it is clear that we must get serious and take control of welfare spending. We cannot become a welfare state with an economy attached. I will always stand up for those in Mid Bedfordshire who need vital support. The two-child limit is an important safeguard in our welfare system, striking a balance between supporting families and helping parents into work, and ensuring fairness for working families who do not see their incomes grow as their families grow. Working families across the country are having to make difficult decisions about the size of their family.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Blake Stephenson]

I will happily give way—the hon. Lady has been trying for some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour]

Does the hon. Member accept that even with his emphasis on parental financial responsibility, the two-child benefit cap punishes the entirely innocent party—the children, who had no choice in their existence? Is that not deeply unjust?

[Blake Stephenson]

I am sympathetic to the point, but I will get on to how unjust and unfair it is to expect other families to pay for those situations, and the fiscal stability and security we need as a country.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion. He is a fantastic campaigner for 1950s women in Scotland and has done an enormous amount of work in this House to support their cause.

As I said earlier, we all recognise the difficulties that the Government face. They inherited a difficult financial situation, but that is no excuse to deny these women justice. Financial options are available, some of which I shall outline, and some of which my colleagues will outline, too.

As well as refuting the findings of the ombudsman, the Government cite cost and administrative burdens as barriers, but it is important to stress that there have been other large-scale compensation schemes created in response to DWP maladministration. The Equitable Life Compensation Scheme is a key example.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady profoundly on securing this much-needed debate. Does she agree that it is shameful that Labour made personal pledges to WASPI women over social media as a vehicle to get elected, but then tossed aside those promises and turned its back on more than 7,000 women, including Gill in Tiverton and Helen in Bampton in my constituency, as well as those across the length and breadth of the country? Does she recognise, as I do, that 74% of the British public support fair compensation for WASPI women?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituents during her time in this House. I say in response that this issue unites the House; we are all angry about the injustice that these women have faced, and we want the Government to take action. Spanning various Governments and various Administrations, these women have had to fight relentlessly just for what they are owed, and that is not acceptable. I have no doubt that there are numerous colleagues at Cabinet level who agree with the women’s cause. They may be struggling to find options and answers, and that is what we are here today to provide. I hope that they are listened to and acted on, because injustice is injustice. If we are saying that victims of one injustice can be compensated by the Government, but that victims of another are not so deserving, we are travelling down a very dangerous path. There are options to cover the cost and ensure that there is no heavy administrative burden, and I will give a few of them.

The ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out its suggestion at level four on the severity of injustice scale, and it estimates that such remedy would involve public spending of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. Campaigners have suggested that an earlier stage—level five—was under consideration, and that would cost between £10 billion and £31 billion. In both cases, as Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton has highlighted, that recommendation and, indeed, any other scheme would not preclude tapering the amount paid, which would bring down costs considerably.

WASPI and its sister campaigns suggest a bell curve model. They have highlighted the fact that other large compensation schemes for DWP maladministration have been viable, and proposed that any financial remedy could allocate the most compensation to those who have had the shortest notice of the longest delay to their state pension age—in other words, supporting those most heavily impacted in a bell curve model. They state that redress must be speedy, simple and sensitive, and they want to avoid legal action. They have asked the Government to enter into talks to address this very issue.

The WASPI group proposes that this remedy could take the form of a one-off payment that fairly takes that into account, but that level four should not be a ceiling, given that not all circumstances are identical to the six sample claimants. WASPI Scotland has also highlighted how a scheme could be operated relatively easily, using DWP records of dates of birth or national insurance prefixes, on either an opt-in or an opt-out basis. That information is readily available and would not require complex application systems or the processing of such applications.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett]

I did not need to explain that to Sarah—she fully understands that—and I am about to address that point.

The Government’s last-minute climbdown has brought Sarah no comfort, because she never imagined she would be in a wheelchair. She never thought her life would change forever in an instant, and she knows that for thousands of people, that change is still to come. Life can turn on a sixpence—a single diagnosis, a single accident—and suddenly we find ourselves in a world we never imagined, up against barriers we never thought we would face. When that happens, the welfare system should be there to support us, not abandon us.

It is not just disabled people themselves who will be harmed by this Bill; it is also the millions of family carers—the unpaid carers—whose labour sustains our entire health and social care system.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fate of unpaid carers, given that carer’s allowance hinges on a disabled person receiving PIP? With one in five people in my constituency who are disabled, which is well above the national average, should the Secretary of State commit to delinking carer’s allowance from PIP eligibility, or as a minimum, to providing automatic transitional payments during PIP reassessments, so that devoted carers are not left destitute while assessments drag on?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes a wise point. In my constituency of Mid Sussex, one in four carers are themselves disabled. Carers UK has warned in the clearest possible terms that the Bill still risks a severe and lasting financial impact on future unpaid carers and disabled people—people already facing significant hardship. Even after the Government’s partial concessions, around 81,000 future carers stand to lose support by 2029-30. That is not a small technical change; it is a decision that will push families closer to poverty, create a two-tier system of entitlements, and deepen inequalities.

Let me be clear: the Government have produced no impact assessment, no comprehensive evidence of what this will mean, and there has been no consultation with carers themselves. Carers have been ignored by the Government throughout this entire debacle, and their voice must now be heard loud and clear. The Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Bill, which risks stripping thousands of carers of vital assistance, and leaving some of the most vulnerable people in Britain without support. Yes, we agree that the welfare bill is too high, but if the Government were serious about bringing it down, they would be serious about fixing health and, critically, social care at pace, tackling chronic ill health at its root, rather than punishing those who live with its consequences.

Sarah told me that she wanted to speak up not for herself but for that future community of disabled people. In truth, most able-bodied people think that they understand disability, but until someone is there, they cannot comprehend the world of barriers that are thrown up. For many, that day will come after this Government’s reforms have been forced through. That is why I say to Ministers that they should pause the Bill and go back to the drawing board. They should consult the people whose lives they are about to upend, and show them the basic respect of listening before they legislate to take away their support. If we do not stand with disabled people and carers now, and if we do not insist on compassion and fairness at the heart of our welfare system, we will all pay the price later, not just in higher costs to the NHS and social care, but in the erosion of the values that bind our communities together.

Disabled People in Poverty

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.

There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that these proposed or suspected cuts to PIP and other benefits are a sword of Damocles hanging over disabled people in this country? Although the savings are expected to be about £4.5 billion across Britain by 2029-30, that does not factor in any of the broader systemic costs, especially those borne by the NHS and local authorities, which could well negate or even exceed that sum.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.

Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.

Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I have received, as I am sure many colleagues have, disturbing commentary from constituents, where people are already desperately worried, 18 months ahead of any reductions.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted some key barriers around poverty. Members have already alluded to the extra cost of living, but one barrier that I am particularly alive to, as a disabled person who went to a special educational needs school myself, is the lack of ambition for youngsters. It was an exception in my school if someone did an O-level; the highest we were expected to do was CSEs. There is a significantly lower level of educational attainment for people with disabilities.

Hon. Members have already alluded to the barriers to getting into work. Those may be simple misunderstandings, because people with disabilities can do things; they may just have to do them a little differently. It was with great pleasure that I met earlier this week with Turning Heads, a community interest company run by Alan Tilley for people with learning disabilities—appropriately, since it is Learning Disability Week. Alan shared with us that 75% of people with learning disabilities are out of work and that 86% of those people want to work.

[Rachel Gilmour]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a remarkable institution in my Tiverton and Minehead constituency called Foxes Hotel, which trains people with mental disabilities to become employed in hotels and hospitality centres across the country. In fact, one young lady from Foxes works in our kitchens in the House of Commons. It is not all doom and gloom, but suffice it to say that Foxes is known within the disabled community as the Oxbridge of training—it is unique, and is not the norm. Did my hon. Friend know that?

[Steve Darling]

I am reminded of the gentleman who won “Strictly Come Dancing” last year, who said that what people with disability need is “opportunity, support and determination”. My hon. Friend’s example demonstrates that in spades.

I will not spend too much time discussing Access to Work, but it is a broken system. It should be there to support people, but it undermines them through massive delays in assessments. In south Devon, businesses that support people have closed down because they are owed so much money. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot closed because of a lack of money, due to the arrears owed to it by Access to Work.

I am concerned that Ministers are getting confused—I will be extremely upset if they do so today—about employment and PIP. They should not be confused. PIP is purely about ensuring that people can live what many of us would see as normal lives. I represent the most deprived community with a Liberal Democrat representative, Torbay, and I am concerned that the cuts to PIP will see cash sucked out of some of our most deprived communities across the country. That is money that would go to people doing support work such as cleaning, helping people to go shopping, taxis and so on being sucked out of what are already our most impoverished communities. There are some real challenges there. The real killer is that 150,000 carers could lose support funding—£12,000 per household. That will push people deeper into poverty and further into destitution.

Pensions: Expatriates

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Dowd. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate.

Nearly half a million UK pensioners living overseas are being penalised, not because they did not pay into the system but because of where they now live. They are our citizens—our veterans, carers, former teachers and nurses. They worked all their lives, paid into the national insurance system and are now denied the annual uprating of their state pension. Their pensions have been frozen, sometimes for decades, based purely on whether the UK happens to have a reciprocal agreement with their country of residence. As we have heard, it cannot be fair that a pensioner in the US sees their pension rise each year, while a pensioner in Australia does not.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for an end to that injustice. We have already heard about Lord German’s sterling work, and I would like to highlight the policy research by Liberal Democrats Overseas, which has proposed a fair and affordable five-year plan to restore full uprating, starting with those who have lost out the most. Campaigners acknowledge the cost of their demands, and are even willing to accept partial uprating as a first step. However, as we have heard, previous Governments have refused to act and, worse, have turned down repeated offers from countries such as Australia and Canada to negotiate new agreements. This Government can take a fairer approach.

It is interesting that the Welsh Affairs Committee is looking into how we can engage the Welsh diaspora in promoting brand Wales overseas. A new settlement for British pensioners living overseas strikes me as a good way to engage with the British diaspora, particularly as we strike new agreements with countries all over the world. We Liberal Democrats call on the Government to stop hiding behind outdated excuses and to start treating all UK pensioners with fairness and dignity.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

People who receive a pension income have worked throughout their careers for that money, and they deserve to be able to access it fairly and with the proper information, lest we see a repeat of the WASPI scandal. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, for people receiving a UK pension, uprating should not be a lottery of land borders, and that His Majesty’s Government should redouble their efforts to find reciprocal arrangements with countries currently without an agreement with the UK?

[David Chadwick]

David Lloyd George created the social contract on which our pension scheme still runs, and I am sure he would be proud to hear my hon. Friend calling for that social contract to be adhered to.

Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that we now have many constituents living abroad who have the right to vote. To better represent their needs and make more progress, the Government might wish to consider the idea of overseas constituencies. That would give one or two hon. Members the opportunity to represent the needs of people living abroad who certainly warrant their full pensions.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

It is interesting to learn that—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way on Eton?

[Dr Huq]

I am not finished addressing the first point. Can we do this sequentially? I will respond to the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) first and then I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

It is interesting to learn that, but my point is that such schools are still going to be quids in after this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Member give up on all this stuff about Eton? I speak as a mother of two Old Etonians. I was a single parent; I worked three jobs. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said there is more money from Old Etonian parents, but there certainly is not—not from this one. Eton hands out completely free fees to 100-plus boys a year; they do not even have to pay for their pencils. When it comes to things like Dorney Lake and the sports centre, it hands that back a thousand times to local communities across the country. Give it up!

[Dr Huq]

I do not know how parliamentary that language is. I am not going to join in the praise of Eton, particularly because I think the hon. Lady may have been an atypical parent. I imagine that some parents there would be able to bear a 20% increase, and for a school that is clever with its accounts, these things may just be a rounding error. I am talking about smaller schools for which that does not apply.

It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) here. I have a massively remain constituency, with 72% of my electorate voting remain, but, perversely for Reform, it is leaving the EU that has made this policy possible—it is a Brexit benefit. If only we had never left the EU, this would not be happening.

Usually education is not a taxable luxury good, and there is a fear that if this increase happens, what could be next—nurseries or universities? I used to work in that sector. There is a slight worry that there is a loophole, because the policy contradicts the EU’s VAT directive that specifies there should be no VAT on any form of education. In Greece in 2015, the left-wing Syriza Government wanted to introduce VAT at 23%. They had to abandon that for a slew of different reasons, including because it was contrary to the EU’s VAT directive.

University tuition is zero rated, and there is a worry among my friends in the sector there, who say, “You’re lucky to have got out when you did, because they’re closing so many university departments in the UK.” What could be next? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that nurseries and universities are off limits.

We have heard all these things—that schools are going to close—and we have heard a lot of catastrophising, but it remains to be seen whether those things will come to pass. One of my schools went in 2023. My worry is that this policy will make an elitist system more elitist. The Government say in their response:

“Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision”,

but when growth comes, is there a way of undoing it? It was a very clear policy in many manifestos, so I understand that it will not all be undone, but let us think a bit creatively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a joy to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell-Buck. I will be brief.

I grew up the eldest of four children, and the only girl. My brothers and I were all grateful recipients of scholarships and bursaries to public schools. I am, believe it or not, a Cheltenham lady, and my brothers all attended King’s, Canterbury. Two served in His Majesty’s armed forces—Johnny was a half-colonel in the Grenadier Guards, and Ben still serves as a brigadier in what we still call the Black Watch. My other brother, James, worked as a heart surgeon before serving his community in Wales as a GP. In my own small way, I have tried to contribute to my country and my community. I am now serving as an MP, but I have also been a town and district councillor. I worked for international and national non-governmental organisations, and the National Farmers Union and the Environment Agency. That was made possible for all of us in large part by the education that we were fortunate enough to receive.

As Members can imagine, I very often get asked by people who tend to put their cross in the blue team box why I am a Liberal, and my answer is this: I am a Liberal because I was very well educated and I have a conscience. As a Liberal, individual political choice is part of my political DNA, and that is why I resist any attempts to erode choice. Steps taken to remove parental choice over where and how children receive their education are, to my mind, politically indigestible. Ultimately, parental agency must come first in any discussion about children’s future; it is not for the state to disrupt that dynamic.

There are a few misconceptions about private schools in this country. One is that most of those who are fortunate enough to attend independent schools are somehow part of the elites. Many students in such schools up and down the country hail from families that have saved and made many a sacrifice to strive to provide the best possible education for their children. My parents were both teachers—not a particularly highly paid profession. This policy would overturn a long-established VAT exemption on independent schools and would hit hard-working families the most. Those schools would be forced to increase fees to stay afloat, cutting off opportunity for many children and driving the further balkanisation of our education system, with the result that only the most financially fortunate would be able to afford private school fees.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Government’s policy will harm SEND children currently enrolled in independent schools One constituent wrote to me to say that their daughter goes to a local independent school because of her autism, and that it is an environment that is best suited for her needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should recognise the potentially detrimental effect on children with SEND if the VAT exemption causes schools to cut scholarships and bursaries?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting and adept intervention. I will be coming to that matter in a minute. There are some shocking—shocking—statistics on this from the Conservative party in Devon.

This policy will immeasurably increase the strain on the state school system, which is already bursting at the seams, through a large influx of pupils transferring across to comprehensive schools. This tax will not offset the impact. Moreover, many pupils at private schools are there because bursaries and scholarships have enabled them to be there, as was the case for me. For example, Blundell’s school, the independent school in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, has a proud reputation of offering a very high number of bursary places to disadvantaged children from low-income households, who would otherwise not have the opportunity of a first-class education. It also opens its doors to the community, who regularly make use of its wonderful facilities. That is the case for independent schools up and down the country—I think I referred to one earlier.

What about those pupils in need of extra support with their learning? Here comes the shocking statistic about EHCP roll-out across Devon, where Conservative-run Devon county council fails to meet its statutory duty to issue 95% of EHCPs within 20 weeks. I think all of us—even the blue team—would agree that that is shameful. Many parents whose pockets are not bottomless and who have children whose needs are not being met see independent schools as a means of securing the best possible future for their child. Who could possibly decry parents doing such a thing? [Interruption.] Mutter, mutter.

Of course, my desire is to see our state school system rise to such standards that parents would not feel as though independent schools were the only way for their children to receive a first-class education. I sincerely hope that that day comes sooner rather than later, and I have confidence that this Government will make that happen, but I cannot help but come back to choice, which is the central premise of my argument—the choice of parents to decide themselves, and themselves alone, where their children learn.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which he knows the Chancellor and the Treasury team are looking at seriously. The clear message from this Government is, “If you are getting money to which you are not entitled or owe money to the taxpayer through either unpaid taxes or fraud, that is wrong.” We treat everything the same, large or small. We believe in our public services and our social security system, and we want people to know that every single penny of their money is wisely spent and goes to those in the greatest need.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As a Member of the party that introduced the state pension, I am behind the Government on this Bill because we all want to cut down on tax fraud and evasion. But I am concerned that pensioners are included under this blanket of Government scrutiny, and it seems that the only thing they have done to deserve it is to get a bit old.

[Liz Kendall]

One of the new measures introduced by the Bill, the eligibility verification measure, explicitly excludes the state pension. I reassure the hon. Lady on that point.

Agricultural Property Relief

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First and foremost, I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this vital debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will perhaps be sick of hearing me talk on this topic, but I feel compelled to provide a voice for my farmers. My constituency of Tiverton and Minehead has a similar make-up to the hon. Lady’s. It is overwhelmingly rural agricultural land and home to many farming communities. There are some 1,600 holdings according to the CLA and 432 of those farms will be hit by the Government’s APR changes.

We Liberal Democrats applaud our farmers. As a former director of the National Farmers Union, I feel well placed to highlight the damaging consequences that will inevitably be visited upon them as a result of the changes to agricultural property relief. The Government’s claim that 27% of all farms will be affected is, if I am being generous, misinformed. According to in-depth analysis conducted by the National Farmers Union in collaboration with the OBR and Treasury experts, 75% of the nation’s working farms fall above the £1 million threshold and will be struck by the punitive changes. The changes are said to be caveated by different assumptions on rate relief.

There are misapplied exceptions. The first one is that the average family farm would not top the threshold of £3 million in value, which is just not the case. Great Ash farm in my constituency is a typical good-sized family farm consisting of 256 acres and is on the market for £3.5 million. In an inheritance tax valuation, the farm’s livestock and machinery would be added to the value, bringing the total to around £3.68 million. Even when the acreage is not as large, the value of agricultural land alone often pushes farmers close to, if not over, the £3 million threshold and can certainly shatter the individual threshold of £1 million. If we add to the value of the land the livestock, deadstock, properties, machinery and business, the owners of the farm are looking at a hefty valuation—not one that they can capitalise on to keep the farm, but one that will ensure they are caught in the claws of this onerous death duty.

The second misapplied exception is because farm ownership is not in all cases split equally between a husband and wife, and it does not always pass to a direct descendant. Existing capital gains tax rules have discouraged many older farmers from transferring their farms to their children owing to the potential tax burden, which means that ownership is staggered across many generations in some cases. Often, when there are not ownership models that meet the co-owning married couple status that the Chancellor uses for the modelling of those exceptions, it means that the various personal and dependent inheritance tax exemptions that go into the flawed Treasury equation on this policy cannot be used on many occasions.

The third misapplied exception, the residence nil rate band, is unlikely to be applicable. It is reduced by £1 for every £2 when the estate exceeds £2 million. Therefore, if a farm business exceeds £2.65 million, the residence nil rate tax band is no longer valid. That is yet another misapplied Treasury exemption, which will not have a realistic effect on family farms’ ability to keep the taxman from taking everything they have. In conclusion, I will make no apology for standing up for my rural communities—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Your four minutes are up. I call Alistair Carmichael.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I will be quick and nice.

[Sir John Hayes]

No—forgive me, but my time is very short.

I sincerely hope that we will get a parliamentary vote on this issue and I will use every endeavour to ensure that we do. The WASPI women deserve better than the explanation we heard today, which was essentially somewhere between, “We’re not sure that their case is justified, because we think that most of them did know,” and, “We can’t afford it even if their case is justified.” Frankly, neither of those arguments will wash. The Minister, who is, as I said earlier, a decent man, must know that, just as the Prime Minister certainly feigned to know it before the general election. The question must therefore be asked, did the Prime Minister not know or did he not care? Was he careless about the support that he offered the WASPI women or did he not know what the Minister has just said?

I end with Winston Churchill, because I can do no better. He said:

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived”.

This is deceit—nothing less, nothing more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

As I said in my statement, I understand that many women born in the 1950s face a real struggle and, on this specific decision, they may well be disappointed, but our commitment to pensioners and to the pensions triple lock will deliver an extra £30 billion into the basic state pension over this Parliament. Our investment in the NHS, about which many 1950s-born women are desperately worried, of £22 billion this year and next, shows our commitment to the issues that matter to those women. As I say, they may be disappointed and, indeed, angry about the decision, but we believe that it is the fair and right decision. However, I would be more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend in further detail so that he can pass on comments from WASPI women in his constituency.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I speak on behalf of Helen from my home town of Bampton and the 5,500 WASPI women in my constituency. They are not disappointed; they are devastated, as am I because—mistakenly, as it turned out—I believed that this Labour Government, who were supported by millions of women across this country who rightly turned their backs on the Conservatives, had some probity and decency. Does the Secretary of State agree that it turns out that they have neither?

[Liz Kendall]

No.