Finance Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

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

[Edward Morello]

The proposal to impose VAT on independent school fees is a misguided approach that risks harming families, undermining educational freedom and failing to address the deeper issues in our education system. Let me start by acknowledging that our state education system is in dire need of funding. Years of mismanagement by previous Governments have left schools struggling with inadequate resources, overworked teachers, and outdated and undersized facilities.

We must confront this crisis, and I fully agree that we need long-term sustainable funding to support our schools, but introducing VAT on independent school fees is not the answer. This measure will not impact elite institutions or those at the very top of the income ladder. The wealthiest families will simply absorb the cost. Instead, it is middle-income families—parents who are saving every penny, working multiple jobs and making sacrifices to help their children—who will be impacted, as well as families whose children have special or complex needs that cannot be serviced in state schools.

Smaller and more affordable independent schools, which already operate on tight budgets and cater to working families, will be at risk of closure. Those closures will displace students into the already overstretched state sector, exacerbating the very challenges that this policy is supposed to address. Independent schools also contribute to their local communities. They work in partnership with state schools, offering shared resources, facilities, teaching support and extracurricular activities. Instead of imposing VAT, we should encourage more of these collaborations to strengthen both the state sector and the independent system.

The Liberal Democrats believe in parental choice and in policies that unite, not divide, our communities. We must focus on finding equitable solutions to fund our state schools, but we must do so without undermining the choices and aspirations of families or the stability of our broader education system. Families should have the freedom to choose the best educational path for their children without being penalised by the state. I urge the Government to work with all parties to find a fairer way to address the funding crisis in our schools—one that does not come at the expense of parents, students and the principles of educational freedom.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 8 in the name of the shadow Chancellor, because it will help ensure accountability on this policy, and ensure that its impacts are fully understood. I want that because of the policy itself, but perhaps more because of how the Labour party has framed it, which I have found deeply concerning. I know all parties in this place are sometimes less than accurate in how we describe tax and spending, and about how it works for political advantage at different times, but the one thing out of all the things that the new Labour Government have done that I find genuinely appalling is the vindictive way in which they have rolled the ground for this measure by pitching schoolchild against schoolchild and parent against parent. I have genuinely found it really deplorable.

We do not have hypothecated tax or spending in this country. Money from road taxes goes on things other than roads, and our national insurance payments do not get put into a pension pot. The Government know that, so to suggest that someone spending money on their own child without being taxed is taking money away from other children is completely and utterly wrong. The UK Government spend more than £1 trillion a year, and the Government can choose what they spend that money on. The suggestion that this money is going into a legally defined pot of money for education, and that if it was not there, there would be less money available for education, is completely without merit, not least because if there was such a pot, the parents we are talking about would for many years have been contributing to it, not taking money out of it. They would already have been subsidising mainstream education, according to the Government’s own arguments.

The idea that schoolchildren in mainstream education are going without directly because we did not have VAT on private schools—that all sorts of parents for all sorts of reasons are choosing to invest some of their money in their own children’s education, but because we have not been taxing that, children elsewhere are missing out on their education—is a deeply unpleasant and unnecessary way to frame this argument.

Imagine being a parent who—like people I know—had a modest start in life but then perhaps went on to medical school and became a GP. They are honest, hard-working people, and the fact that they were not being taxed on that spend means that they are now being made to feel that somehow that has been taking away from the education of other children. That is completely wrong. It really is the worst sort of politics. It was exemplified by the despicable tweet from the Education Secretary, which was rightly and roundly criticised. A private school having a swimming pool does not in any way affect the availability of mental health support in other schools, any more than spending extra money on potholes or defence or healthcare does. I reiterate that the Government have more than £1 trillion to spend every year on what they want, and ways in which to raise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the Department for Education, and indeed the devolved Governments, already work with local authorities to identify pressures and take action where necessary. As I said in my earlier remarks to him, the Government already provide capital funding through the basic need grant to support local authorities in England to provide school places, and the Government have already announced £700 million over this academic year and the next, which can be used to provide places in new schools and to expand existing places.

Finally, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised the motivation behind our policy, which other Opposition Members also spoke to. Let me be clear on this: our decision to fix the public finances to fund public services, including education, means that difficult decisions have to be taken. Our choice to end the VAT exemption for private school fees has been a difficult but necessary decision that will secure additional funding, which will help to deliver on our commitments to improve education for all.

[Dr Mullan]

I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.

[James Murray]

What is connected is that if we want to fund public services and fix the public finances, we have to take difficult decisions. This is one of those difficult decisions we are taking today: a difficult but necessary decision to restore fiscal responsibility after the mess we inherited from the Conservative party and to fund our public services. It is necessary to take those decisions, so that we can get that funding into education for all. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to take that decision, he is, in effect, denying the choices that we are making about funding public services.

I will now make some progress to address the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. New clause 8, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Central Devon, would require the Government to make a statement to Parliament about the impact of removing the VAT exemption for private school fees within six months of the Act being passed. It states that it

“must include details of the impact on…pupils with special educational needs and disabilities…small rural schools, and…faith schools.”

It would require the Government to

“make a statement about the impact of the removal of the exemption on schools that take part in the music and dance scheme”

within 18 months of the Act being passed.

I want to make it clear that in developing this policy, the Government carefully considered the impact it would have, including the impact it would have on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, rural and urban schools, faith schools, and schools that take part in the music and dance scheme. As I said before, the Government considered a wide range of representations, including over 17,000 consultation responses, before finalising the policy design. The Government set out the expected impact of the measure in a tax information and impact note published at autumn Budget 2024 in the usual way.

I set out earlier today how the Government will ensure that those children with an EHCP, or its equivalent in other nations, will not be subject to VAT on any private school fees. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause, when it refers to “pupils with special educational needs and disabilities”

refers to only those in the private sector, or whether he intends the new clause to consider also the 1 million or more pupils with SEND in the state system. If it is the latter, I am sure he will welcome the extra £1 billion for high-needs funding next year that we have been able to announce thanks to our decisions on tax policy, including that which we are debating today. In addition, based on the evidence provided, it is not apparent that small faith schools will be more affected by this policy than other schools.

The hon. Member for Twickenham, the Front Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, tabled new clause 9. I think I have addressed most of those points already in my remarks today.

To conclude, I hope I have been able to reassure Members that the new clauses are not necessary, for the reasons I have set out. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clauses 8 and 9.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Winter Fuel Payment

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I recognise the comments that the hon. Member has made about the economic inheritance, but does she not agree that, compared with the situation that we managed in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, the Labour Government are in a better position? They have unemployment lower than we inherited, employment higher than we inherited, the deficit lower than we inherited, and economic growth faster than we inherited. We, in partnership with the Liberal Democrats, managed to keep winter fuel payments in those circumstances. Does she not agree that Labour should do the same?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it is important to reflect on the disastrous legacy of the mini-Budget and the circumstances that many people continue to struggle with thanks to higher interest rates on their mortgage payments. Certainly, from the perspective of my constituents, that casts a much longer shadow, which the winter fuel payment cuts will do nothing to ameliorate.

Last week, I asked the Chancellor if she would give her full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit. I welcomed her commitment to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to maximise the take-up of pension credit by bringing forward the administration of housing benefit and pension credit—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Many Opposition Members have thrown the word “choice” at us. Their party chose empty promises, chose unfunded policies, chose a course that led to the decimation of our public services and to higher mortgage rates and higher bills, and chose to make the former Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk Prime Minister.

We did not want to make this choice, but some choices are thrust upon us. We on the Labour Benches do not duck choices. This Government are choosing long-term economic stability, economic security and growth. This Government are choosing to maintain the triple lock, which will see the state pension rise year on year. This Government are choosing to do all in their power to make sure that hundreds of thousands of pensioners claim pension credit, and they will do a lot more.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is deeply disingenuous for him and other Labour Members to talk about the drive to increase the uptake of pension credit? He knows full well that if the Government were able to do that, it would wipe out the saving that they are claiming to make. They do not actually want people to increase their uptake of pension credit, because the Government would not save any money.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that the word “disingenuous” is almost akin to suggesting that someone is lying. Perhaps he would like to withdraw his remark.

[Dr Mullan]

I will replace “disingenuous” with “deeply, deeply concerning”.

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for clarifying his use of language. I can assure him that everyone on the Labour Benches, including my colleagues on the Front Bench, are doing everything they can to make sure that vulnerable pensioners who need pension credit receive it. We say that in good faith, and we mean it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to express my strong opposition to the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, a move that will strip vital financial support from thousands of my constituents—people who have contributed to our country and helped to build it. The impact in Bexhill and Battle will be profound: Age UK estimates that more than 25,000 pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment as a result of this decision. I hope the Government understand just how significant their decision is in constituencies such as mine.

The Government say that they are focused on increasing the uptake of pension credit. If all those who are eligible to claim pension credit do so, though, the £1.4 billion that the Treasury is expected to save by means-testing the winter fuel payment will be dwarfed by the increase in the cost of pension credit, so the Government have to admit that, ultimately, they do not actually want all those pensioners to take up pension credit.

Our pensioners deserve better. The fall-back of this Government since they took office is to blame the previous Government for all the unpopular actions they have decided to take. They claim the state of the economy is a reason to remove this vital lifeline for pensioners, but let us be clear about the facts. On a broad range of indicators, the situation they have inherited is significantly less challenging than the one we inherited in 2010. We inherited an economy just out of the deepest recession since 1955. Labour left us with public sector net borrowing at 10.3% of GDP; today it is at 4.4%. Unemployment in 2010 was 7.9%; unemployment now stands at 4.1%.

However, from 2010 onwards, through all these difficult times, we made decisions to protect pensioners, and we made sure to keep the winter fuel payment. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I ask the Government to listen to MPs from across the House, including some on their own Benches, and think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I will come on to the issue the hon. Gentleman raises in just a moment.

On pension credit, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) have written to all local authorities asking them to redouble their efforts to reach those pensioners who could benefit from pension credit. [Interruption.] The Opposition Front Bench might grumble, but it is a far sight more than they ever did when they were in power. We are joining forces with charities such as Age UK and Citizens Advice to encourage pensioners to check their eligibility and apply. We will be delivering a major campaign in print and broadcast media, including to urge people to reach out to retired family, friends and neighbours to get them to check if they are eligible.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way, on that point?

[Emma Reynolds]

No, I will not.

For the very first time, we are writing to all pensioners in receipt of housing benefit who are potentially eligible to encourage them to claim pension credit—again, something that the last Conservative Government never did.

Energy Trilemma

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I shall be happy to accommodate your request, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for securing the debate. Her framing of this issue—her description of it as an energy trilemma—is typical of her shrewd and clear thinking: it does an excellent job of setting out the nature of the challenge. I was delighted to be able to feed into the report that she produced, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), on deep geothermal and mine water technology.

This issue is more important than ever. The western world has come to learn, in an abrupt and challenging way, the cost of relying on states such as Russia for energy supplies. The record of Europe in this regard, and that of Germany in particular, will be viewed through the long lens of history as naive, and I am glad to see Europe now united in understanding the importance of prioritising our security—energy or otherwise.

I know that these Backbench Business debates are held in a less party political spirit than others, but I must say that I have been surprised by what the Opposition have had to say about this issue in recent months. Let me remind them, and the House as a whole, that it was Tony Blair who said, during an EU-Russia investment conference that he chaired in 2005, that increasing reliance on Russian oil and gas was not something to be concerned about. Both Mr Putin and Mr Blair insisted that the EU’s growing reliance on Russia for energy would not compromise the ability of EU leaders to express concerns, and that our economic futures were “bound together”. Opposition Members should remember that.

I have also noted with interest that it seems that the original Captain Hindsight, the Leader of the Opposition, has now been joined by a lieutenant in the form of the shadow Energy Secretary, whom I notified that I would mention him. When I looked through Hansard to find his contributions over the last few years, I was shocked to discover that he had not spoken about energy security in 2021, or in 2020, or in 2019; in fact, he had not spoken about it for 10 years when he finally did so in March 2022. Maybe he has spoken about it elsewhere and I have missed it. I can, however, confirm that the shadow Minister has been much more successful in that regard, raising the matter repeatedly. Perhaps he should put in for a job from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Member like an edited copy of the speeches that I have made about energy security over the years? I think he might find something useful there.

[Dr Mullan]

As I explained, the hon. Member has a good track record. I was talking about the shadow Energy Secretary—as he was called until recently. I apologise if I did not make myself clear; I thought that I had. As I said, I think the Opposition should be cautious in their criticism of us. I make that point not to suggest that they have been unacceptably slow in this regard, but to show how, across the western world, we politicians have been too slow to recognise the danger and too quick to work with Russia.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire clearly laid out, we must find a path forward. Many of us in the House have advocated a variety of approaches, and I encourage the Government to be ambitious and innovative. I want to use the rest of my speech to talk about one technology that I think can help us meet the demand of the energy trilemma: deep geothermal heat and energy.

Deep geothermal heat and energy is an environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and energy that can be found right under our feet. The technology is based on relatively simple concepts: first, that heat radiates from the earth’s interior; secondly, that while it dissipates once it reaches the surface, the heat remains significant at depths accessible with current drilling technology; and thirdly, that water can be used to absorb and transmit that heat to the surface.

Those mechanisms are what heat hot springs, most famously demonstrated in the UK by the Roman baths. Iceland has uniquely conducive geology and enjoys vast utilisation of geothermal energy. While natural occurrences of any significance are relatively rare, boreholes can be drilled to access this natural resource.

Deep geothermal energy heats 250,000 homes in Paris, and across France more than 600 MWh of heat is produced annually as the Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in €1 billion through to 2035 to develop geothermal energy and make the city’s heating carbon neutral. Germany already produces more than 350 MWh of heat annually, and its Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects.

The primary method by which we assess the scale of the opportunity for geothermal heat in Great Britain is geological temperature data collected from petroleum borehole data, mining records and a number of boreholes drilled as part of geothermal studies. I have been introduced to deep geothermal technology since my election as Member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich in December 2019, and my research has encouraged me to see its potential. Theoretically, it is able to provide enough heat energy to meet all our heating needs for at least 100 years, and even a conservative estimate of what we could utilise suggests that it could provide 15,000 GWh of heat for the UK by 2050.

In the UK, perhaps because of our past success in drilling for oil and gas and our status as a world leader for cheap wind and solar, we have fallen further behind on geothermal. But getting to net zero by 2050 in such a way that we share the proceeds of investment and utilise as much of our existing skills and workforce as possible will require us to pull every lever, and deep geothermal is an important one that will help us in the transition from oil and gas with our existing industries.

Like wind and solar were at the outset, schemes in Europe have been supported by things such as insurance and incentive schemes from Governments. I think it is the lack of such schemes in the UK that has led us to fall behind. I do not think the industry is asking for the open-ended subsidies that were originally in place for wind and solar, but a time-limited, targeted scheme of support would make a difference. I was pleased to see the set-aside in contracts for difference for tidal power and the green gas support scheme, which mirror the sort of thing that the industry is asking for.

I was delighted to be asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of geothermal technology and its potential in the UK. I am pleased to say that the first draft has been completed, and the report should be published shortly. It contains interesting figures on the potential overlap with levelling up, and I look forward to sharing the findings with the Secretary of State and the rest of the ministerial team.

Whether the technology is deep geothermal or nuclear, tidal or hydrogen, there are opportunities to create jobs, grow our economy and make us more secure. I look forward to seeing us drive this agenda forward, for the benefit of my constituency and the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we should not be dependent on foreign imports. However, we need to be thinking about a long-term overall reduction in what we are doing. I do not think that simply saying, “We’re going to increase oil and gas production over the next period” is an answer to our present problems, because in the end, that is incompatible with the commitments we have made on net zero. We cannot go down that path in the long-term future.

[Dr Mullan]

I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he agrees that we should do as much of our own energy production as possible in the meantime, during the transition. Is that the official Labour party position—that we should be doing more oil and gas in this country while we’ve got to still be using it?

[Dr Whitehead]

No, what I said was that we should be trying to make sure that the reduced amounts of oil and gas that, in the end, we use in our system are as indigenous as they can be. That does not mean that we increase oil and gas production overall. We have to make sure that what we are doing in terms of our route to net zero and our energy provision for the future is secure and affordable.

For example, we are, I hope, on track to make our energy economy—for power—based pretty wholly on renewables. Certainly, that is a Labour target for 2030; I think the official Government target is 2035. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, that means that we have to take account of what the issue is for variables in that energy economy. But, we should not back those up with a whole lot more oil and gas; we should back them up with things such as storage, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned, and methods of making sure that we can use our energy as flexibly as possible. Also, our variability must be accommodated by what we do alongside it to make the overall system work. That is actually working quite well so far, inasmuch as renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy there is at the moment. On the affordability criterion, we really are making progress on that front.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned the Celtic sea. If we expand our offshore renewables into the Celtic sea, we will have a further security addition to what our energy supplies are going to look like, which will make that second leg work very well as well. Those are the sorts of things we need to consider for the future in terms of how we solve the energy trilemma: not going backwards with higher hydrocarbons, but making the lower hydrocarbons that we have work as well as possible.

I was about to denounce the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for being nasty to me, but I gather he was not being nasty to me, but to someone else entirely. I thought he greatly redeemed himself with his passionate espousal of deep geothermal energy, which is bang on. We need to do a lot more work on geothermal energy for precisely the reasons I have mentioned in terms of the energy trilemma in this country, as it is affordable and low carbon at the same time.

I thank hon. Members for this excellent debate this afternoon. By the way, in how we balance out the three legs of the World Energy Council trilemma tool, we are fourth in the world. That may be a free gift to the Minister, but it is something we are not doing badly on in this country as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important case; I am more than happy for him to me to write to me with the specifics. I obviously cannot comment on individual cases, but what I would say is that when we set up the energy bill relief scheme—the original scheme, which is currently providing up to £18 billion of support not only for businesses, but for hospices, charities and organisations in the public sector—we were very clear that it could not be sustained at that level. It is extremely expensive, although it is very important and generous. In setting it up, we had a number of choices; we chose to maintain a universal scheme. Yes, there is some targeting in energy and trade-intensive sectors, but it is a universal scheme, meaning that hospices continue to benefit.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

9. What fiscal steps he is taking to support lower-income households.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)]

In the next financial year there will be a number of measures to help households with the lowest incomes, including a £900 cost of living payment, a 10.1% increase in benefits in line with inflation, and an increase in the national living wage to £10.42 an hour, which represents an extra £1,600 for someone in full-time work.

[Dr Mullan]

Notwithstanding the collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches, those of us on the Government Benches remember that when we took office in 2010, roughly £1 in every £4 spent by the Labour Government had been borrowed; nor will we forget being told “There is no money left.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are only able to take the steps he has outlined—as well as the steps we took during the pandemic—because of careful management of public finances by successive Governments?

[Jeremy Hunt]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is because we took difficult decisions to reduce the deficit by 80% in the period leading up to the pandemic that we were able to allocate £400 billion of help to families and businesses during the pandemic and £99 billion to families during the energy crisis, which means an average of £3,500 per family this year and next. There is a phrase for that: it is “fixing the roof while the sun is shining”.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I broadly welcome this legislation, as it expands a positive initiative. I understand the scheme is voluntary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thinking on whether we could move towards a mandatory system for our larger institutions.

The focus of my remarks is on the use of the funds. As has been stated, today, the money can only be used for youth, financial inclusion or social investment in England. It has been helpful to have those priorities set out in legislation. It gives certainty to funders and guaranteed income streams, so I am wary of the decision to strip it all the way back to consultation. I thank Ministers for the time they have taken to explain to me that the additionality principle is still in place and that the money must still be spent on social and environmental causes. That has given me some reassurance, but I wonder whether there is a halfway house we can reach, where we retain the new flexibility that the Minister would like to have for the Government, while perhaps having a focus on things such as geographical and deprivation-linked spending, so that we can tackle some of the challenges around levelling up at the same time.

I often find that the most deprived areas are the least able to put themselves forward to apply for funding. If there was some kind of linkage to that, it would be welcome. That is why I support some of the suggestions on a community wealth fund for the 225 most deprived or left-behind neighbourhoods in the country, one of which is Crewe St Barnabas in my constituency. I have seen at first-hand the deprivation challenges that that creates. Backing the community wealth fund, even if not through legislation, but in the consultation process later on, would send a powerful message to those wards and those parts of the country that the Government are serious about levelling up. I thank the Minister for his remarks.

Health and Social Care Levy

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I begin by joining others in applauding this Government for finally tackling the social injustice of catastrophic care costs. Yet again, a Conservative Government are taking the difficult decisions that others have avoided. My remarks today will focus on fairness and the nature of health and social care demand.

First, on fairness, somehow the political debate in this country—fuelled by those on the Opposition Benches—focuses on fairness as only one thing: the need for the better off to pay more. That is definitely an important element of fairness in society, and we see that with these proposals, with the top 14% of earners paying half of this new levy. It is not the only measure of fairness, however. The other important way to decide whether a society is fair is to think about what someone gets back compared with what they put in. We do not talk enough about the fact that a small number of people pay many, many times over what they get back and that some people pay almost nothing and get everything paid for by others. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the challenge for those on low incomes and the proportion that will be taken from their income by a tax rise, but it works both ways. Those same people, relative to what they put in, get a lot back when they seek health and social care services.

A person from a middle-income family could pay significant amounts in tax over many decades and buy their home but then see that home and nearly every penny of what they saved taken off them to pay for social care. They could live next door to someone who has paid perhaps no tax or a low rate of tax and gets everything paid for them. They end up in exactly the same boat, with nothing to show for what they saved, despite the huge difference in what they put in through taxes. That is simply not fair. In this case, people on lower incomes will continue to benefit from essentially free social care; they are just being asked to contribute a little bit more, and inevitably a little bit more will be spent on them. That is fairness, too.

I turn to demand for health and social care, and a point that perhaps will not be popular on my side of the House. I am a Conservative and do not want the Government to pay for everything on behalf of everybody, but the facts of health and social care spending are fundamentally different from those of other areas of spending. In real terms, what it costs to run an education system, prison service or public transport should be broadly stable—if anything, it might go down—but every time we treat someone successfully in the NHS, one of two things happens. Either the condition becomes chronic or comes back and we have to treat them again or, if it does not come back, they live longer and become ill with another condition. That is an unalterable reality, and it will happen more and more as we improve our healthcare services.

A heart attack is a good example. We have improved enormously the number of lives we save when someone has a heart attack, but that means more people live with chronic heart conditions that result from their heart attack, or they may live longer and end up with another condition—perhaps cancer or dementia—and we have to pay for that on top. [Interruption.] I join Opposition Members in saying that that is not a bad thing. We have not failed because we have spent more money on people’s health and social care. It is not a negative—we are providing a greater public benefit—but ultimately, over time, even if we tackle all the inefficiencies and challenges in healthcare spending we see in the NHS and get all those things right, we will still need to spend more on health and social care. That is why I welcome the proposal.

We need to start separating the discussion on tax and spend for health and social care from that on other areas of public spending, and the step we are taking to create some hypothecation, which is similar to that seen in other countries through insurance, does that. People can therefore understand that we have not failed because we have spent more and that we all need to spend more to ensure that we get the continued public benefit of living longer, with health and social care supporting us to do that, so that we can spend more time with our friends and families.

I will support the motion and encourage Members on both sides of the House to engage more thoroughly with the challenges of rising costs in health and social care. This is not just about waste, efficiency and all these other things; it is actually in the nature of delivering better health and social care for a population.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

I cannot say I am surprised that our colleagues on the SNP Benches have decided to devote their time to discussing Brexit today. I missed out on contributing to the previous debate on independence by just one speaker. I would have said, as others did so effectively, that the SNP is a party singularly devoted to doing one thing, which is focusing its time, energy and effort on doing anything other than tackling the day-to-day challenges facing the people of Scotland. If an issue is not related to independence, the SNP is not really interested. If it does show interest in another issue, that is only if that issue can be related back to independence, which is why we are here now, discussing Brexit.

Furthering the division over Brexit serves the SNP’s singular obsession with independence, so today, instead of talking about improving standards in Scottish schools or bringing down waiting times and raising standards in Scotland’s NHS, it wants to talk about Brexit. Of all the SNP positions, I find the ongoing ideological crusade against Brexit the most bizarre. As other Members have asked, how can SNP Members argue, in the same breath, for more devolved decision-making and for giving up decision-making to the EU? How can they complain about the rights and wrongs of our fishing deal if they want the EU to decide on their fishing? How can they complain about the decisions on farm funding if they want the EU to decide their farm funding? How can they complain about our foreign policy and aid spending when they want to rejoin an EU determined to have a bigger and bigger role in both areas?

I am not here to say that there are no challenges facing us as we navigate our new future outside the EU. Change is always challenging. The SNP is not really interested in helping to overcome those challenges. The only solutions and challenges it is interested in are ones that rely on independence. The Government are spending £23 million to support seafood exporters, standing behind businesses across the UK impacted by export delays at the border. Recognising the unique circumstances of the fishing sector, that fund will support businesses that can evidence a loss in exporting fish and shellfish to the EU. The Prime Minister has committed £100 million to help to modernise fishing fleets, on top of the £32 million that will replace EU funding this year.

While protecting trade with the EU is apparently the SNP’s paramount concern, such concern evaporates when it comes to protecting trade with the rest of the UK. Estimates are that more than half a million jobs in Scotland are supported by trade with the rest of the UK. That is over three-and-a-half times more than the 144,000 Scottish jobs that are linked to trade with the EU.

The SNP professes its diehard opposition to Brexit, but that is the latest example of the SNP viewing everything through the prism of independence. Despite the fact that its two positions are entirely contrasting, it feels that that opposition amplifies division and suits its independence obsession, so it will keep waging its ideological crusade long after the Scottish people want it to move on.

Covid-19: Ethnic Minority Disparities

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are doing everything they can to improve vaccine confidence and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines are the best way to protect people from coronavirus and save thousands of lives, and we want every eligible person to benefit from the offer of a free vaccine, no matter their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

The Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS are working closely with black, Asian and minority ethnic communities to support those receiving a vaccine. As part of that, we are working with faith and community leaders to give them advice and information about the universal benefits of vaccination and how their communities can get a vaccine. That has incorporated many activities. Most recently, as the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment requested a cross-party video for black MPs, so that we can show that we as parliamentarians believe that this is important, and I have promoted that in my role as Minister for Equalities.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that vaccines are the best way for people from ethnic minority backgrounds to protect themselves from the harmful effects of covid? Can she update us on the latest work that her Department is doing to support that?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I can. We must stress that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and as the vaccine roll-out continues, I urge everyone who is offered one to take the opportunity to protect themselves, their family and their community. It is important that we tackle misinformation in particular. Across Government, we are spending tens of millions of pounds on public health communications, and my hon. Friend will have seen a significant increase in public vaccine communications. The NHS website remains the most trusted health website, and the counter-disinformation unit is rebutting false information, especially where the intent is malicious or dangerous to public health. I thank him for raising this issue.

Economic Update

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Those figures are not disputed; they are fact, based on the returns we have. Of the returns we have from people who are majority self-employed, 95% qualify and are eligible for support. The 5% who are not, to whom the hon. Gentleman alludes, are excluded because their income is greater than £50,000. He will have heard me say before that the average income of those people is £200,000, and I think it is right that we target support on those who most need our help.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Chancellor for the further one-off grants for closed businesses of up to £9,000. Businesses in Crewe and Nantwich are very ready for the cash, but can he assure them that they do not need to choose between those one-off grants and the monthly grants—that both are available to affected businesses?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to confirm that that is absolutely the case. Businesses do not have to choose: they will continue to benefit from the monthly grant of up to £3,000 a month, and on top of that, to help them to get through this difficult period till the spring, they can additionally receive a one-off grant of up to £9,000. That means that cumulatively over the next three months, businesses could receive up to £18,000 of support. I know that my hon. Friend’s businesses will warmly welcome that. He has spoken to me at great length about supporting his local hospitality industry, and I hope that this helps.

Economy Update

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

My constituents understand the enormous challenges that the Government face, and that we cannot save every single job, but does my right hon. Friend share my pride that the IMF has said that our response to covid is

“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”,

and that it specifically praised our response for

“holding down unemployment”?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of our approach throughout this crisis has been the protection of people’s livelihoods. We have strived at every turn to make sure that people can stay in work and their incomes are supported. As we go through this crisis, I assure every Member of the House, and the country, that that remains my overriding priority. We will throw absolutely everything we can at it.