Covid-19: Financial Support

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[[R] Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to debate this important issue. I also thank colleagues across the House for their tremendous support when I applied for this debate and, in particular, my friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, of which I am an officer.

I place on record my thanks to Excluded UK for its tireless and formidable campaigning. Without its work, many of these stories would never have been heard, and many people would have been left to suffer in silence. Its staff have shown persistence, compassion, and a commitment to justice.

This debate is about a national scandal during the covid-19 pandemic, which impacted millions of individuals and families, including mine; my spouse could only apply for a bounce back loan when everything stopped. I want to speak about three things today: first, why I am campaigning on this issue; secondly, the people behind the statistics, including my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon who contacted me in desperation, and who still feel the horrendous impact of a policy decision by the then Government to exclude them from any kind of financial support; and thirdly, what needs to change.

When covid struck, the message from the Government was clear: “Help will be there, and no one will be left behind.” The Chancellor at the time, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), vowed that

“no one will be left without hope.”

For many, that was true, but for millions of others, the promise rang hollow. They paid in, they followed the rules, and when they needed support, they were told that they did not qualify. People lost their income overnight. They lost their savings and their home, and some lost their life.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a genuine question, because I have followed this campaign from afar. What were the reasons given by the Government at the time for these people being excluded in this way?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member, and I will get to that point. In Stratford-on-Avon and up and down the country, business owners ask a simple question: why were they excluded when they had paid tax for years? These were people running events businesses, training services or consultancies, freelancers in the arts, music or creative sectors, and small companies that formed the backbone of our local economy. That is the injustice that this debate seeks to address.

It is important to say at the outset that we do not deny the scale or urgency of the Government’s response in March 2020. The coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme were introduced at a speed and on a scale never seen before. According to the House of Commons Library, the overall cost of covid-19 business support ran into tens of billions of pounds, and for many people and businesses it prevented immediate hardship and business collapse. That context matters, because it shows that the Government were capable of acting decisively, and that the state was capable of dealing with a suite of diverse and complex scenarios. The question is why, alongside that intervention, millions of people were left with nothing at all and simply abandoned.

Around 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from meaningful financial support during the pandemic—a figure supported by analysis from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Audit Office and research cited by the Library. They included company directors paid through dividends, newly self-employed people, new businesses, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, new starters, and those on maternity, adoption or parental leave or on carer’s allowance, whose circumstances placed them just outside rigid eligibility rules. They were a substantial part of the British workforce. The Government support schemes worked well for many, but excluded millions by design.

The problem was not the absence of data, but the choice made about how that data would be used. Company directors paid through dividends were told that their income could not be verified, despite their submitting annual self-assessments, corporation tax returns and company accounts to Companies House. New businesses were excluded simply because they had not traded for long enough. Mixed-income workers were penalised for having diversified their earnings. These people were not invisible to the tax system, but they were invisible to the support schemes. The decision to exclude them was not an administrative necessity; it was a policy decision, and for that alone, the 3.8 million people left out must have an apology.

These decisions are now rightly being examined by the UK covid-19 inquiry. Module 9, which focuses on the economic response, is considering how eligibility criteria were set, how fraud risk was assessed and how trade-offs were made between speed and fairness. That scrutiny is essential, because the consequences of exclusion were not abstract; they were human, financial and, in many cases, long-lasting. The inquiry must not simply catalogue what happened, but confront what it meant for those left outside the system.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

A 2021 University of Bristol report stated that women in their 40s with dependent children were disproportionately represented among the excluded. That raises concerns about child poverty, mental ill health and compounding the effects of the gender pay gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that research is needed into those and other longer- term impacts, so that they can be addressed?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely; I fully agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that is one of our asks, so that we do not make the same mistake again.

My constituent Victoria, who is in the Gallery, ran an events business hosting exhibitions and award ceremonies. She was ineligible for any scheme. A bounce back loan was taken out simply for the business to survive. Five years on, the debt remains, the recovery never fully came, and the business is now closing. Another constituent of mine moved roles, and was informed that he would not be furloughed by his new employer, as the cut-off for furlough through payroll had passed. There was little consideration of people in that position.

Another constituent was a director of a small education consultancy. They were told that income as dividends could not be distinguished from unearned income, despite verified accounts and professional oversight. The effects of that decision did not end when lockdowns lifted. The financial impact of exclusion was severe, but the human cost was greater still. Campaign groups have documented widespread mental distress across those excluded from support, including cases of suicide linked to financial hardship during the pandemic. There were people who felt hopeless, abandoned and unseen. The mental health consequences of exclusion are still being felt, and they should weigh heavily on this House.

The excluded have three requests of this Government: an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned; parity of support; and an acknowledgment of the loss of earnings and consequential losses. I ask the Minister to meet the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in covid-19 financial support, so that he can hear directly from those affected.

At the same time when millions of taxpayers were excluded from support, vast sums of public money were spent on dodgy personal protective equipment. The National Audit Office has confirmed that billions were lost through error and fraud across covid-19 schemes. The PPE MedPro case starkly illustrates that imbalance: a company fast-tracked through the Government VIP lane was paid £122 million for surgical gowns that were later ruled unfit for use, and has since been ordered to repay £148 million to the public purse.

This debate is not just about reflecting on what went wrong; it is about recognising and acknowledging the injustice, starting with an apology to the nearly 4 million workers who were abandoned under the Conservative Government. We also must prepare properly for the future. Public health experts have been clear that we should be talking about not if, but when, there is a future pandemic or national emergency. When the moment comes, this House will have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the gaps again.

Emergency support schemes must be designed around the reality of how people work in this country. Millions of people do not fit neatly into a single employment category. They combine PAYE work with self-employment, run a small limited company, take time out for caring responsibilities or build new businesses from scratch. That diversity is a strength of our economy, not a problem to be designed out of eligibility. The state already holds vast amounts of information through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House and other bodies. The lesson of covid is that the issue was not a lack of data, but a lack of willingness to use it flexibly and fairly.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

I worked in health and social care during the covid pandemic, so I did not experience furlough—in fact, we worked very hard indeed. Some of the excluded self-employed people that the hon. Member refers to are still suffering today. Does she agree that they are paying the price for the previous Government’s sheer incompetence in managing the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree with the hon. Member. I hope that the new Labour Government will reflect on what went on, and will engage with all those who were excluded, so I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Next time, inclusion must be the starting point, not an afterthought.

Preparing for the future is not only about better scheme design; it is also about restoring trust in how public money is handled. During the pandemic, many legitimate taxpayers were denied support on the grounds of fraud risk while vast sums of public money were lost through waste, error and contracts awarded through so-called VIP lanes. The PPE Medpro case raises serious questions about how decisions were made and who benefited from them. While hard-working families and small businesses were pushed into debt and hardship, those connected to questionable contracts were fast-tracked and rewarded. Huge sums were handed out with little scrutiny and, in some cases, for equipment that put our brave doctors and nurses at risk, that could not even be used, or that ended up being incinerated. That imbalance matters because it corrodes trust.

If we fail to learn these lessons, we fail the very people who kept paying in even when they were left out. If we succeed, future emergency support can be fast, fair and trusted. That is what those who were excluded deserve, and that is what this House should commit to delivering.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who attended today’s debate to support their constituents. The people we have talked about today ask not for special treatment, but for fair and equitable treatment. They paid in and followed the rules, but when the crisis came, they were left behind, with heartbreaking consequences. I hope that the Minister will meet the APPG in the near future.

In conclusion, if we are serious about learning the lessons of the pandemic, recognition, redress, accountability and change must follow. Otherwise, the next time a crisis strikes, we risk repeating the same injustice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic.

Business of the House

Ordered,

That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for securing this important debate in support of the equestrian community. Stratford-on-Avon is a deeply rural constituency with fast-moving country roads and narrow lanes. For many riders, using public roads is not a choice but a necessity, and too often that comes with real and frightening risks. Per mile travelled, rural roads are the most dangerous in the country, accounting for well over half of all road deaths.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency we have Cornish hedges, which are made of stone, and they make it even more dangerous, particularly as a lot of drivers do not realise that they are stone. They make it even more important for drivers to give horses as much room as possible.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that issue. I agree with her.

As we have heard, the figures are horrendous: thousands of incidents involving horses result in injury and death. These incidents are widely under-reported, but the harm they cause is very real. Most concerning of all is that more than four in five of these incidents are caused by drivers passing too fast or too close, and that is despite clear highway code guidance introduced in 2022 advising motorists to slow right down and give horses plenty of space. Too many drivers simply do not know about that guidance or do not understand the danger of ignoring it.

There is also the issue of loud engines, such as those in motorbikes, which can startle horses. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Clear rules, proper coverage in the driving theory test and better driver education will save lives. Where possible, horse riders should not have to rely on roads at all. The Liberal Democrats have set out plans to expand safe off-road routes through the countryside, giving riders the freedom to travel safely along bridleways.

Finally, I thank the Warwickshire road safety partnership and Warwickshire horse watch, which work to support the equestrian community and provide advice on safety. Horses are a vital part of rural life in constituencies like mine. Their safety, and the safety of those who ride them, deserves far greater priority than the Government are currently giving it.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The number of estates that will be affected by this change will fall by half as a result of the changes that the Government announced late last year after listening to representations from various business and farming communities. That means that rather than 375 estates being affected per year, it will now be closer to 185 estates affected per year. Around 85% of estates will not pay any additional inheritance tax, and the vast majority of those that do will pay significantly less than they would have done before the change we announced late last year.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I welcome the revised threshold change; it is a first step in the right direction. I thank the local farming community in South Warwickshire and the National Farmer’s Union in Warwickshire for their tireless campaigning. However, farmers across my constituency tell me that the changes to agricultural property relief have created many months of uncertainty, freezing investment and growth and affecting succession planning. Why did the Chancellor and her team announce changes to the agricultural property relief last year without meaningful consultation with family farmers first?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the changes that the Government have brought forward. We did continue to engage with representatives from the farming community. I believe that the Prime Minister mentioned being in conversation with Mr Bradshaw from the NFU, and Ministers across Government have of course listened to and engaged with the farming community. I myself went up to Hexham. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) has left—for other important business, I am sure—but I met farmers in his constituency. All those different forms of engagement have proved very valuable indeed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because our pubs in particular, but hospitality more widely, are at the heart of our community. They provide so much more than just somewhere to have a pint and a pie. They provide community and social cohesion. They are the antidote to the epidemic of isolation. They have history and culture attached. They are somewhere we can go to argue well over a pint, yet our pubs and hospitality businesses are really struggling. That is why, as a point of protest, we Liberal Democrats voted against the increase in alcohol duty in the Budget resolutions last week, and we remain opposed to the measures in the Bill that relate to that increase.

On business rates, I am sorry to say that the Government are behaving as though they are somehow doing hospitality a favour, but I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how angry hospitality owners and leaders are. Furious, angry, betrayed, gaslit—these are just some of the politer words I have heard them use. The Labour manifesto was clear:

“The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. In England, Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship.”

However, Labour has not replaced business rates, and it has not levelled the playing field.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

As a result of the Bill, in places like Stratford-on-Avon, pubs on high streets and in villages face bill increases many times higher than those faced by the larger distribution warehouses linked to online retail. Does my hon. Friend agree that this raises serious questions about whether the tax system is really supporting communities and local economies?

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. It is the first time that North Shropshire has been in the top 10 constituencies in a petition—713 people have signed, which is not surprising when we consider that there are over 1,000 farms in the constituency, covering 62,000 hectares. It is one of the 20 most rural constituencies in the country. Producing food for the country is our main activity, not just through farming and the thousands of people who support those farms. Food production, storage and distribution are all major industries as well.

Farmers have had a tough time: incomes are historically low and farmers can ill-afford to pay inheritance tax when an estate sadly passes on. The Government estimate that 288 farms will be affected in North Shropshire. Even if that is not an underestimate, which we strongly suspect it is, that is a whopping 27% of the farms in my constituency—more than a quarter—that will have to sell off land rather than further invest in the rural economy. That is shocking.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

This policy could force hundreds of family farmers in my constituency to sell their productive land. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as causing uncertainty to tenant farmers, the policy undermines our ability to address the threat to food security, without discouraging those who land bank for tax purposes?

[Helen Morgan]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and will come on to that point in a moment.

I want to mention Robert, whose family has farmed a traditional mixed dairy and arable farm near Oswestry for 120 years. Their farm is valued at £6 million, which sounds like a lot, but their income is only £60,000 a year. Even if the £3 million dual relief that we have been told about by the Treasury applied, paying it off would wipe out their income for 10 years. In fact, they estimate their liability would be higher than that. It is not just traditional farms that are affected: rental businesses, nurseries, and horticultural businesses all fear that they cannot pass on their business at the time of death as a result of this ill-thought-through policy.

The Chancellor wanted to put wealthy non-farmers off buying land to avoid inheritance tax, but I reckon being charged 20% with 10 years to pay it off is a pretty attractive alternative to paying 40% now. With such a low threshold of £1 million, many small farmers will be left with a liability they simply cannot afford to pay because land does not translate to cash unless they sell it.

This tax does not achieve its mission at all. The idea that farms can survive it is not true. Years of being taken for granted by the Conservatives have left farms in a desperate state. Some 8,000 farms shut their doors last year—one in 25—and farm incomes have been dropping year on year. That is down to a number of factors, including soaring inflation, which is beyond the Government’s control, and the botched implementation of the sustainable farming incentive, which was not. The disastrous trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership have set an alarming precedent, especially while the President of the United States is holding anyone who does not give him what he wants to ransom with trade tariffs.

The Government must protect the farming budget. We need our family farms to thrive: for economic growth, which is so crucial in rural areas; to produce our food; and to protect our environment. There is still time to reverse this disastrous decision. I urge the Government to listen to the valid concerns and to demonstrate their commitment to rural Britain. Let us axe this family farm tax.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Manuela Perteghella Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spoke to another farmer in my constituency and his farm is owned by three people, one of whom is his father—who has a third of it—and who has been in ill health lately, is in his early 80s and is highly unlikely to live for the next seven years. All the planning that they responsibly put into ensuring that that farm continues to contribute to waterways, the environment, and the nation’s food security has been cast aside and turned over by this Government’s ill thought-out plans.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, many family farms exceed the threshold due to the high value of the land and machinery. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these changes threaten to push family-run farms into the hands of large corporations and therefore both erode rural communities and jeopardise our domestic food security?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is exactly what they will do. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intent to bolster the big international corporations and hurt the small player who is an embedded part of the community.

So many people I speak to genuinely try and run their farms to be supportive of nature and of local business. Once major corporations are involved, these will not care where they get their supplies from. They will not be focused on that.