Transport in the South-East

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing forward this important debate. As a fellow A27-suffering MP, I can attest to the constant traffic problems around Chichester, and I will touch on the impact they have on my constituency.

Over in East Sussex, transport is not a peripheral concern but the backbone of how communities earn a living, how people get to work, and how rural and coastal towns stay connected to the rest of the country. Right now, in a number of places in my constituency, that backbone is cracking. The A259 is the principal coastal route through East Sussex; it links Seaford to Eastbourne, serves Newhaven port, home of the excellent and valued daily ferry service to Dieppe, and connects two of the country’s key growth areas. It is an economic artery and it is under serious pressure.

The most serious bottleneck is the Exceat bridge. This is a single-lane bridge originally built in 1870, and it has been a known problem for years. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State confirmed the compulsory purchase order in October 2025, and that construction of a new two-lane replacement is planned to begin in the spring of 2026.

I will, however, be frank—the disruption that the work will cause will be very significant. The advisory diversions run through villages such as Litlington or Friston—with narrow lanes not designed for through traffic—and will be enormous. The official diversion is via the A27, but that is not credible. Particularly when traffic congestion reaches peak levels on the A27, traffic will divert through our small country lanes. We need a credible mitigation plan alongside a credible timetable, not one or the other.

Beyond the A259, the condition of East Sussex county council’s roads is a genuine concern. I do not want to get all peak Lib Dem here, but I hear constantly about potholes across my constituency, whether on some of our bigger roads or the C7 small road that stretches between Lewes and Newhaven, which is in a shocking condition, to the extent where it lost some of its surface during recent flooding.

Potholes, poor surfaces and patches that wash out within weeks of being laid all cost drivers money in vehicle damage and slow journeys, and on narrower roads create real safety risks, particularly when verges start to collapse, narrowing already narrow country lanes. Between 2022 and 2024, East Sussex county council paid out nearly £600,000 for vehicle damage caused by potholes. That cannot be a good use of taxpayers’ money.

I also note that the county council elections in East Sussex, originally due in May 2025, have now been postponed for a second year. The effect is that voters have not had the chance to hold their county councillors to account at the ballot box for over two years. Councillors serving seven-year terms is not democratic. On road maintenance—squarely a county council responsibility on almost all our roads—that matters.

I now turn to the A27, and I will be direct because lives are at stake. Just last week, on 28 January, a man was killed in a collision on the A27 near Falmer. Last September, an 18-year-old man died in a fatal crash near Wilmington. These are not isolated incidents; the A27 through this corridor sees frequent serious accidents, and the pattern is well established. I have spoken to Sussex police requesting a full breakdown of accident data on that stretch. I ask the Minister, does National Highways have a current safety review there, and if so, what is its timeline? Does the Minister plan to review the current up-to-two-year wait time for reports to be provided to National Highways following an incident by the police, which is causing a major lag in safety improvements, particularly where traffic conditions change—not least as they are affected by things such as housing developments? This delay creates a significant gap in the crucial data needed for road user safety.

That brings me to the issue of rail services, or lack thereof. There is currently no direct train from Seaford, the largest town in my constituency, to London. Every commuter, student or business traveller must change, typically at Lewes or Brighton. For a town of Seaford’s size, that is a significant barrier. I recently heard from a woman who lives in Seaford and works in London, like many of my constituents. She used to be able to get a direct train to Victoria station. However, that service was removed during covid and has still not been reinstated six years on. It can easily take three hours to get to London, due to delays and tight connections at Lewes. She told me that her colleagues in Manchester find it quicker and easier to get to their office than she does. That is unacceptable, and lets my constituents down on a daily basis. The Seaford to Victoria direct service must be reinstated immediately. Over time, this kind of friction drives people and businesses elsewhere. I ask the Minister to engage with Govia Thameslink Railway and Great British Railways as it develops, to make the case for a direct service.

I turn now to one of the most persistent issues during my time as an MP so far—parking in Polegate. The deeper problem is enforcement: Wealden district council has never decriminalised parking, so responsibility falls to Sussex police, who, understandably, have other priorities. The result is that pavement parking goes unchecked. That means that wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs are forced into the roads, pavements are damaged and the town centre feels less acceptable and less welcoming. That impinges on businesses and other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have acted on this issue and Wales is moving, but England is stuck in limbo. I would welcome engagement from the Department for Transport on a deliverable plan for Polegate that includes clear signage and ticketing, sensible resident permits and proper local enforcement powers, because pavements are for people, not vehicles. Key to reducing traffic and congestion is getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, so often public transport is too expensive. That brings me on to buses.

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

My constituents have got in touch about a significant fare increase that they are experiencing with Southern Railway. The Leatherhead to London Victoria single fare at 8.51 am has increased 39.4% from £12.70 to £17.70. That is because of the introduction of contactless by Transport for London, who determine prices for peak and off-peak trains differently. Does my hon Friend agree that such discrepancy over pricing erodes confidence in our railways and undermines Labour’s plans to make rail more affordable?

[James MacCleary]

Pricing is one of the biggest barriers to people using the railways. If we want people to use the railways and move out of their vehicles then we have to make it affordable for them. Speaking specifically about buses, for many families in my constituency they are not a lifestyle choice—they are the only way that a child can get to school or college. Yet, from Monday 16 February, East Sussex county council will increase the under-19 freedom weekly ticket from £15 to £20—a one-third hike in one go. For parents already juggling the cost of living, that is not a marginal change: it is the difference between a young person getting the bus and being priced off of it.

Affordability is only half the problem. Too often, the network is unreliable and poorly designed. That is why I have been campaigning for a direct bus from Eastbourne to Lewes along the A27.

None of this is a luxury. Rural and coastal communities cannot be treated as an afterthought in transport planning. Too often, the south-east has been neglected and forgotten when planning or improving transport infrastructure. In the Chancellor’s first Budget, every single major transport project in Sussex was cancelled. After London, the south-east is the most densely populated area of the country and its biggest economic driver. However, as we frequently get grouped together with London—who are rightly allotted a comparatively large amount of funding—our figure is augmented, and the south-east rarely gets the funding that we so desperately need.

The A259 is, unfortunately, a perfect example for the south-east as an overcrowded region with insufficient infrastructure. There is a clear plan to improve it, but the Government have so far declined to release the funding, so it remains a disaster. The Minister kindly met with me on the issue of the A259 after I met with the Prime Minister, and maybe she will have some good news for me today. Who knows?

Poor roads isolate people, unreliable rail makes it harder to keep and get a job, and unsafe roads cost lives. These are matters of public safety and economic fairness. I want to finish by extending an invitation to the Minister and her colleagues to come and visit my constituency. It is a very typical example of the transport challenges in the whole of the south-east—a primarily rural constituency with small and medium-sized towns and a collection of villages. There are lanes, railways and an international ferry service, and we are within striking distance of Gatwick airport; yet we remain poorly connected and served, and it is holding back growth in our area.

If the Minister comes by train, she will experience at first hand the joys of a journey that is too often overcrowded and sets back Lewes commuters nearly £6,000 a year for a season ticket. However, if she prefers to come in the ministerial car, she will meet the potholes soon enough.

Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Hack]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Some 58% of women say that their cycle journeys are limited because of safety concerns and the infrastructure provided. As somebody who has run fairly regularly for a number of years, being hassled has sadly been a daytime as well as a night-time experience.

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

As the hon. Member rightly alluded to, catcalling, being followed or being shouted at by passing cars is a frequent experience for many women who go out running. In my constituency, there are many poorly lit paths and parks, which limits where women feel safe to go out for a run. Does the hon. Lady agree that women should not have to choose between doing the exercise they love and their safety?

[Amanda Hack]

Absolutely. That is why this debate is so important. We should not be restricting access to exercise because we do not feel safe.

It is frustrating that I have been catcalled both running on my own and with buddies. What was saddest for me was during covid. My 10-year-old daughter had just got on to her big bike and was faster than me while I was running behind her, and we had comments from a car. Thankfully, she did not really understand what had been said, so I will not repeat it here, but I can guarantee that they knew exactly what I thought of their disgusting behaviour. It changed my approach to life, however, and we did not do that again. We both went cycling together instead.

This is what we have to do all the time. We are constantly compromising on what we can and cannot do, and when we can and cannot do it. Whether it was a poll on a Facebook group for Leicester and Leicestershire runners, or my running trainer trying to learn more about his female clients, the comments were inundated with women sharing their experiences. We have to start changing the way that we feel. It is no surprise that 20% of women never walk at night, and that 48% of women in the UK feel unsafe while out running according to SportsShoes. That is shameful, and we have to change it.

It has been really good to see the Government take such a strong stance on violence against women and girls, but this problem is embedded in our infrastructure. As a councillor, I saw part of a bus route being cut. I then demonstrated to the bus company what they wanted us to do: to walk along an unlit path on dangerous roads, to get from where the bus would stop to the place of business where people needed to go to work. These things are baked in, and we have to change them for everybody.

Footpaths and cycleways must be built with women’s safety in mind, not with cost-cutting measures putting in fewer lampposts and less lighting, or weaving cycle lanes well away from well-lit main roads because it is cheaper. Those compromises should not be taken. Too often, cost savings prohibit women. Safer streets for us to get to work and exercise on would have huge benefits. If someone cannot drive, and public transport where they live is not very reliable—as it is in North West Leicestershire—cycling can help open up more doors to work, education, and seeing family and friends.

Helping us to feel safe while running, walking and wheeling would mean that women are far more likely to exercise, helping to ease some of the strain on our NHS and other services by keeping women fit and active.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dillon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which shows that this is not a party political issue; rather, it is about the safety of riders. I am sure that the Minister, too, will take the hon. Lady’s views onboard.

I welcome the commitment to publish the national guidance on road safety education training and publicity, but I urge the Government to align that work with the measures in my Bill and in particular the need for stronger education in the driving test for new drivers.

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

Horse riders in my constituency are absolutely spoilt for hacking on Epsom downs, but there are lots of busy roads to navigate. Even at Pegasus crossings, drivers are jumping red lights as horses are approaching, which makes it incredibly dangerous. Many have reported near misses, and there have been instances of loose horses in Epsom as a consequence. Does my hon. Friend agree that better education on Pegasus crossings is vital to reducing the number of near misses and potential deaths of riders and horses?

[Mr Dillon]

My hon. Friend makes a key contribution with that intervention: it is that holistic approach to all road traffic management systems that people need to be aware of.

It is vital that young drivers understand how to drive safely on our rural roads and how to behave when encountering animals. Alongside that, I urge the Government to consider requiring companies that operate large vehicles, such as buses and delivery lorries, to include specific equine road safety training as part of their initial driver training. In 2019, a horse rider suffered serious injuries, including a fractured pelvis, after being thrown on to a pavement when her horse was spooked by a bus that passed too quickly and too closely. I think that shows why we need that initial driver training.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I have a similar situation in my constituency with Strada Care, which is under immense strain, having already closed four care homes over the past seven years due to chronic underfunding. Thousands of care providers are on the brink of collapse, and many more may follow if these Lords amendments are disagreed to. With social care services already struggling, more vulnerable individuals will be forced into hospitals and be bed blocking. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing costs for social care providers will have a devastating knock-on effect for the NHS?

[James MacCleary]

I absolutely agree. The care provider in my constituency faces a 9.4% increase in employer’s costs, which it simply cannot absorb. These are the very people keeping elderly and disabled residents safe in their homes, preventing hospital admissions and easing NHS pressures, yet the Government have chosen to burden them rather than support them. The Lords amendments I mentioned would ensure that care providers can continue to deliver essential services without being driven into financial crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Helen Maguire.

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

Recent flooding in Leatherhead left footpaths near essential services such as train stations overflooding—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is the question number I need. Minister, you can just answer the question and then we will have the second part.

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

4. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her fiscal policies of recent trends in levels of investment in green infrastructure.

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

Too many parts of the country and too many families have felt the devastating effects of flooding in recent months, not least in South Wales and in the hon. Member’s constituency. The Government have committed £2.4 billion over the next two years to increase community flood resilience. Everyone in this House recognises that flooding is a challenge that will be with us for years to come, and we will set out further plans at the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s go back to Helen Maguire.

[Helen Maguire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Recent flooding in Leatherhead left footpaths near essential services such as train stations overflooding with sewage. In Leatherhead, there are no alternative options to divert water. Given the importance of long-term flood preparations, will the Chancellor commit to securing funding for flood defences beyond 2025-26?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member will know that specific flood defence schemes will be considered in the normal way. When it comes to funding beyond 2025-26, those will be decisions on overall levels of funding that are taken in the spending review later this year.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Creasy]

He will therefore understand why I suggest that we as a Parliament could look at how we address those issues. Right now, the sector is concerned. I do not think that is a surprise to anyone. It may be a damascene conversion for the Conservative party to suddenly care about it, but there is a concern across the sector about not going backwards.

Clause 3 will increase the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and will reduce the current £100,000 threshold. It might be perceived that for some small businesses, particularly in the childcare sector, that would be a potential way forward in reducing some of the impact of the changes so those businesses can continue to expand. However, the challenge is right now, with the majority of childcare providers not qualifying for the employment allowance because of the way in which the sector operates and because it has been ignored, dismissed and derided by previous Governments. The majority of positions are produced in the private sector. That means they do not qualify.

There is perhaps an unintended irony in all that, however, which is that investing in more childcare, as we are doing, means that many of those small businesses will not be eligible for the employment allowance. As it is about companies that receive less than 50% of their income from public funding, while many childcare providers were originally in that position before money started going into them, the irony is that many fewer will be in that position in the coming years as a result, meaning that they will be denied the opportunity.

Childcare provision in educational settings will be able to benefit, so it is not a total denial. That means that if we are looking to expand childcare, in the current environment and without looking at how we can make that an equal opportunity for all childcare providers, that will have to be done through the state sector, which means having to find nurseries that can be provided in spare classrooms or childcare settings within an educational setting. That accounts for a small amount of the structures in place at the moment, and there is a risk that we will not see the investment in expansion because expansion in previous times has come through the private sector.

My concern, if I am frank, is that this is a perfect storm of our own making. With the best intentions of investing money from the Budget in childcare, we may inadvertently make it harder to expand childcare. That is why we need a review, because it is not clearcut that that will be the outcome, which is why I have tabled new clause 4. I also urge Ministers to look at business rates, which currently add around £21,000 to the average nursery. We found support in the Budget for those in retail and hospitality. We could look again at the childcare sector on the same basis.

Above all, we need to raise those questions and ask how we can ensure that we do not see a curtailment of childcare in this country, because the reality is that fees will then go up, making it even harder for parents to use it. That is what the Pregnant Then Screwed surveys are showing us: 90% of parents who have a place are terrified that costs will go up in the coming year, and 60% say that if that happened they would reduce their hours or leave work altogether.

This is a tough time, this is a tough Budget, and there are tough decisions to be made. We are not shying away from that and I am proud to be a member of a political party in government that is getting a grip of this country’s needs. However, I am also determined, as I am sure is everybody on the Back Benches, to make sure that we do that in the best way possible. If the Minister will not accept new clause 4, I hope he can tell us what work the Treasury is doing to ensure that childcare as a form of economic infrastructure can grow and support this country as it recovers from the last 14 years of Conservative Government.

We know that all those who will be affected—in the choice to work, to stay in work and to stay open and run a nursery—are literally the ones who have been paying the price of having a Conservative Government. We do not wish to make them pay all over again. The Conservatives broke Britain. We now need to be honest about the work and the investment that it will take to repair it.

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

I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges.

I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me:

“We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.”

Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the National Pharmacy Association has agreed to collective action for the first time in its history, directly as a result of this Government’s Budget? Does she have any comment on that?

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward.

Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said:

“Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.”

Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes.

Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases.

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy.

Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards.

This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges.

The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.

[Gareth Snell]

I wish to start by reflecting on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said in his opening speech. He talked about socialists thinking that taxes just flow in. Given that he was a member of a Government that raised taxes to their highest level in history, perhaps this season it is less secret Santa for him, and more secret socialist. Perhaps, if he is lucky, under his Christmas tree on 25 December he will find a red flag that he can fly. I jest, Madam Chair, but the point is that that Government agreed with tax and spend—they taxed; the trouble was what they chose to spend the money on.

That is the difference between this Government and the Government that came before: we have made clear commitments about what we will spend the money raised by this national insurance Bill on. We will make investments into the NHS and our public services, such as our schools and hospitals, and we will fix the railways. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) chunters, but I cannot actually hear what he is saying. If he wishes to intervene, I will happily give way—no, I thought not.

The fact of the matter is that although this is not a decision that I would particularly have liked the new Government to make, having looked at the levers available to us and having made a political choice to protect the pay packets of individuals in work, this is a way of raising revenue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I will head to the Great Northern conference in Hull later this afternoon to speak about the impact of this Government’s policies on Yorkshire and the wider north of England. We are supporting local leaders and communities through integrated settlements, are investing in the trans-Pennine route upgrade, East West Rail and High Speed 2, and are reshaping public services.

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

T3. The owner of Horton pharmacy in Epsom has raised concerns about the financial burden that increased employer national insurance contributions will place on community pharmacies. Pharmacies provide frontline care, and without support, their viability and the accessible healthcare that they offer could be at risk. That will add pressure to an already strained national health service. Will the Chancellor reconsider and exempt community pharmacies from the increase?

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

Primary care providers have yearly negotiations with the Department on what services they provide and what money they are entitled to. More broadly, the reason why we are, in the Budget, taking difficult decisions about national insurance and other matters is precisely to fund the NHS, so that we have the health service that our country needs and deserves.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who spoke for the official Opposition—he is no longer in his place—described the Conservative Government’s approach to supporting business. I was going to say that I listened to him with interest, but I think incredulity would be a better word. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who is no longer in his place, was rather harsh on the Conservatives. He said that they never followed up on their commitments on business and did not have a clear policy on business. The Conservatives had a very clear and pithily described policy on business: it began with f, had k in the middle and ended with the word “business”. And believe me, they delivered on that policy with their post-Brexit trade deal. In case the message had not been rammed home hard enough, they confirmed it with a Budget that played helter-skelter chaos with the economy.

I therefore sympathise with the new Government’s approach in terms of the Budget they are trying to set and in terms of establishing stability. That is something I would want to support, but I am disappointed that I will not be able to vote for the Bill because of the effect it will have on towns like Wellington and Taunton, which will be hit by a triple whammy. Those towns support some great independent schools, which are charities: Taunton school, Wellington school, King’s College and Queen’s College. They sustain around 1,000 jobs in the constituency, many of which are now under threat. Many workers at those schools—cleaners and catering staff—are worried about what is going to happen.

There are then the very serious effects of the rise in national insurance contributions on small businesses, particularly the many small businesses whose rateable value is over £51,000. That is quite typical for SMEs in a high street in this country—at the smaller end, I would suggest. The owner of Mr Miles Tea Room, a superb place to go in my constituency, has written to tell me about the combined effects of the Budget on his business:

“Firstly, all my staff will now see a reduction in the hours they will be scheduled. As a result, no doubt, some will leave. Where many of my employees already earn over the current minimum wage, I will not be able to increase their pay rates by as much as I have done in the past. Secondly, any full-time employees who leave our employment will only be replaced by potentially 2 or 3 part-time employees. Thirdly, I will not be investing in any capital equipment in my kitchen or new decor in my restaurant. Fourthly, there is a serious potential for me to operate on shortened trading hours, thus reducing the vibrancy of the Town Centre.”

He goes on:

“I was cautiously optimistic that a new Labour Government couldn’t possibly be worse than the previous Tory one in terms of lack of support for SMEs. Sadly, in the space of 3 short months this Government has already proved my optimism was misplaced and there will be many casualties over the next 12 months as the new measures take effect.”

I urge the Minister to reconsider both the effect on independent schools, and I am a great supporter of the state school system—

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

There is an independent school in my constituency, Kingswood House school, which has around 50% of its pupils with special educational needs. Many of those pupils do not have an education, health and care plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools providing support to so many SEN children should retain their charitable rate relief?

[Gideon Amos]

I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. I am also concerned about the influx of children going to local authorities to apply for EHCPs because they will now need them to get the discount, and about the massive effect that will have on already overstretched local authorities. I worry about how they are going to cope with those applications, over and above the SEN crisis at the moment.

I am a great supporter of state schools, partly because of the record of the Liberal Democrats, who not only ringfenced the education budget in the first years of the coalition, but injected £1.25 billion by inventing the pupil premium, which now injects £3 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) shakes her head, but these are the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunities for improvement. As the Chancellor set out in her July statement, prevention will be at the heart of this Government’s new approach to public service reform. That will be set out in the spending review in the coming months.

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

T5. Many households are facing homelessness due to increasing household costs. What support can the Chancellor provide to them?

[Rachel Reeves]

Building the homes that our country needs is a top priority for this Government. In our manifesto, we committed to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, including social housing, so that people have access to secure and affordable accommodation and that every family have a roof over their heads. We will set out more details on all of this in the Budget tomorrow.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My constituency of South Devon is home to several small independent schools that offer an alternative education from the mainstream offer from state schools: education that caters brilliantly for pupils who struggle to fit in with the demands of the mainstream curriculum. I have heard from several parents whose children could not cope in state schools—they live with autism or other mental health challenges—but are thriving in those small private settings. These small independent schools, whose fees are as low as they can make them, offer smaller class sizes, fewer class transitions during the day and more emphasis on wellbeing and creativity.

The parents who have contacted me in desperation over this proposed change are not wealthy. They are scraping together the fees so that their children can attend a school where they can thrive. One told me that she had sold her house and given away the family pet in order to move into a flat. She changed job to be able to afford the fees, and she now buys everything second hand. Another said that they had also sold their home and moved house to afford the fees at their local Steiner school as their children had also failed to cope with mainstream schooling.

The introduction of VAT on private school fees may not have much impact on parents who can afford £50,000 a year for a child. However, one school in my constituency, whose fees are just £10,000, said that it will face closure if it loses just four more children from its roll. All those small schools are trying to absorb as much of the cost as possible, with teachers taking salary cuts and much-needed building repairs being put on hold indefinitely. Will the Minister think about the impact the tax will have on the children who cannot get an EHCP? They cannot cope with the rigours of the state school system and they will quite probably end up dropping out of school completely if this goes ahead, with all the implication that has on working parents who then may have to consider homeschooling instead. I urge the Minister to think about a lower fee threshold for the introduction of VAT. After all, those parents are already paying income tax to cover an education that their children do not receive.

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

My hon. Friend raises a good point, and I was glad to hear that Labour is giving consideration to cases in which independent school provision has been specified in education, health and care plans. However, as has already been raised, many children have special educational needs and do not require an EHCP; that means that many children with SEN are currently being educated in independent schools as there is insufficient support in the state school system. As such, the families are having to bear the fee increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that those vulnerable children are not disadvantaged by this policy?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those children are going to be most affected by this policy. For those families, the tax change is a regressive step that will force them into an impossible situation and have a devastating impact on children who have already had a difficult start in life—many of whom have experience of the care system, our failing mental health system and a state school system completely unable to cope with all their additional or complex needs. Yes, the state school system desperately needs investment—we know that. We know that the provision for SEND is in a disastrous state, nowhere more so than in Devon, and the chronic underfunding of councils by the previous Government has decimated SEND provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Pinkerton]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely.

My second point relates to military families. As we have close ties to Sandhurst, Pirbright and nearby Aldershot, around 10% of pupils in my constituency come from military families. Those families already report that they are struggling with fees because of the increasing gap between the continuity of education allowance paid by the Ministry of Defence and the rising cost of private education, and adding 20% would widen that gap further still. Many families would reach their tipping point and be forced to withdraw their children from their current schools, with all the attendant risks.

[Helen Maguire]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. As the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson and as a veteran myself, I can only reiterate the importance of a stable environment for the children of armed forces personnel. Does he agree that the Government must continue to support a stable environment for our armed forces personnel as they continue to protect our country, both at home and overseas, and that the Government must explain exactly how they will achieve that?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I know that residents in my constituency face having to leave the armed forces because of the disruption that the added VAT would cause and the difficulty of procuring educational offerings. I ask the Government to think again about this policy—this education tax—and its timing and application, especially now, when SEND provision is already broken in counties such as Surrey and requires fundamental reform; when local independent schools are already struggling, having borne many of the costs associated with inflation, lived through the pandemic and endured many of the costs attached to that; and when state schools are already struggling to provide the education that they want to provide.