YouSaid · the spoken record
Esther McVey
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2010–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Esther McVey. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“In the meeting on 18 November 2020, the expert working group asks if Pfizer was “required to respond to the 36 questions asked by MHRA”. In response, the MHRA confirmed that “there is no formal obligation to reply”. Why is there no formal obligation to reply? Surely it is essential, when making such an important decision as to whether to allow a new vaccine to be rolled out to the nation, to have those replies. The minutes do not specify the 36 questions. Indeed, they do not appear to have been mentioned again. I asked a written question last week to see whether, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the MHRA would publish those questions and any answers received from Pfizer. The response was that the MHRA does not intend to publish those questions or any subsequent responses. Why not? Is this not a matter of public interest?”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, replied to that message by saying that the system “needs to get better”. Another long-standing problem with the MHRA is its lack of transparency. Take FOIs to the agency as an example. Between 2008 and 2017, only 41% of requests were successful. In 2021, 76% were answered outside the 20-working-day statutory response time. A culture of delay and secrecy has emerged, and MHRA’s behaviour around the Commission on Human Medicines meetings for the covid-19 vaccine benefit risk expert working group show that beyond any doubt. Minutes of the meetings were published just last month, four years after they took place—why the delay? They are stuffed full of redactions that leave us with many more questions than answers, particularly as to why the new vaccines were continually described as safe and effective.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does that sound like an agency that is doing its best to maintain public trust, let alone patient safety? It is clear that the system does not work. We have good evidence that suspected adverse reactions are under-reported, but what about the ones that are reported? We know from freedom of information requests that the MHRA does not have a process for investigating and following up individual yellow card reports. We know that the retrieval of follow-up information from the yellow card database still requires manual extraction and that only 54% of deaths reported as possibly linked to exposure to one of the covid-19 vaccines were followed up by the MHRA. That is extremely worrying or, as Matt Hancock infamously described it in a 2021 WhatsApp message, “shonky”.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not believe that the MHRA has taken such action. We are probably still waiting for it. Hopefully, that will come out. People are also either not getting compensation quickly enough or not receiving compensation that is commensurate with the illness and damage caused to them. It is worth noting what happened when The Daily Telegraph reported on the potential causal link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots in March 2021. The journalist who wrote the story received a threatening call from the MHRA warning that The Telegraph would be banned from future briefings and press notices if it did not soften the news—an extremely defensive approach for an agency whose No. 1 strategic objective is to maintain public trust through transparency and proactive communication.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. If people lose trust in vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory agency, that is precisely what happens. We know that these vaccines are essential to many people, so we do not want that happen. We want to ensure that new vaccines and medicines coming into use are thoroughly tested and that, along the way, we keep an overall watch on whether they are working correctly.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The number of people who have taken their lives after coming off SSRIs shows that it is not a one-off or rare. There are many people, including one of my constituents, aged only 25, who took her life. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. What more can we do to raise awareness of the effects of withdrawal from these antidepressants?”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Resolved , That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all Members who have stayed late to speak today, many of them recounting the deeply moving and harrowing experiences of their constituents. All contributions reinforced the failings of the MHRA. In fact, listening to Members, the verdict on the MHRA is guilty as charged, confirming that it is in need of substantial reform. I feel sure that the Minister will ensure that that reform starts here and now. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that this brutal change to inheritance tax—let us call it what it is, a family farm tax—will destroy family farms and farming in the UK as we know it? Does it not make nonsense of Labour’s claim to believe in food security for the UK? We need a U-turn straightaway. The question I am now being asked by my farmers is: did this policy come about because the Government did not know what they were doing and through a lack of knowledge by the Labour party of the farming community? Or will we look back at this and see it for what it is: theft by the state of land from private owners?”
House of Commons14 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Did the Communist party of China tell the Chancellor that she was doing a good job or a bad job of running the UK economy when she was there?”
House of Commons14 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Order. I remind Members that, should they wish to speak and be called in the debate, they need to bob. Members wishing to speak need to be here for the opening and closing statements. Wind-ups will begin at 10.30 am, with two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will call Deirdre Costigan to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree, as would all Members, that we want excellent standards for all schools. One idea that the Conservative Government had was that if a school was failing, new management would go in to increase standards, yet the Secretary of State wants to dismantle that. I would call that vandalism of our education system.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just for clarification, should Government Members do the right thing tonight and vote for our amendment, there would be no wrecking of any Bill—they just need to vote the right way.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is most generous. I would like her to explain how our reasoned amendment, which would allow a national debate on this horrendous grooming, is a wrecking amendment. Given the numbers, it is not a wrecking amendment, and what she has said on the Floor of the House is not right.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A number of my constituents have been affected by flooding and in a variety of ways. The Minister mentioned in her opening statement the breach of the Bridgewater canal, the damage that that has caused in Cheshire, and the immediate repair work that needs to be done by Peel. What is being done to ensure that local authorities clear blocked drains, because that is the root of most of the flooding?”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have met private schools in and around Tatton that are attended by my constituents’ children, and they have all me told that, despite having applied for a VAT number, not one of them has received it. Will the Secretary of State explain to me what discussions she is having with the Chancellor to put this right, particularly in the light of the rushed implementation of this misguided ideological policy in January?”
House of Commons9 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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—”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will he work with me to ensure that it does, in order to prevent lives like Olivia’s being cut tragically short?”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members should bear in mind that suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people under 35 in the UK, and the mental health of young people has declined alarmingly in recent years.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She then resumed SSRI treatment in August 2021, finally taking her life in September 2021. When she first came off her medication it was without consulting her GP, because she was feeling better. She should have been warned about stopping taking the antidepressant. The family was later to discover that citalopram is one of the most difficult antidepressants to come off. Tragically, the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that between a third and half of people who take antidepressant medications experience withdrawal symptoms to some extent. The severity and duration of these symptoms, and whom they affect, is not certain. In Olivia’s case, the withdrawal symptoms were severe and the resulting deterioration in her mental state ultimately led to her taking her own life.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me start by painting a picture of Olivia, who was an intelligent, creative and hard-working 25-year-old who had just left Tatton to live in London. Her parents remember her as wonderful and vibrant—a loving daughter and a loving younger sister to her brother, Luke; a cherished and adored granddaughter; and a loyal, kind and supportive friend. She lit up a room and was admired by all who knew and loved her. In November 2020, during the pandemic, Olivia became anxious. She began taking an SSRI—citalopram—to manage her anxiety. Initially, Olivia responded well to treatment. However, when the time came to discontinue the medication in June 2021, she experienced a rapid decline in her mental health, which was far worse than what she had previously faced.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I know that she and her family are watching this debate at home, as they are determined to help prevent others having to suffer the same fate as Olivia. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the charities Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide, as well as to The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition and the House of Commons Library for the information provided to me before this debate. While the information was insightful, it was deeply disturbing, as it revealed that Olivia’s experience of declining mental health as medication was withdrawn was far from unique and was a known risk, which made me determined to pursue this debate on behalf of her family and thus bring Olivia’s story and her family’s suffering to a wider audience.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of suicide and mental health of young people in Tatton constituency. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to convey my appreciation to the Minister for replying to this extremely important and sensitive debate on the management of withdrawal from antidepressant medication, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the profound impact that that process can have on the mental health and suicide risk of young people. I would like to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to my constituent, Gina Russell, who met me and bravely shared the experience of her daughter, Olivia, who tragically took her life in September 2021, following withdrawal from SSRI medication. Olivia’s mum is unable to be with us in Westminster Hall today.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While SSRIs have transformed countless lives, we cannot overlook the vulnerability of those navigating withdrawal. We owe it to families like Olivia’s to ensure that no one feels unsupported or uninformed when taking such important decisions. Simple measures, such as enhanced warnings on medication packages, improved guidance for medical practitioners and comprehensive advice can make the process of withdrawal palpably easier and safer, potentially offering better outcomes for individuals navigating the complex process of withdrawal from SSRIs. I would be grateful for the Minister’s consideration of the issues I have discussed. Finally, in Olivia’s instance, the coroner produced a prevention of future deaths report, so I ask the Minister how such a report can become wholesale advice to the medical profession?”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A move as simple as placing a warning label on the packaging of SSRI prescriptions would be a straightforward way to convey the dangers of the medication. It would not replace the more comprehensive information provided in a patient information leaflet, or the guidance of a GP. However, it would act as a safeguard in circumstances should those fail. The safety of patients’ prescribed medications must be guaranteed, not left to change based on appointment time constraints or whether a patient has read in full the often lengthy patient information leaflet. The story of Olivia and her family is a painful reminder of the urgent need to address the risks associated with SSRI withdrawal, and the broader mental health crisis facing young people today.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Inconsistent guidance on antidepressant withdrawal has resulted in many patients experiencing distressing and debilitating symptoms. Patients have been misdiagnosed as suffering from a relapse of their original mental health condition, and others have been left fearful about stopping using their antidepressants. That may have contributed to many individuals staying on their antidepressant medication for longer than is necessary, with a report in 2023 suggesting that 2 million people are taking antidepressants for five years or more. What improvements can be made to ensure the better facilitation of SSRI withdrawal? Olivia’s family believe that there are measures that could be taken that would go far in protecting patients when withdrawing from the medication.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Patients are legally entitled to a patient information leaflet with their prescriptions, but the responsibility for providing it lies with pharmacies. That places the onus on patients, potentially in a vulnerable position, to navigate complex decisions alone. The leaflets are often lengthy and rely on a patient reading and understanding information provided. The issue is compounded by outdated guidance. Until recently, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—suggested that withdrawal symptoms typically last one to two weeks. That has now been updated to reflect the fact that symptoms can be more severe and prolonged, but the updates have not yet translated into comprehensive and systematic changes to ensure that patients are adequately supported.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That requires our immediate attention, as the principle of informed consent, which underpins our healthcare system, requires that patients are fully aware of the benefits and risks of any medical procedure or treatment. The General Medical Council’s professional standards for decision making and consent stipulate that doctors’ discussions should recognise the effect of the patient’s individual clinical circumstances on the probability of benefit or harm occurring. Guidance from the GMC acknowledges that the amount of information doctors provide to patients can vary due to time constraints. Where such time constraints exist, doctors are encouraged to involve other medical professionals, such as clinicians, or to refer patients to the patient information leaflet accompanying their medication.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Her mother recalls that the information provided by her GP was limited and did not adequately warn of the risks of sudden or poorly managed withdrawal. As a result, following her death, the exceptional decision was taken by the coroner to produce a prevention of future deaths report. It found no evidence that Olivia was explicitly warned about the risks of relapse or the potential signs of withdrawal, or told that she might feel worse before feeling better. The report concluded that while advice may have been given, it was not conclusive and concern was expressed regarding the inconsistency of advice that each GP might give patients. The report could not say with confidence that every GP within Olivia’s practice was discussing the key risks associated with SSRI medication withdrawal.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Analysis from the children and young people’s mental health coalition shows that 1.5 million children and young people could need new or increased mental health support as a result of the pandemic. Those factors combined to create a perfect storm for young people struggling with mental health challenges, with many prescribed SSRI medication as a solution by their medical practitioners. It is important to note the life-changing and positive impact that such medication has had on many people across the country, and I do not seek to contest that or the ability of those medications vastly to improve the mental health of many patients. However, we must also acknowledge that the process of withdrawing from SSRIs can be fraught with challenges that leave patients vulnerable. In Olivia’s case, her family believed that she was left in the dark.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my colleague and friend for that pertinent intervention. The pandemic lockdown exacerbated the mental health crisis, as it brought isolation, uncertainty and disrupted routines at home, in education and in the workplace, taking an immense toll on young people’s wellbeing. During that period, the use of antidepressants, including SSRIs, rose significantly. Meanwhile, access to in-person medical support was often severely limited, which may have worsened the challenges faced by patients navigating their mental health and medication. Last year, the closure of England’s only dedicated antidepressant withdrawal helpline, the Bristol and district tranquilliser project, left a further gap in support services for patients, at a time when mental health services are under immense strain.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No wonder they do not have a clue about national insurance contributions. For clarity, both the independent Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that 80% of the employer national insurance rises will be paid for by the workers through lower wages and reduced employment levels. No wonder Labour Members have now gone silent. The Chancellor’s raid on the unfairest tax of all, inheritance tax, will double the number of estates that have to pay it and, disgracefully, will make it virtually impossible for family farmers to pass on their business to the next generation. Farmers are most definitely working people, just in case Labour Members do not know. This Budget will be disastrous for our rural areas and for the country’s food security, and all because of good old-fashioned socialist envy.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the biggest tax-raising Budget in British history, and it will turn out to be the longest suicide note in Labour’s political history, too. The Budget is socialism at its worst: high taxes, high spending and massive debt. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members are laughing, but this is massive debt for future generations. This Budget is anti-business, anti-farmer, anti-aspiration, anti-wealth creation and anti-worker. Yes, anti-worker. Despite all of Labour’s promises before the general election, the Government are taxing workers as they raise national insurance contributions for employers. This begs the question: do the Chancellor and the Prime Minister not know how the economy works? They certainly do not know how business works. Not one of the current bunch of Cabinet Ministers has ever set up a business.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on her maiden speech and her personal story. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today’s Budget debate on fixing the NHS and reforming public services. However, the truth is that this Budget’s smash and grab on the UK’s businesses means that the money will not be there to pay for the excellent public services this country requires. Labour has never understood the concept of private enterprise and businesses paying for public services, and that it is only with a thriving private sector that the country can have the public services it wants and needs. Make no mistake: this Budget will be catastrophic for the economic health of this country.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I will carry on, thank you very much. In addition to huge tax rises, this Budget will have an eye-watering impact on the country’s debt. Debt interest payments will be more than £100 billion a year, every year, and will reach an astonishing £120 billion by the end of the decade. To put that into context—”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“] Laughing after not telling the public what they were going to do is why I certainly will not be supporting this Budget.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour ruled out tax hikes on working people more than 50 times, and it ruled out changing the fiscal rules to fiddle the figures. Mark my words, on top of the betrayal of pensioners with the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance, this Budget will be a nail in this Government’s coffin, only four months after they secured a huge majority. At the weekend, the Chancellor eventually came round to admitting that Labour will be taxing workers, but I am afraid that saying it now, having denied it at the general election, does not wash. It is way too late to be admitting it. All it has done is expose the fact that this Labour Government were elected on a false premise and therefore do not have a mandate for this Budget. [ Laughter.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will carry on for a little longer. To put that into context, it dwarfs the UK’s annual defence spend, which stands at £55 billion. This is money being wasted instead of being spent on public services. And if all that was not bad enough, the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecast to a measly 1.5% for the years running up to the next general election. So much for Labour saying this would be a Budget for growth. This Labour Budget has taken our country back to the 1970s, with crippling taxation, unsustainable levels of borrowing and the trade unions in control. The Budget has also broken virtually every economic promise Labour made during the election. In fact, even worse than the economic misery this Budget will bring might be the further mistrust in politicians it will cause.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can the Minister inform me if he intends to drop this policy? At the very least, will he consult with the sector and do an impact assessment? I was going to touch on business rates, but I will not have time to do so. I will just say that the relief that the Conservative party brought in needs to be continued until a permanent solution is found.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The answers revealed common concerns: business rates, beer duty, employer’s national insurance rises and Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which is on the front pages of most of the papers today because that will cost businesses £4.5 billion a year. On top of that is Labour’s outdoor smoking ban, which would particularly affect pubs that rely partly or fully on wet-side sales, suggesting the ban would cause a drop in footfall of about 10% to 30%—enough to close more of them down. It was clear from the responses that the Government should think again and drop the outdoor smoking ban. If they are determined to push ahead, they should at the very least consult the industry and do an impact assessment. I know that is something that this Government do not like and tend to shy away from, but that is what they need to do.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this debate. As time is tight, I will focus my comments on my constituency. In Tatton there are 89 pubs and three breweries that support 2,350 jobs, generating £29 million in tax and contributing £60 million to the economy. Recently I wrote to every one of those pubs in Tatton, following the Government’s announcement that an outdoor smoking ban was being considered, to seek their views on that as well as the wider issues facing the hospitality sector.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to take away some comfort and be able to speak with my pub owners and pub landlords. Will the Minister commit today to speaking to the Chancellor about business rates before the Budget next week? I want him just to confirm that he will be making the representations from today’s debate to the Chancellor before the Budget.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗