Oral Answers to Questions
Monica Harding Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will recognise the significant investment that this Government have put into agriculture more broadly since coming into office. I am not aware of the “Farm First” scheme, but if she would like to write to me about it, I would be happy to meet to discuss it further.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank the hon. Lady for her very important question. The Government are committed to supporting those with mental health conditions, alongside those with other long-term health conditions and disabilities, into work. More disabled people and people with health conditions will be supported to enter and stay in work through our Pathways to Work guarantee and our Connect to Work supported employment programme.
Monica Harding
As is the case throughout the country, young constituents in Esher and Walton are out of work due to mental health conditions. I welcome departmental initiatives such as the disability employment advisers and cross-Government work through the joint work and health directorate and WorkWell. However, fragile mental health can be picked up on and supported earlier in school and may be a result of poorly identified special education needs—an area that we know is at breaking point—and the current state of mental health waiting lists; in Esher and Walton, for instance, the average wait for under-18s is 184 days. What current learnings from the Department for Work and Pensions are being fed back into the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the next cohort is ready for work?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady knows that there are already resources going into schools to provide mental health support to children and young people early on. There is also additional money going in through the Government’s investment into the NHS, which will include mental health services.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady highlighted the range of options available to people with mental health conditions, because we know that those people are very diverse and that there is no one thing that will support them into work and keep them in work. As she said, we have work coaches, Pathways to Work advisers, Connect to Work, and employment advisers in NHS talking therapies. There is a whole range of options to ensure that we get people with mental health conditions into work and keep them there.
Budget Resolutions
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
It is always possible to find cases that are very difficult to deal with. In government, we have to make decisions about the totality of the population. I think it is up to parents on benefits to think very carefully about how many children they have and the circumstances in which they may find themselves.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
No, I have already given way once on this subject.
Our wealth creating sector is shrinking, whereas the public sector is ballooning, yet the Government’s policies are punishing businesses and wealth creators. The freezing of tax thresholds is a tax rise, as the Chancellor has confirmed many times at the Dispatch Box, but she has now confirmed that they will be frozen for another three years. Every time they are frozen, that brings more people into the tax net. In this case, it is forecast to bring another 750,000 into the tax net. The 2% increase on savings and dividends is another penalisation of those working hard to save their money. Where are the incentives to save money if the Government are taking more of their savings?
Finally, hospitality businesses are going to be hit hard by this Budget. In North Cotswolds, they are at the heart of the community, yet nationally one pub is closing its doors every day at the moment. I do not see any pub landlords welcoming this Budget—
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am sure that the Chancellor is sick of hearing her own words from last year quoted back to her:
“extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Yesterday, she froze income tax thresholds, dragging one in four people into higher rate or additional rates of tax and pushing the tax burden to an all-time high of 38% of GDP. Today, she is refusing to rule out coming back for more. Blindly copying the playbook of the last Conservative Government, she is the continuity Chancellor. There is still no vision for growth, just that old-style Labour tax and spend. It is like new Labour’s wealth creation to pay for better public services never happened.
The Government may like to blame the Conservatives for the OBR’s downgrade in growth, but the OBR has said that none of the measures in the Budget will boost growth. In fact, the Budget may actively harm growth. The OBR has said that slower wage growth and higher taxes mean living standards will rise more slowly than expected. Take, for example, the raid on pension contributions: the OBR tells us that employers will pass on the cost of the £4.7 billion tax raid on pension contributions to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. The CBI has data showing that three quarters of employers will decrease pension contributions as a result. It is a tax on those doing the right thing.
That comes after Government policies harmed businesses in their first Budget, including the national insurance increases that have put thousands of pounds on to a load of businesses in my constituency, causing them to hire less and cut hours for the very people that the Government say they want to protect: part-time, low-paid workers, often with caring responsibilities. Higher unemployment in turn means more spend on universal credit—indeed, £1.8 billion more, as estimated by the OBR, on unemployment. It is all the wrong way round.
Yesterday, one long-term successful business owner in my constituency said to me:
“The whole thing is just depressing. I could work for another 10 or 20 years creating wealth for the economy, but the Government is making it so hard I may as well retire. And if I was in my 30s, I wouldn’t choose to do it here any more—I would move overseas.”
She is one of our wealth creators—she creates the growth we need. Another large business in my constituency who once felt confident about investing in Britain, creating growth and hiring new staff is now telling me that it is scaling back plans, postponing projects altogether and contemplating offshoring.
Talking of supporting people trying to do the right thing, let us turn to landlords. One of my constituents, who is known as a decent landlord, told me yesterday:
“I may as well pull out—what is the point? I get 2% gain on my properties. I may as well put it in the bank and get 4%.”
The Government’s policy will take rentals off the market and increase rents. In Esher and Walton, where rental prices are sky high, that means more people will not be able to afford to live there.
The property tax will gum up the housing market and distort it by bunching properties for sale below the threshold. It is said that the surcharge will raise more than £600 million, but that will be offset by £200 million of behavioural impact, so the take-home is £400 million, which is a rounded-up figure. In London and the south-east, where the average price per square foot is higher, those properties might not be such big houses, and in them are likely to be pensioners. Public First has said that two fifths of homeowners in bands G and H are pensioners.
Monica Harding
I do not have the time.
Older homeowners who have watched their properties’ value soar over the years will be hardest hit by this granny tax. They are asset-rich but cash-poor. They may be forced to sell up—at reduced asking prices—and more properties will get dragged into the mansion tax net. As that happens, a proportion of terraced houses, flats and semis will join them.
Worst of all, this is not a serious attempt to reform property tax, including business rates, stamp duty and council tax. Like the Budget, it is tinkering and meddling around the edges. This is a patchwork Budget that does not take us much further forward. Where has the national mission for growth gone? This is a low-growth Budget from a low-growth Government who thumb their nose at the wealth creators. It does not tackle some of the big questions. Where is the money in the plan for adult social care? Where is the money in the plan for the £14 billion deficit in SEND provision to help local authorities that are about to go bankrupt? The Budget is a smorgasbord of contempt for aspiration and growth. The Government have not only abandoned working people in my constituency, but waged a quiet war on aspiration itself.
I am pleased that the Government have lifted the two-child benefit limit. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] My party laid out how we would do that, but Government Members know as well as I do that poverty does not end there. To tackle poverty, we need to create growth.
There is an alternative, which the Liberal Democrats have laid out in our plan to turbocharge economic growth by repairing the £90 billion Brexit black hole caused by the previous Conservative Government. The UK needs to negotiate a new bespoke customs union with the European Union: a modern arrangement designed around the needs of British businesses and workers, which would raise £25 billion a year. Instead of that we have a Budget that taxes work, punishes investment, stifles aspiration and still fails to deliver for public services; a Budget that tells wealth creators—
Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the very liberal point that we should always remember that everyone’s individual and family circumstances are different; it is important that the British state recognises that individuality, rather than expecting everyone to fit on a convenient spreadsheet.
To make some of the needed improvements, both the rate at which paternity pay is paid and the length of leave must be addressed. Currently, fathers and non-birthing parents are not supported to take time off from work because they cannot afford to do so. A large number of constituents have written to me on this topic. I am sure that many more, who have not had the time to consider writing to me, are also deeply affected by this, as shown by the large number of signatories to the petition that has triggered this debate.
Let me repeat some of the points made to me by my constituents. The low rate of statutory pay for both parents has huge financial implications for new parents, especially those in single-income households. Living on so little during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives is a significant issue.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Government’s stated first objective in this review is to support the physical and mental health of women after they have given birth to a child. One cannot overestimate the amount of mental stress caused by living in poverty or without enough resources for one’s family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat policy to double statutory shared parental pay to £350 a week is the right move?
Olly Glover
That is one of many excellent Liberal Democrat measures that we have proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) will tell us more about that, and I do not want to steal too much more of her thunder.
Polling for The Dad Shift and Movember has found that the financial pressure is wrecking the health of new parents and their families, with more than half of new dads reporting mental and physical health consequences. Some 61% become less present with their families, and 57% are put off having more children. Although we in the Liberal Democrats may not be able to go quite as far as is asked for in this e-petition, we nevertheless support a number of significant changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will say a lot more.
Winter Fuel Payment
Monica Harding Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
I cannot compete with my hon. Friend in making a powerful case that the SNP Government in Edinburgh do need to think again.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
In my constituency, over 15,500 pensioners lost the winter fuel allowance, of whom 5,000 were over 80. Would the Minister like to apologise to the gentleman who wrote to me who had cancer and could not keep his heating on for the winter of worry he was put through?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. It is important that those in need of healthcare, in particular, receive support. It is not that we see higher levels of challenge in keeping the heating on among older generations; it is about the consequences of that, particularly in cases such as the one she raises. That is exactly why we need to ensure that we are turning around the NHS, which all the constituents of hon. Members in England are relying on. We are seeing improvements to waiting times in Wales as well.
Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief
Monica Harding Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who secured this debate, and I thank those who signed today’s petition. I would like to point out, as other Members have done, the unintended consequences of this policy, which are affecting my constituents in Esher and Walton. For context, independent schools serve around 20% of pupils in Surrey.
First, I am concerned that this Government’s policy will put at risk the many valued partnerships between state and independent schools, which work so well in my constituency. In Esher and Walton, the independent sector supports some of our state schools with capital projects, such as redecorating and renovating, and state primaries make use of independent schools’ playing fields to open up sport and outdoor activities. I wish that there was more of that, and I was encouraging my independent schools to do more, but they now say that the VAT increases make it unaffordable.
Secondly, alongside other Members, I want to focus on how this policy will impact the more than 40,000 pupils in Surrey who receive support for special educational needs. Surrey’s SEND system is in crisis. The six Liberal Democrat Surrey MPs have been shining a light on this fact ever since we were elected, even in meetings with the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and the Education Secretary. However, this Government’s policy is only putting more pressure on an already strained and even broken system.
To understand that clearly, it is important to look first at the situation in Surrey, which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) alluded to, where more than 3,000 children are in limbo awaiting diagnosis for autism and ADHD, many for almost two years. These are colossal waiting lists at a critical juncture in a child’s education.
As recently as last year, Surrey was delivering fewer than one in six EHCPs on time. The quality of provision is so poor that more than 1,800 children are missing at least a third of school days because their needs are not being met. In despair, parents are turning to the independent sector, knowing that their child is unable to access education and, critically, sliding into poor mental health. These are not rich families but families in desperation, who cannot watch their children being unhappy and not attaining. As has been pointed out, often simply the smaller class sizes help an autistic child or a child who has ADHD.
The Government’s position is that local authorities will be able to reclaim the VAT on fees for a pupil with an EHCP who attends the independent school named in their plan, but that leaves a critical blind spot. Almost 30,000 children are receiving SEN support without having an EHCP, and it is increasingly difficult for strained state schools to give them adequate provision.
Following a lack of appropriate funding for schools from previous Governments, it is only in the past year that real-terms funding per pupil has reached the same level as in 2009. When we factor in the drop in capital spending on schools in the last 15 years and the fact that schools’ costs have risen faster than overall inflation, we are faced with the bleak reality that there is significantly more pressure on state school budgets than there was 15 years ago. We see the interaction of ballooning costs for state schools with rising demand for SEN support—even excluding ECHPs, that has risen by 50% in the last decade. Schools are therefore being asked to do more with fewer resources.
Although this policy may be intended to give schools more money, my understanding is that none of the money will go to better special educational needs provision. Indeed, the £1 billion that was put aside for that in the Budget does not even touch the sides of the £4.5 billion overspend in local authority budgets on special educational needs, let alone the ballooning cost of special educational needs provision.
Thirdly, at this particularly challenging moment for our economy, the Government have chosen to impose further burdens on families. Independent school fees have risen by 13%—a surge in costs so severe that, alongside other factors, it has powered an uptick in inflation across the entire economy. That is due to the addition of VAT to fees and the decision of many schools not to absorb any of the costs, but rather to pass them along almost entirely to families.
For many hard-working parents, sending a child to an independent school has been made more unaffordable, and that particularly hurts families with SEN children who are looking for an alternative to a school in Surrey’s failing system. That risks placing more financial strain on families at a time when the pain of inflation is still being felt, harming the mutually beneficial partnerships between state and independent schools and leaving more children languishing in a failed SEN system.
No headteacher I have met who complains about the strain that SEN places on their budgets has asked for the private sector to pay. They ask for the radical overhaul in education that the Government promised but are yet to deliver.