Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  “Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill. As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency— [ Interruption. ] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that if there are not enough prison places, then we should build more of them, not let people out of prison? That is what we should be doing— [ Interruption. ] Remember, this is a Government who found untold amounts of money to house illegal immigrants. We need to do the same for prisoners.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks. People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures. New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year. Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said: “the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.] The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said: “We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.” —[ Official Report , 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.] That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that. The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases. New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions. My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And did you?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, although I would point out that under the last Government three prisons were built—HMP Five Wells, HMP Fosse Way and HMP Millsike—which added an extra 8,500 places. Three further prisons will also be built.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances. New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences. Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all. New clause 59 lists “poor compliance with court orders” as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence. All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system. The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more. The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”. The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Rehabilitation is key, but so is prison. Prison for people who have committed crimes is essential. Prisons are about removing a danger from society.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend. This disgrace of a Bill will not be sending people to prison, and at the same time it will be letting people out of prison. Amendments 46, 47, 51 and 52 would change the length of sentences that qualify for the “get out of jail free” suspended sentences to those of less than 12 months and only before any credit is given for a guilty plea. Sentences of 12 months or more are obviously given for more serious offences. As the Bill stands, I understand that those for whom a sentence of 18 months would be appropriate could hit the jackpot, because the credit of a guilty plea will be taken into account. That will reduce the sentence to 12 months; therefore, those people will qualify for a suspended sentence under this Bill. Sentences of those lengths are not given for nothing, so I hope the Government will reflect on my amendments, which would reduce the maximum sentence that has to be suspended. I did a quick scan of my local papers to see who had got an 18-month sentence, which could now become a suspended sentence. They included a lady who caused the unnecessary suffering of an animal and was in possession of a samurai sword, and a lady who glassed a pregnant friend in the face. Another sentence was for coercive and controlling behaviour, and that person also got a five-year restraining order. They could now all get suspended sentences. The Bill currently states that the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence need not apply “if the court is of the opinion that making the order would put a particular individual at significant risk of physical or psychological harm.” Amendments 48 and 53 would extend that to include the public—who are, after all, a collection of individuals. They, too, deserve protecting. If the court is concerned that an offender is likely to be a danger to the public, it should absolutely have the right to ensure that that offender goes to prison, not back into the community on a suspended sentence. Amendments 49 and 54 would change the risk level for not imposing an immediate custodial sentence by removing the word “significant”. I would have thought that any identifiable risk should be covered. We are talking about protecting people’s lives; we should not be playing a game of Russian roulette with them. Ironically, it seems that the Sentencing Council has seen things similarly, as it has previously listed this as a reason not reason to suspend a sentence. Amendments 50 and 55 would mean that anyone not being sent to prison as a result of this change, who otherwise would have been, would have to be given the maximum length of suspended sentence. In other words, the sentence would hang over them for the longest possible time and they should not be given a shorter period, as could be the case with normal suspended prison sentences. New clause 42 would ensure that those given the suspended sentences are electronically tagged throughout. Using a tag to monitor someone’s location out of prison could make them think twice about reoffending, and if they were to reoffend it could make detection and resentencing much easier. Other amendments concern the type of offending that we are allowing to be included in this ridiculous prison avoidance legislation. So many offences will be covered by this exemption that is hard to know where to start. This has to be addressed, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my amendments. Most people will believe that we have completely lost the plot if we allow there to be some offences for which prison sentences cannot generally be handed down. New clause 44 would exclude knife crime from being one of those offences. I cannot believe that I have to table an amendment to prevent a whole load of criminals who carry knives from being kept out of prison—yet without my amendment, that is what this Bill will do. Does no one anywhere think through what is being proposed and how it will affect public safety? It would be completely disgraceful for the Government ever to claim to be serious about tackling knife crime when, under the Bill, the presumption will be that many people carrying a knife will no longer be sent to prison. How will that help to prevent the loss of life on our streets?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We all believe in second chances, and that is where rehabilitation comes into play. We are possibly dealing with continual offending here. People have come before the courts, been given some kind of community sentence or been subject to tagging, and still repeat their crimes. We do not want them to think that there is absolutely no deterrent, and that they can commit crimes as often as they want because they will get only a tiny slap on the wrist. People need to understand that their actions are unacceptable. There is a victim, and a price to pay. Some people will understand, go on the straight and narrow, and go on to have a good life, but not as a result of what is being delivered today. The Bill says, “Commit a crime and you will not do any time.” That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the wrong message to send out. That really should not need saying, but it seems that it does. How on earth can it be right that someone who has been released early from prison will get a second get-out-of-jail-free card? That will happen under this ludicrous legislation. Under new clause 41, the presumption against prison would not apply to foreign nationals. If people come to this country and commit crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, they should not be left wandering around our streets freely as a result of this Bill. Foreign offenders should be deported, as protecting the public is one of the main duties of a Government—I will have to repeat that several times to the Government, who do not seem to understand that that is a major part of their duty—and in the meantime, those offenders should be locked up. While we have to put up with our own British criminals, I do not see why we should be lenient to those who have come to this country and committed offences. I do not think the public will agree with the Government’s Bill, either.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It might be helpful to give some of the numbers. Three prisons were built, with 8,500 places—they were delayed because of lockdown—and another three prisons are on the way.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend talks about the number of people who will be released from prison. I spoke earlier about the number of people who will not even be going to prison. All in all it will be tens of thousands of people not in prison. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the public find this out, they will want that Government gone?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue. We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime. Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why I pointed out that the Bill is all about ideology; it is not about logic. I mentioned the extra prisons that were started in 2020, when the previous Government gave £4 billion to expand prison capacity, and three of those prisons have been built. There was a delay and it was obviously slow—we were in lockdown for two years, which is why they are coming on board now—but another three prisons will be built. If people are really serious about cleaning up our streets, getting crime down and supporting victims, they will not vote for this Bill. Prison places are either here or on their way. The Prisons Minister has said he thinks that only a third of prisoners should be in prison and that two thirds of them should be out on the street. That is why I say that this Bill is about ideology over logic and over the public.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I think ownership of trees and people taking responsibility for their trees is essential. In this instance, it was the local council—they were on public land—but the hon. Member is quite right that they could also be on private land. We know, too, that there have been large drives to plant trees, particularly after the two world wars, so we can age them. The Carrs in Wilmslow was bought by the council and established as a park in 1935 and, logically, there will be a record of when those trees were planted in the park. Those are quantifiable numbers that allow a methodological approach to inspections. Without providing such structure to a maintenance strategy, cases of concern can slip through the net.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I will indeed. The Minister too, might like to look at where best practice is happening across the country, because that is what we are looking to achieve. Since working with Fiona, I have heard at first hand from individuals who have tried to report trees in imminent danger of falling, only to have their urgent complaints lost among other correspondence. Inevitably, such trees end up falling, and people have been injured in those circumstances. The excuse that there was too much correspondence and that the council could not deal with the reports does not really wash. This is not unique to Cheshire East council. The court heard that five or six people die every year from falling branches or trees. This year alone, we have seen similar deaths caused by falling trees in Southend-on-Sea in June, West Didsbury in August and Blackpool only last month. Last Saturday my husband went to pick up a friend from Wilmslow train station. He drove through Ashley on the way there. On the way back he could not come along the same road because during that journey a tree had collapsed right across the road and he had to take a detour. Trees collapsing is not an infrequent occurrence. Each case that I have mentioned might have been avoided if the tree had been maintained adequately. In 2025 there is no excuse. We have a wealth of technology at our disposal: drones, microprobes or other advanced tools that make maintenance inspections more effective and efficient. We hear often about budgetary constraints preventing councils carrying out their maintenance duty, but preventive work is cost-effective. Legal fines, like Cheshire East’s £500,000, are far more costly than routine inspections. Cheshire and Warrington have voted to set up a new mayoral structure costing millions of pounds to establish and millions of pounds to run annually. It seems the Government and councils can find money for pet projects and devolved Mayors across the country and yet routine work, the most basic of maintenance, is forgone at the first sign of financial strain when it should always be a council’s priority.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of issuing guidance on tree maintenance to local authorities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Trees—beautiful, majestic and an enhancement to an area—are one of the most visible aspects of our scenery in the UK, yet their sheer size makes their maintenance essential for public safety. Sadly, on public land, the reality is that this work is seldom done and, as we are about to hear today, can lead to devastating consequences. Last year, I met with my constituents Fiona and Sam Hall, whose lives were changed forever in August 2020, when Fiona’s husband and Sam’s father Chris Hall was killed by a decayed tree that was known to be dangerous. Chris had left the house for a routine lunchtime dog walk on what was a warm and calm summer’s day. He took that walk in The Carrs in Wilmslow, a local park popular with residents. While on his walk, the limb of a decayed 130-year-old tree of 22 tonnes fell and hit Chris, killing him instantly. Chris was, by all accounts, a life force for good—someone who “loved life and life loved him.” His wife Fiona described their passion for simple things—spending their time cooking together and walking their dog. Chris’s son Sam shared how much he missed everything about his father—his laughter, his wisdom and the adventures they shared together. The loss of a loved one is a tragedy by any measure, but Chris’s death was senseless and preventable. Cheshire East council, responsible for the tree, knew it was unsafe. A year earlier, another limb had fallen off the same tree. Ansa Environmental Services, the council’s contractor responsible for tree maintenance, found the tree had significant structural defects and recommended it be crowned, but nothing was done. The tree was not crowned, and no action was taken to mitigate its risk or warn the public of the dangers that that tree presented. When the case went to court, it was clear that the responsibility for the incident lay with Cheshire East, and after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, the council pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 in November 2024. The investigation found that since its creation in 2009, Cheshire East council had no formal tree maintenance strategy. The council agreed, following the court case, to develop a tree strategy and partnership with an arborist chosen by the Hall family. The council implemented its tree management strategy in 2021. However, despite this tragedy, and others we have heard about through the news and in the newspapers of late, there still appears to be a legislative gap, and tree maintenance across the country continues to be ad hoc. Although councillors are required to ensure public safety, there is no statutory duty on them to carry out regular inspections of trees on public land. Regulatory maintenance work is voluntary, and the extent to which councils inspect trees is left to their own discretion. When budgets are tight, maintenance is often the first thing to fall by the wayside. However, maintenance by councils must be a priority—and, in this case, tree maintenance. To address this, Fiona is now campaigning for Chris’s law, which would require councils to maintain a register of high-risk trees identified by location, species and age, legislating for those trees to be inspected on a regular basis. This is not all trees, but a targeted approach that is manageable for councils and presents a cost-effective solution. As beautiful as trees are, like us, they have a lifespan and a life expectancy. As they get old, they become sick and weak, can decay and get disease. It is a predictable life cycle. Some examples of common trees in the UK include birches, which tend to live for 50 to 70 years; beeches, 150 to 200 years; and oaks and sycamores, which can last for 200 to 300 years. But they all have a life expectancy. Therefore, it is safe to say that after a certain age, trees need to be inspected.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  As I started the debate today I said how magnificent and majestic trees can add to an area. I agree with the hon. Member. We have to look after something that so enhances the beauty of our country. I spend an increasing amount of my time battling with my local council about the most basic of maintenance work that needs to be done now. Drains being unblocked, roads being repaired and rivers dredged all feed into, when maintenance is not done properly, a bigger and more costly problem. I am sure many Members will share that experience. Maintenance must be a council’s priority, especially when it comes to the danger of trees. Too often local councillors treat maintenance work as a box-ticking exercise—a quick fix to get someone off their case while the future consequences of a bodged repair job or no repair job are not considered. Maintenance work is essential. It is not a “nice to have” or a nice little addition. It is essential. As we have seen, if it is not done, it has tragic consequences. In the four weeks since Fiona launched the campaign for Chris’s law, 35,000 signatures have been gathered and the campaign has caught the attention of the media, too, from BBC Breakfast to BBC Radio 5 Live, and regional channels such as BBC North West and ITV Granada Reports. There is a mindshare among the public and the media that incidents of collapsing trees should not be occurring. Trees are a vital part of our daily lives, bringing many benefits to the environment and our wellbeing. Governments have spent millions of pounds planting trees, with the current Government pledging £800 million for this. But such an increase must be underpinned by a commitment to maintain the trees properly.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I will be asking the Minister for a meeting. This is specifically about older, ancient, decaying and dangerous trees, but I am quite sure the Minister will be considering all kinds of tree preservation, including during the early years. When people walk through The Carrs now, they can find a memorial for Chris: a hand-carved wooden sculpture erected by his family in his memory. Visitors can scan a QR code to learn about Chris and the need for improved tree maintenance. It is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred and a testament to Fiona’s and Sam’s determination to use their profound grief to fight for change. We owe it to them to work collaboratively for this cause and push for clear standards for local authorities that cannot be skirted or sidelined. The issue extends far beyond Chris. We know that trees have a lifespan, and when and where they have been planted. Without maintenance work on these trees, there will be other tragic cases like Chris’s. In closing, I thank the Minister for her time and ask whether she will meet Fiona and me to discuss Chris’s law, the best way forward and steps to resolve this issue, and work with us on a meaningful legislative change to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister cares passionately and knows a lot about this issue. Would she meet me and my constituent so that we can discuss Chris’s law?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I call Tom Gordon.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they need to be here for the start of the debate and to bob if they wish to be called to speak. A lot of Members wish to speak. If everyone keeps to a maximum of five minutes, we should get everybody in.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Is it a point of order? I remind Members that it is down to the Member speaking whether to accept interventions. I will listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and we will decide whether it is one.