Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Sam Rushworth and Esther McVey

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendments 49 to 55 and amendments 56 to 62 to clause 1, which are in my name, and in support of amendments 6 to 12 to clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford).

Through the Bill, the Government have taken inconsistency to a new level. In their desire to give votes to 16-year-olds, they are bringing more confusion to the legal age of adulthood. In one breath they are giving votes to 16-year-olds, yet at the same time in another piece of legislation they are saying that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to use social media and there will be curfews for those under the age of 16.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I can see that she is clearly opposed to this measure. I remind her that about nine years ago she and I debated at Wilmslow high school. I remember she made a clear commitment then to the students that she would support giving them the vote at 16.

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member clearly gave support; I had various caveats. As things have changed recently, children cannot get married now at 16, yet at the same time we do not think those under the age of 18 should be on social media. That is a new addition. We are changing the age of adulthood. Labour Members do not even think the brain is mature enough to be considered for criminal actions until the age of 25.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Sam Rushworth and Esther McVey

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

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

[Esther McVey]

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

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

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

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