Farming and Inheritance Tax

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to join Conservative colleagues in calling on the Labour Government to stop this farm tax. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and to have heard what he said about those false promises before the general election. Perhaps he, too, wants his Government to think again about what they are doing.

The other week, thousands of farmers took the extraordinary step of coming to Westminster to protest against this misguided policy. Unfortunately, the Government have put their head in the sand and are pursuing this policy. I hope this debate will make them think again and make them listen. I give the Exchequer Secretary 10 out of 10 for appearing in the Chamber today, even though he is a junior Minister at the Treasury—he certainly pulled the short straw by being put on the Front Bench today. I ask Ministers not just to come here, but to listen to what is being said and to really listen to the needs of our farming community.

We have heard a lot today about what British farmers do—they are stewards of the land, guardians of our food security and the backbone of the rural economy—yet the Government show a fundamental lack of understanding of how their policy will affect the industry. They are pushing ahead with it, even though it jeopardises not just farmers’ livelihoods but the very future of our countryside.

The numbers speak for themselves. While the Government claim that only 27% of farms will be affected, the National Farmers Union has warned that 75% of family farms will be affected. If I were in government and I saw the discrepancy between those numbers, I would go back to the drawing board, check the figures and ask why those discrepancies are there, not dig in deeper. I think the curse of this Labour Government and what they will be remembered for is their distinct lack of grasp of detail and of how the economy works, rural and otherwise. [Interruption.] Yes, this Budget has been a disaster of a Budget.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making excellent points. Does she agree that there is not only a lack of grasp of detail, but an astounding sense of arrogance—an inability to listen to those who know what they are doing, the farmers, and who have the experience and the expertise? There is just a blank inexplicable unwillingness by this Government to listen to the voices of expertise and of experience.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the House. This debate allows those on the Labour Benches to say, “Actually, let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s look at this discrepancy in the numbers.” For all their talk of growth—I return to the Budget—this Government’s policies are delivering the exact opposite of growth, with the change to employer national insurance contributions and the change to rights from day one. They are talking down the economy and crushing growth in the economy, with the forecast being revised to be lower than it was.

Even if the Government do not want to hear this from me, and even if they do not want to hear it from the farmers, I want them to hear it from a Labour-supporting tax expert, Dan Neidle. He has eventually come to the conclusion that Labour’s farm tax is a dog’s dinner of a policy. Originally, Dan had criticised what he saw as “over-the-top coverage” of the impact these tax changes would have, but he says that on closer inspection he has reversed his decision, remarking that these Budget changes would hit

“farmers too hard and tax avoiders too lightly.”

He argues that the policy needs to change. Dan Neidle has said that the Treasury should raise the inheritance tax cap dramatically to around £20 million so

“only the largest and most sophisticated farm businesses become subject to IHT”.

Those on the Labour Benches might not want to listen to me, but I hope they will listen to one of their own tax experts.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, we heard talk from the Liberal Democrat Benches of a family farm tax and land taxes. It now seems that the right hon. Lady is suggesting we take up Dan Neidle’s suggestion. Will she confirm whether that is the case?

[Esther McVey]

It would be good if Members listened to what I said. I said it is not too late for Labour to reverse this policy; even their own tax advisers are saying, on closer inspection, it needs to be reversed. That is what I am asking those on the Government Benches to do.

We have heard today that farmers are asset-rich, but in reality they are cash poor, and that is the crux of the matter before us today. In the time I have left, I will mention a couple of farmers from my constituency. A seventh-generation farmer told me she was hoping to pass her farm on to the eighth generation, but that now does not seem possible because if they have to sell a proportion of the land, which they will, that will make the whole farm is unviable.

Another farmer of mine, Richard Shepherd, a few years ago built a state-of-the-art cow cubicle shed for their dairy herd, a piece of modern technology he believed would prepare the farm for the challenges of the 21st century, investing in methods to produce high-quality, affordable and nutritious food—the type of innovation this country will come to rely on for food security in the future. However, now, with this change from the Labour Government, he will owe between £600,000 and over £1 million in inheritance tax. He has said that, “Like any other business, we need confidence to invest in our farms. That’s what we wanted to do: we wanted to grow our farm, invest in it, and this will destroy this.”

Richard Barnett, an accountant who works with many farmers in my constituency, has warned of two immediate consequences of these proposed changes. First, there will be an increase in the number of individuals seeking to acquire farmland up to £1 million to mitigate inheritance tax, resulting in a reduction in the amount of tax that the Treasury can expect to generate from this policy, as well as an increase in land prices. Secondly, he expects a consequence of these changes to be that the financial industry will enter the land market with individuals investing up to £1 million in farmland, acquiring it and then we will see farmland being lost—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Callum Anderson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

Yes, I am content with that. I recognise those changes in patterns of behaviour when it comes to the use of public transport, but we also face cost of living challenges. That is why we are working so closely with the Department for Transport to, for example, continue investment in buses over the next two years, and continue to spend £200 million on capping fares to £2 outside London. We must bear in mind, however, that continued investment in transport infrastructure is key to greater connectivity across the United Kingdom and dealing with the economic growth imperative.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It has been reported over the last couple of days that accommodating HS2 will mean fewer trains between the north and London. One station affected is Wilmslow in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that were that to happen, HS2 would no longer be value for money or good for the north? It would certainly take longer and cost my constituents more.

[John Glen]

HS2 is going to happen. The question is what additional investments across other parts of the rail infrastructure might benefit my right hon. Friend’s constituents additionally and more directly. I set out with the integrated rail plan the £96 billion package to improve rail connections, and many elements of that will have a direct impact on her constituents in Cheshire.

Cryptocurrency Regulation

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Lisa Cameron to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up,.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of cryptocurrency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms McVey. As Chair of the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group, I am delighted to be able to raise this important sector of innovation. I thank the Minister for taking the time to respond today.

This is not the first time that cryptoassets have been debated in the House of Commons. Over the last 12 months, there has rightly been increased interest in the growth of the sector from the media and from colleagues in all parties across this House and the House of Lords. I am pleased by the increased interest, particularly in the work that we have been doing to bring ourselves up to speed with the sector. We have found that millions of people in the United Kingdom already own some form of cryptocurrency, yet there has not been as much discussion about it as was needed, particularly in terms of regulation.

Regulators around the world are now racing to develop their own frameworks for crypto. Recently, the European Union developed its markets in cryptoassets regulation—MiCA—and I look forward to hearing more about that with the all-party parliamentary group in the months to come. Whether people voted for Brexit and agree with it or not, it is where we are, and the UK has an opportunity to create its own bespoke regulatory framework for cryptocurrency.

Recent events, such as the collapse of the crypto exchange FTX, have focused minds and highlighted the importance of ensuring that consumer protection is at the heart of everything that we do. My own journey into this space started when a constituent said to me, “Who do I contact in Parliament? I have been following a scam online linked with cryptocurrency.” When I looked into what was happening at that point, there was no all-party parliamentary group on the subject and I was not sure where to direct my constituent, so, leading on from constituents’ concerns, we set one up. It is vital, given what has happened this year, that regulation and a framework are taken forward at pace.

The UK already has a rich legacy and strong track record as a leader in financial services and fintech, so there is huge potential here for economic growth, jobs and skills from the sector. As the mum of a 14-year-old who is choosing her subjects at school, I have been looking at reports on jobs for the future. She thought that, given our family’s history in medicine and pharmacy and so on, I would encourage her to become a doctor, but I said, “Coding is the way ahead for you.” She was shocked by that. Young people are already doing a lot of this in school—it comes very naturally to younger generations.

I have researched the subject and think that the jobs of the future will be placed firmly in science, technology, engineering and maths activity, and in the finance sector, too. In future, digital, health and tech will be across all sectors, and I am enthused by that. It would be good if the Minister and Cabinet colleagues identified the centres of excellence at college and university levels so that young people know where to go, and where the gaps are. That would ensure that we level up opportunities right across the United Kingdom for people who want to have a future in development and innovation in the sector.

We already have some fantastic examples of innovative companies in the UK, not just in London but in Scotland and elsewhere, creating jobs and development opportunities. In terms of international practice, I had the privilege to speak with Alex Bornyakov, Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation, who told me that cryptocurrency had been essential to Ukraine’s ability to respond to the Russian invasion. It is right that we place consumer protection, regulation and robust regulatory frameworks at the heart of everything that we do, but we should also look to the sector’s potential to solve some of the issues that countries will face and some of the difficulties across the world just now.

It has been almost a year since the Government set out their landmark vision to make the UK a global hub for crypto investment. The Minister will be aware that I have been very supportive of the Government’s vision, and I am keen to work constructively with him to ensure that it becomes a reality. The Government’s announcement is welcome for business, because good actors want regulation. I was not sure about that when I started looking into the sector with the all-party parliamentary group. From media and things I had read, I thought it was very much a wild west, where people did not want structure or regulatory frameworks; but there are many good actors who do want those things, and investors need regulatory frameworks to take forward their work in the sector with confidence. Business certainty supports a fair and transparent market. There must never be a race to the bottom in the UK, and I urge the Government to take forward the regulatory framework at pace, because we need to protect consumers first and foremost in all that we do. Regulatory clarity and business certainty are at the core of that work.

Over the past year members of the all-party parliamentary group have very much been educating ourselves, and I include myself in that. One has to do a lot of reading about the sector to understand acronyms and so on. We spent a lot of time even understanding that, when people spoke about fiat, they were speaking not about a type of car but about money. We have upskilled ourselves, which is a great first step. When I spoke with Members of the Swiss Parliament, they said that they had been on a similar journey; upskilling across their chambers meant that they could engage much more effectively on “what works” legislation.

Over the past year, industry has raised with me a number of barriers, which I will set out to help the Minister and support the work he is taking forward. First, significant delays are still being reported by business operators seeking registration with the Financial Conduct Authority. Will the Minister update us on progress in that area, and on the number of firms that have been granted licences in the UK since the creation of the licensing regime for crypto firms?

We have also heard real frustration about lack of communication. Some companies are not certain about what is required of them; they are being left for months on end with no response to tell them whether anything further is needed, whether their application is in process, or whether they need to take additional steps. I have met with the FCA on a few occasions and learned of their CryptoSprint event last year, which brought together industry and regulators to look at a number of areas, including how to protect consumers and markets while supporting innovation. I felt that that was a real step in the right direction, but could more be done to take this work forward?

Will the Minister update the House on the average FCA processing times for crypto registrations? I fully understand if he is unable to do so today, but it would be helpful if he wrote to me with that information. The FCA reassured me that it was employing more people to work in its department dealing with this specific sector, given the public interest in and engagement with cryptocurrency. It needs that expertise and wants to move forward at a greater pace.

It would also be helpful to know what more the FCA has planned to foster sustained and meaningful engagement with the sector. I have spoken to businesses that have such a bond with the UK—businesses that have been here and that want to set up here, and whose representatives have been to university here and feel that the UK is the place to be. Regrettably, because of the delays and lack of engagement, some have gone to Paris, while others have gone to Zug in Switzerland and elsewhere. That is a great shame if they are good actors and want to support the United Kingdom economy.

The all-party parliamentary group is undertaking an inquiry. We have heard about opportunities for the sector from businesses and regulators, and from those in overseas territories. I have noticed the importance of engagement between Government, regulators and the sector to ensure that the policy developed is practical and fit for purpose. Members of Parliament in Switzerland told us about the value of thinking about the different pillars of the sector—not just finance but research, university development and innovation hubs—and about bringing them all together with companies, regulators and Government to ensure that there are opportunities and a robust framework.

When we talk about the future of cryptocurrency regulation and what it might look like, it is imperative that everybody works together in the same direction to get it right. That has to be the case for consumer protection, which is the reason I became interested in this area in the first place and is at the core of everything that we are trying to do. At times, there has appeared to be a disconnect between the Government’s vision and some of the statements made by the banking industry and so on. How is the Minister pulling that together so that everyone is moving ahead in tandem? Yes, concerns are being raised and addressed as we go, but we need to ensure that people are moving in the same direction, rather than pulling in different directions away from the vision of the UK cryptocurrency hub set out so meaningfully by the Prime Minister.

We need a proportionate approach to regulation that balances risk and ensures high levels of consumer protection, but does not unnecessarily restrict growth or innovation for our future. That should be built on a strong evidence base to ensure that sound decisions are made. I recently heard from a number of economic crime experts at Elliptic, Chainalysis and the Royal United Services Institute; they indicated to our inquiry that crypto-related crime still accounts for quite a small percentage of overall crypto transactions, and that economic crime remains a challenge for financial services as a whole. Cryptocurrency is a part of that, but the focus is not just on that sector.

I have written to the FCA and the Bank of England to get further information. In recent statements, the incoming chair of the FCA has said that crypto platforms are “deliberately evasive”, facilitate money laundering on a large scale and create “massively untoward risk”. The Governor of the Bank of England said that cryptocurrencies are the new frontline in criminal scams and have created an

“opportunity for the downright criminal”.

Of course, these issues must be addressed, but that has to be balanced with the evidence to ensure proportionality. That is why it is even more important that Government regulators and industry come together to move things forward in a way that is meaningful and that everyone can agree on.

Another potential barrier is the recent announcements by leading banks to limit or block cryptocurrency transactions. I have written to them to tease out a little more information. Nationwide, Starling Bank, Santander and Virgin Money are among a number of banks that have announced limits and restrictions on transactions. Starling Bank has claimed that crypto exchanges are

“high risk, and heavily used for criminal purposes”,

which is a real concern. Other banks, such as Revolut and Monzo, are said to be open to crypto and largely positive towards cryptocurrency transactions. Again, the divergence of views within the sector should be grounded in evidence and be addressed in a way that protects consumers and puts them at the heart of what we do.

On the timeline for the Government’s plans, I have been speaking with many members of other Parliaments and businesses that operate internationally, because this is an international issue and hopefully there will be guidance internationally that we can come together on. If we want to harness the UK’s position at the forefront of this industry, we need to move at pace while ensuring that the work we do is robust.

I reassure the Minister that the all-party parliamentary group will continue to advocate for the UK cryptocurrency hub set out in the vision, and work in conjunction with his office. We will be extremely pleased if he updates the House on timescales for the year ahead and how he sees this playing out, so that we can continue to work constructively to support everything he is doing to protect consumers, while harnessing the innovation of cryptocurrency for the future in the United Kingdom.

Covid-19: Economic Impact of Lockdowns

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 4.9 pm.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the economic impact of covid-19 lockdowns.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to be able to debate the economic impact of covid-19 lockdowns, because so often during the pandemic we did not have the opportunity to question key decisions that were taken. In those early days of covid, much was done in a rush. Although it was understandable then, with the passing of time analysis needs to be done of the measures and decisions taken. No matter how painful and difficult the conversations will be, we need to have them. Open and frank conversations are made more difficult by the fact that the vast majority of MPs voted for continued lockdowns and most of the media was reluctant to question them.

Although everyone supported the first lockdown—March to June 2020—no one knew what we were confronting. As knowledge of covid and medical treatments grew, so should the debate have grown, particularly about subsequent lockdowns, but that was not the case. Prior to March 2020, how many of us had heard of the concept of lockdown? Blanket, stay-at-home policies were an unknown and unevidenced method of trying to control the virus.

Although lockdowns will have saved lives from the virus, many experts predicted from the start that they would also cost lives, through the unintended collateral damage they inflict. A Government report in July 2020 found that more than 200,000 lives could be lost due to lockdown. Well-rehearsed pandemic protocols, including those endorsed by the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health and Social Care had not previously recommended lockdowns because, quite simply, they are a blunt instrument.

In addition, it was felt that such drastic restrictions would not be tolerated by western democracies. As Professor Neil Ferguson infamously put it, after observing entire communities in China in lockdown,

“We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”

That poses a question. If people assumed that the UK population would not tolerate lockdowns, was messaging hardened and questions against lockdown not tolerated, in order to force compliance? We might never know the answer. Ongoing lockdowns were achieved, but at what price? Interestingly, only the other week, Andrew Gilligan, a former No. 10 adviser said on GB News that, looking back, the ongoing lockdowns were wrong, but politically we could not have got away with not doing them.

Why was that? How was an environment created in which even asking questions and providing alternative suggestions could get someone demonised? And those people were. I wrote an article for The Daily Telegraph in November 2020 saying, regretfully, that politicians had been guilty of a dereliction of duty. Instead of just listening to the one-dimensional approach of Public Health England and the scientists, they should have factored in all competing consequences. They did not and ploughed on, without questioning those other factors.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, during the pandemic and lockdowns, Parliament was not given the opportunity during certain phases to debate the impact lockdown was having on our constituents, and that we should never lockdown Parliament again?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend and near neighbour raises an important point. This House is about debate and questioning things, and I am afraid that that did not happen. As he rightly says, we should ensure that Parliament never closes down again, as it did under the pandemic. Even back then, the figures from the Office for National Statistics pointed out that lockdowns and anti-covid measures would lead to the deaths of 200,000 in the medium to long term, due to missed treatments, under-diagnosis, loss of jobs and tax revenue, with disadvantaged people suffering the most. Bristol University in 2020 put that figure much higher, at 560,000 deaths.

Debates are now occurring on the unintended consequences of lockdown, from the mental health issues suffered by our children, to increased deaths of dementia patients, and the lack of visiting rights in care centres and hospitals still happening, even now. A big thank you has to go to the academics and scientists who initially raised concerns in those areas, including Professor Townsend, Professor Carl Heneghan and Professor Robert Dingwall, who asked those all-important questions.

Today, however, our focus is on the economic consequences of lockdown: rising financial hardship; increased poverty levels in the UK; the hundreds of thousands of people since lockdown now classed as economically inactive; the impact on them, their families and local communities; and the economic impact on the next generation’s wealth and earning capacity. It is estimated that school closures and lockdowns will lead to £40,000 being lost from lifetime earnings for each individual. A report by UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank finds that students now risk

“losing $17 trillion in lifetime earnings, or the equivalent of 14 percent of today’s global GDP, as a result of COVID-19 pandemic-related school closures”

and economic shocks.

Let us look back at some of the economic shocks of lockdown. The House of Commons Library notes explain that

“The magnitude of the recession caused by the pandemic is unprecedented in modern times.”

GDP declined by 11% in 2020, the steepest drop since consistent records began in 1948 and, based on less precise estimates of GDP going back further, the contraction in 2020 was the largest since 1709. During the first lockdown, UK GDP was 26% lower in April than only two months earlier in February. More than 8 million workers were furloughed during April and May 2020, peaking at 8.9 million—roughly a third of all employees—in May 2020. Overall, 11.7 million jobs were furloughed.

In response, the Bank of England cut interest rates to 0.1% and more than doubled its quantitative easing programme by £450 billion, taking the total value of assets it owned to a peak of £895 billion by December 2021. The total amount of public money calculated to have been spent on tackling the pandemic ranges from £376 billion by the National Audit Office in June 2022 to £407 billion by the International Monetary Fund in September 2021. In 2020-21, Government had income of £794 billion in tax receipts and other revenues, which is £79 billion less than forecast, and spent more than £1,107 billion. The budget deficit was £312 billion, or 15% of GDP, which is a peacetime record. The financial cost for every man, woman and child in this country has been estimated at £5,500.

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, writing in The Daily Telegraph on 18 November, said:

“Compare the modest financial hit experienced by Sweden, the only European country to see through the hype by which other governments sought to justify their measures. Sweden operated a largely voluntary system and refused to lock down. Pandemic-related measures cost 60 billion kronor in 2020 and 2021, according to government figures. This works about at about £460 a head, less than a tenth of the UK figure. Yet their results in terms of both cases and deaths were a lot better than ours.

We are paying the price of panic, populism and poorly thought-out knee-jerk decision-making. At least the current Prime Minister can point to his warnings as chancellor that lockdowns were unaffordable if extended over any significant period of time. Boris Johnson’s indifference to mere money ensured that the cost was not even considered. All that can be said in his favour is that, if the Labour Party had had its way, the lockdowns would have been even longer and more costly.”

Let us look at the inflationary pressures we are now suffering from. As the country and world opened up after lockdown, there were sharp increases in the cost of essential goods and energy as the world emerged unprepared for such rapid demand, putting prices up, from the fuel pumps to the goods on supermarket shelves.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her speech. Although I do not necessarily subscribe to all her views about lockdown, she is right to say that the hospitality sector in particular is suffering dreadfully from energy price increases. I bring to her attention a particular case in my constituency, where we have many pubs and restaurants that are suffering. The energy bills of a large country house, which is open to the public, have gone from £16,000 a week to £60,000 a week. That is entirely and totally unsustainable. Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that the Government have to do something now to ease the pressure on the hospitality sector?

[Esther McVey]

I welcome my hon. Friend to this debate today. He might be one of those who voted for continuous lockdowns, but it is important that we are all together in a sense of open debate and conversation. The point he raised is correct. If subsequently, after the Government had intervened to close things down, there were effects on otherwise viable businesses, the Government had to step in and support them. Indeed, the Government have given unprecedented support, but I wish we could have had discussions beforehand so that when people voted for lockdown, they knew what would befall them. At the time, too many colleagues did not want to do that.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

May I ask the hon. Lady a question about a comment she made a few moments ago? She talked about populism and said that was a factor in deciding to implement lockdowns. I am confused by that because lockdowns were, at best, tolerated; they could never be described as appealing to populism.

[Esther McVey]

I was quoting Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, who was talking about the way governments were led at that time—those were his words. What we need to take from them is the question of why those decisions were not questioned or challenged by Members of Parliament. Why were those decisions not challenged? If we look at the record of the House, the decision appears popular because MPs voted for it pretty much unanimously, when there should have been greater debate.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that Lord Sumption was right, although maybe not according to the common use of the term “populism”? First, the use of fear encouraged people to think, “There is no alternative. I have got to do this.” Secondly, the lack of any examination of the measures by the media ensured that there was not any contrary point of view, so listening politicians heard people saying out of fear, “You’ve got to do something”, and the media, when questioning that, saying, “This is the right thing to do.”

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. That is why I quoted Neil Ferguson at the start of the debate, who said that he never thought a western democracy would lock down, and why I posed the question about whether a campaign of fear was then brought forward, creating an atmosphere in which no one could dissent or ask questions. Going back to the question raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), there appeared to be a giant consensus across all political parties, leading to that word “popular” at the time.

[Chris Green]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the point made about fear? When people look at Parliament or much of British life, it appears that we have returned to normal, but not all British life has returned to normal yet, which is having a continuing impact on our economy.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes the point eloquently; I hope he will make a speech later, fleshing out his comments.

By February 2022, inflation had already surged, with the consumer price index hitting 6.2% in February, after which, without doubt, the war in Ukraine added to the problem. As it stands today, we have unprecedented inflation and costs of living.

None of that should come as a surprise. In fact, the Imperial College report of March 2020 that recommended lockdowns specifically said that the

“economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.”

While many people talk about the cost of covid, it is actually the cost of lockdown and lockdown rules that need to be questioned.

The Government have spent in the region of £400 billion on the covid-19 response, which has taken the national debt to over £2.1 trillion. To make matters worse, we know vast sums of money were wasted. For example, seven Nightingale hospitals were built in England, which was an impressive achievement completed in record time. However, most of them were hardly used in the way intended and they cost more than £530 million. The Yorkshire Nightingale closed before ever seeing a patient. Elsewhere, an eye-watering £673 million was spent on unusable personal protective equipment items.

The £70 billion spent on furlough and £84 billion on business support schemes softened the blow for a while. However, the Federation of Small Businesses still warned of a ticking time-bomb, with 500,000 owners of small businesses—the backbone of our economy—at risk of going bust within weeks.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

In my city of Coventry, many small businesses were hit considerably by covid and are still being hit because of the cost of living crisis. Does the right hon. Lady agree that in order to continue to support our small businesses given the turbulent year that they have had, we need to reform business rates and invest in our high streets, and we also need to ensure that our small businesses are given the support needed for them to be able to compete effectively with online giants that have been able to make hay during the covid-19 pandemic?

[Esther McVey]

I am a massive fan of small businesses, enterprise and those people creating wealth in their communities, and we will have to support them. Also, I will pause for a moment to reflect on all those small businesses that did not get support during the pandemic, which are known as Forgotten Ltd, and they also need support going forward. We again have to create a dynamic world and a dynamic UK for these private enterprises.

Vacancies are now at a record high as people elect to resign from the labour market, which is known as “the great resignation”, and because there are those other people who are now classed as being economically inactive. This is something that we could not have foreseen as we furloughed and closed the country down, but again it is a consequence of the lack of debate, probing and questioning at the time.

It is finally time to publish the much talked-about but still missing cost-benefit analysis that led to the nation being locked down, and to have full disclosure about the facts that were available. Let us review the list of experts on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, or SAGE, and on other advisory committees. Going forward, let us ensure that there is transparency about the members of these groups, as we have for MPs, such as their political affiliation and the financial support they receive.

All eyes are on the covid-19 inquiry for impartiality and a diverse range of experts to give evidence. We need integrity and clarity, and the policy of lockdown needs to be assessed honestly and fully. However, today I call on the Minister—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)—to release the much-awaited cost-benefit analysis of lockdown.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I just apologise for the background hum? I understand that staff are trying to resolve it. In the meantime, however, if Members could speak very clearly, I think we can continue with the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I thank everybody for such a constructive debate, which was the start of our being able to look at the cost of lockdown in an open-minded way—being able to take challenge, being able to take rebuttals and answering things as honestly as possible—because when £400 billion is spent, we know that cannot be done without having long-term impacts.

We see the impact in the vulnerability of our country now—in the cost of living, the cost of jobs, the cost of inflation and the cost of poverty. We heard about the cost in terms of our health and our mental health. We should think before we ever introduce such profound policies again, particularly when the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health and Social Care have conceded that we should not use lockdowns because they are such a blunt instrument. We can never live in an atmosphere where just to ask questions is condemned. I thank everybody for participating in the debate.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

Business rates and national insurance are an important contribution to paying for public services, which I am sure the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, feel very strongly about. I remind her of the scale of support that we are providing to businesses, including a business rates cut worth £1.7 billion this year.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I appreciate that the Chancellor cut fuel duty by 5p per litre, but that did not really touch the sides. I urge him to be bolder and cut fuel duty by at least 20p per litre, as requested by FairFuelUK, which would make a huge difference to individuals and businesses in my patch, not least hauliers for whom the cost of running a single truck has increased by 17% in the past year.

[Helen Whately]

I hear my right hon. Friend’s request. The combination of the freeze on fuel duty in the Budget and the cut in the spring statement is essentially a £5 billion tax cut. That is substantial support with the cost of fuel for businesses. As I have also said, we are taking further steps to support businesses with business rate cuts. I also remind her of our cut to national insurance, increasing the employment allowance by £1,000, supporting around 500,000 smaller businesses.

Economic Update

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

It is worth pointing out that the energy companies that the right hon. Gentleman talks about are already subject to a far higher rate of corporation tax. In fact, at 40% versus 19%, it is double the rate of corporation tax that other companies pay. I will not repeat my earlier arguments about the windfall tax.

We believe that the right way is to make sure that people can keep more of what they earn, which is why we cut the universal credit taper rate by 8 percentage points. That is a £2.2 billion tax cut that will benefit 2 million of the lowest paid people in our society. It is making working pay, it is strengthening incentives to work, it is the right policy and it is a Conservative policy.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Many families across the country will struggle with their energy bills this year, so I am grateful that we have a Chancellor who is in touch with that. Will he commit to continuing to ensure that those in middle Britain, as well as those on the very lowest incomes, are supported by this Government?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and I can give her that reassurance. I hope that today’s announcements will provide her with the confidence she needs that both I and this Government are committed to being on the side of those hard-working families, whom she does an enormous amount to represent and champion in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am enormously proud of the Government’s commitment to those who are disabled. We looked after them during the crisis and we continue to support them. We recently announced £500 million for the disabled facilities grant, more investment in the Department for Work and Pensions to help close the disability employment gap and—this is something I am personally proud of—investment in Changing Places, which means that those with disabled children or adults will have access to the high-quality facilities that they need to enjoy days out with their family. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I and the Government are committed to helping all those who need our help, and we will continue to deliver on that promise.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

There is currently huge inequality between the taxation of businesses online and those of bricks and mortar. I thank the Chancellor for the support that he has given to the high street during the pandemic through business rate relief. However, as I know that he believes in low taxes, I ask him: when will business rates be modernised so that we can get an even playing field for online and high street businesses, which is very important to the Blue Collar Conservative group?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend has rightly campaigned on this issue and she raises an excellent point. The good news on business rates is that, next year, thanks to the tax cut that we announced in the Budget, 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see at least a 50% cut in their business rates bill. That is worth £1.7 billion; it is the biggest business rates tax cut since the system was created, other than during coronavirus. On her point about offline and online, she will know that we have helped to bring in an international tax treaty to tax large multinational digital companies, and we continue to consult on the pros and cons of an online sales tax.

Economic Update

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I think it is best that we listen to the scientists with regard to the appropriate health restrictions. She will have heard the chief medical officer this morning giving his view on the right approach to other restrictions. With regard to support, the furlough scheme remains one of the most generous and comprehensive anywhere in the world. It is something that I am proud of and which I know is providing security to many millions of people at this very difficult time.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) [V]]

The Chancellor will know that the Blue Collar Conservatism group was instrumental in persuading the supermarkets to return the business rates relief that they did not need; we asked them to do so on the basis that there were many who had gone without support, and they agreed to do so on that basis. Will the Chancellor therefore ensure that that £2 billion returned by the supermarkets goes to those who have so far been excluded from support? They cannot go another three months without any income.

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s tireless campaigning on this issue. She is a great advocate for the cause. She will know that we have just provided over £4.5 billion of support to many small businesses up and down the country, which I know she will warmly welcome and has called for. Indeed, part of that is half a billion pounds of discretionary funding for local authorities to support local businesses, many of which may include the people she has talked about who will be eligible for that support.

Covid-19 Support Schemes: Ineligible People

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to co-chair the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group. We are all here today bringing the case to this House.

Blue Collar Conservatism, of which I am a founder member, set up the campaign asking for supermarkets to return their covid business exemption, specifically with the purpose that that money would be redirected to those who have had no support during this period. We met with Tesco, Asda, the British Retail Consortium and others. They have done the right thing, stepped up to the plate and committed to returning that money. I pay tribute to those who have done so.

My message to the Minister is that that campaign specifically aimed to redirect that money to those who have not had any money. Having spoken to those firms, that was the basis on which they have handed the money forward. I hope the Minister will act in the same faith and spirit as those supermarkets that handed over that money and support for those people.

I want to mention two big supermarkets that have not yet committed to give that money forward: Iceland and the Co-op. I ask the shadow Minister to tell the shadow Chancellor, who is a Labour and Co-operative Member, to speak to her friends to ensure that the Co-op pays that money back, unless it thinks it is more in need than others. We think it should do the right thing, join in with the other supermarkets and hand that money back.

North of England: Infrastructure Spending

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) for securing this important debate. The topic is broad, but I will confine my remarks to Tatton and Cheshire, and will look at cost viability and prioritisation as a good Conservative should. I want to bring a good dose of public common sense to Parliament for the Minister to hear and hopefully take back to the Chancellor and the Cabinet.

I want to talk about High Speed 2, whose cost is like a runaway train, rising and rising. We have that grandiose scheme—some might call it a white elephant—but in Tatton we do not have local infrastructure. We are waiting for local train routes that are meant to have been delivered, and while we focus nationally on just one line, many small lines across local regions have not happened. People commuting from Knutsford to Manchester off-peak are waiting two hours for a train. That is one train every two hours off-peak, although it is one an hour at peak times. However, when the bid for the franchise was made, we were promised that we would have two trains an hour—not two a minute, but two an hour—which is not a lot to ask for and does not involve huge amounts of investment. Just two trains an hour, but that has never been delivered.

Bus routes are another local transport issue to look at. It is hard to find a bus or bus route in Tatton and people are crying out for buses. Buses are not often used during this covid period, but soon that will change and people will not be able to get around, for example, from Wilmslow to Handforth, and then maybe travelling further afield to Warrington, Liverpool or Manchester. I would be remiss if I did not mention my constituents Mr and Mrs Sunderland, who stopped me the other day in Handforth as they were shopping at the Paddock and asked, “What is happening to the 130 bus?”

I ask the Minister to please think about these local transport routes, the bus service, the tram service, the train service—nothing is happening. We also need investment in the mid-Cheshire line, as was mentioned by my friend the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). We have been talking about that year after year and we are here for every question and debate in the House to ask what is going on, but it is being overlooked. We are talking about levelling up. We are talking about not just the north, although we are all here from the north, but the regions, towns and villages, and we all need our local transport.

The final bit of infrastructure we absolutely need and must have is the digital infrastructure to have us all connecting and connected. I admire and praise our Government’s vision for a 1 Gbit capability and the money they have promised to achieve that. It is vital—now more than ever, as people work from home, learn from home and socialise from home—that we have the digital connectivity we need. Therefore, I say stop HS2 with its runaway expenses—it should have hit the buffers a long time ago—and put that money into digital infrastructure to benefit the whole country, and into local transport.