Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point; only then can we root out why people failed to investigate. Was it because of fear of being called racist, or even far right? Why were the cases not investigated? Was it because of a culture of political correctness that has been thriving in some Labour councils, such as in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, and in other agencies, such as the police? They dodged the hard questions. Why? Because they were worried that it might reveal something that did not fit with their ideology of multiculturalism. Shockingly, in her audit last year, Baroness Casey concluded that “Questions about ethnicity have been…dodged for years.” After a six-month wait, the Government responded to the Casey audit, accepting all the recommendations, but six months on from that, and a full year since the audit was published, here we are, still waiting for implementation. Will the Minister update us on that and let us know when we can expect the data to be published? Also, not only has the Government’s official inquiry into grooming gangs moved at a glacial pace, but one of their own—a Labour peer—has been appointed as its chair, and a former council chief executive and a chair of an NHS foundation trust have also been involved as panel members. That is exactly what the survivors expressly said they did not want to happen: the inquiry to be handed over to people from the very institutions under investigation. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has got on with the job, putting the Government to shame with his independent rape gang inquiry, which heard 10 days of evidence in February and which will report its findings next week. I would not say that I was “fortunate enough” to be part of that panel, but when asked to do so, I accepted. Quite honestly, what we were told was horrifying. There were horrendous stories of rape, but it was not just rape—although that is bad enough. Women were tortured—battered, strangled, cut, whipped—until they were close to death, and then brought back around to be raped again. That happened over a sustained period because nobody wanted to believe what these women said when they reached out to the institutions that should have looked after them. Some were reaching out to children’s homes, which were paid thousands of pounds a year to look after them, but they were let down. Why? Because they were white, working-class girls, many of them vulnerable. People did not want to listen to them and would literally call them “white trash”, while allowing others whom they saw as elders in a community to be above reproach, and therefore did not investigate at all. If we are to successfully end these appalling sexual crimes against children, we must fully understand what is happening, and to do that, we need the data. It is not racist to examine the ethnicity of these criminals; nor is it discriminatory to examine their immigration status. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the truth of it is. These awkward conversations must finally be had, and anyone who might be avoiding them because of a self-serving sense of political correctness must now decide to put the safety of children first. This is not a political football, a right-wing bandwagon or a dog-whistle issue. This is about life-altering suffering and abuse of the most shocking kind—suffering and abuse that could have been prevented. The survivors deserve to know the truth about the failings that were allowed to happen. I hope that all of us here today can agree that the only thing that really matters is protecting children, and that we must do everything to put them first.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and for setting the scene so clearly about the many issues faced by people living in park homes. Time is short, so I will speak only about the 10% commission. Back in 2022, I presented a petition to the House calling for annual pitch fee increases for park homes to be linked to consumer price inflation rather than retail price inflation. The petition was signed by 165 residents of Ashwood Park in Wincham, with the support of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and I was pleased that the previous Government enacted that change. It was a simple but meaningful adjustment, as the change to the 10% commission would be. We know that 160,000 people live in park homes. Many of them are retired, and they moved there for affordability, security and a sense of community, but that is not what they are getting. The commission was lowered in 1983 from 15% to 10%, so let me ask the Minister the following questions, because it could be changed again. Who is the call for evidence open to? Are all park home residents able to make a submission? What is the timeline for a decision once the call for evidence has been closed? What assurances can the Minister provide that the decision on reforming the commission charge will be made in a timely way? And is this matter a top priority for the Minister and his Department?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We will come to the Front Bench spokespeople just before 10.30 am.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  If Members will allow me, I would like to congratulate my local rugby club, Lymm rugby club, which last week got the King’s award for voluntary service. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises another good question, and we can ask the Minister to look into that. The logical conclusion of not having GPs from rural areas take part in this review is that the Government do not want to listen to them. They are intent on rewriting the formula without acknowledging the realities of delivering rural healthcare. A broadbrush measure such as deprivation cannot take into consideration the very close link between the ability to deliver healthcare and the rural or urban settings in which GPs exist. It comes as little surprise. Whether selling off our family farms or introducing a devolution agenda that pits rural against urban areas, time and again the Labour Government have shown that they are not willing to listen to rural areas, but are quick to sell out rural Britain at the first chance. As is typical, Labour’s response to pressure is to level down some areas, which serves only to create additional pressures elsewhere, rather than acting to fix them. The pressure faced by rural healthcare will not disappear soon. The NHS long-term workforce plan, published under the previous Government in 2023, recognised that the increased demand from an ageing population is not uniform in the UK. It estimated that “In 2037, a third of people aged over 85 will be living in rural communities” compared with just a quarter now. The Government must act to address that trend. I have been campaigning for a new medical centre in Knutsford, as was acknowledged before, where doctors desperately need more space and modernised facilities to meet patients’ needs. The current surgeries in Knutsford do not do that; they are all Victorian buildings and are not suitable. I have been pressing for that for a long time. I have met with the Minister—I thank her for that—and I would be grateful for an update on the progress of the practice in Knutsford. GP practices deliver community care and their ability to deliver is reliant on the environment in which they serve the patients. We must have a funding formula that acknowledges the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. Who is being consulted in the review, and will it include those with first-hand experience of delivering healthcare in rural settings, like my GPs in Tatton? What assurances can be provided that rurality will remain a factor in a new funding formula? Given the specific challenges they face, will the Department commit to publishing an assessment of the impact on rural communities ahead of any change to the funding formula?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to my surgeries that are indeed in Victorian buildings—spread across four—and need to be brought together and modernised. That is in Knutsford in my constituency. I know that there will be many other places like that across the country. The hon. Member raises a valid and pertinent point. We know that GP services in rural communities are spread across a large geographical area, and many elderly residents in Tatton live alone. Although such independence is cherished, travelling long distances to access healthcare is more difficult. Public transport is often limited or non-existent. Community transport schemes exist in Tatton, but they cannot always accommodate short-notice or urgent medical needs. Often, elderly residents do not drive, so they are left reliant on costly taxis or GP staff taking the time to travel to a patient’s home. That places additional pressures on already stretched services. In Lostock Gralam, despite a population of about 2,800 people, there is no GP practice. That forces patients to make a lengthy journey to Northwich, and without a direct bus service many are left to rely on taxis to make their appointment. For those communities, recruiting and retaining staff becomes more difficult and more expensive. The Rural Services Network reports that 59% of hard-to-recruit GP speciality training posts are located in rural areas. There is less access to specialists and consultants, which makes their services more expensive. Community services and provision are sparser in rural areas, too. Pharmacies, which help to relieve pressure on GPs in urban areas, are not as common in rural areas. When I secured this debate, I was contacted by the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which provides an essential role in dispensing medicines to patients who live more than 1.6 kilometres from a pharmacy. It delivers to about 10 million patients across England, but is facing increasing challenges due to its reliance on manual delivery. In addition, while urban pharmacies move ahead with digital efficiency, rural pharmacies often struggle to keep pace because broadband coverage is often unreliable, rendering remote consultations near impossible and service delivery more difficult. The benefits of digitisation in healthcare are well understood across this House, but they rely entirely on having the right infrastructure in place. Without connectivity, rural practices are simply unable to access or benefit from Government investment in that area. There are lots of people from rural areas here, and we know how unreliable our broadband infrastructure is. In 2022, the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and care published an inquiry into healthcare in rural areas. It concluded: “Rurality and its infrastructure must be redefined to allow a better understanding of how it impinges on health outcomes”. No progress has been made on achieving that. Removing the rurality measure of GPs’ funding entirely would be a step backwards in understanding how settings impact GPs’ ability to provide healthcare. There is little transparency about who exactly will be consulted in the funding model review. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Government confirmed that the review “will draw on a range of evidence and advice from experts,” such as the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and the British Medical Association general practitioners committee, but there is little information beyond that. There are GPs in Tatton who are keen to contribute but, as of yet, have not been able to.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises a very good point indeed. I congratulate his constituents. The pressure that I know the farming community is under and the impact that the family farm tax has had on the mental health of the rural community and farmers has been significant. Life expectancy is longer in rural areas, placing greater demands on GP practices. Statistics published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest that people born in mainly rural areas in 2018 to 2020 were expected to live two and a half years longer than people born in urban areas. Older populations place greater demands on GP surgeries, presenting with complex healthcare needs and higher levels of chronic illness and frailty. The Rural Services Network analysis shows that GP-registered patients over the age of 75 account for 11% of rural GP patients, compared with just 7.5% in urban settings.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate and on the way she recounted such moving and powerful stories. Each story is unique, but they are all united by themes of selflessness, quiet heroism and unwavering commitment to our country. I will pay particular attention to Tatton’s own local photographic reconnaissance unit hero, Flight Sergeant William Douglas Stepford. William was born in Handforth, married his sweetheart Bessie, and joined the RAF Volunteer Reserve. He trained as a navigator and was posted to 540 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron. Sadly, in August 1944, while flying a reconnaissance mission over Munich, William’s aircraft was shot down over Hallstatt. He was just 24 years old. That was alongside his pilot, Flight Lieutenant Desmond Laurence Matthewman, DFC. For so many reconnaissance flights, the missions were carried out in exceptionally difficult circumstances—clandestine, unarmed and often solo flights over enemy territory, which put the individuals in unique danger. The death rate was nearly 50%, with one of the lowest survival rates in the war, but the unit captured 26 million photographs over the course of the war, taken by 1,746 reconnaissance pilots and navigators. The efforts of the unit were essential, and nowhere more so than in the planning of D-day, also known as Operation Overlord, the most significant victory of the allies. That was the most comprehensive reconnaissance operation of the war. In the months before the invasion, low-level reconnaissance flights over Normandy provided critical intelligence about German beach defences and key infrastructure. Without that information, the comprehensive plans for Operation Overlord, and its ultimate success, would not have been possible. Tatton played a unique role in the preparations. The quiet village of Lower Peover played host to many of the great Americans of history, from General George Patton to General Eisenhower—later President Eisenhower, of course. Peover Hall became the headquarters of the vast US third army. In the local pub, the Bells of Peover, Patton and Eisenhower met to discuss plans for the invasion. Today, still, in that pub, in the upstairs dining room—now, aptly, named The Patton—can be found a small pocket diary on display. Spread across the pages for 5 and 6 June 1944, an unknown serviceman wrote in block capitals: “D-day tomorrow. Everybody quite excited. We land at Arromanches, clear three villages of Bayeux.” Last year, on the 80th anniversary of D-day, I was pleased to unveil a blue plaque to mark the pub’s place in history alongside the lord lieutenant of the county of Cheshire, Councillor Anthony Harrison, and the landlord of the pub, Phil Smith, and surrounded by the local community. The plaque serves as a reminder of the unique history of this beautiful village in Cheshire. Surrounding villages also played their part. From the secret aviation fuel plant in Plumley to the home guard at Shakerley Wood and the parachute training school at Tatton Park, each village, each unit and every individual had a role. Without those such as William Stepford putting themselves in the line of danger, the admiralty would not have had the intelligence it needed for operations like D-day. Without them, history would have taken a different course. Alongside Members here today from across the House, I welcome plans for this memorial. I am delighted that planning has already begun, but on this occasion, can I just ask the Minister to give us the full timeframe and completion date for this memorial? It is high time that their legacy is honoured by all of us and the entire country.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible. For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses. Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights. I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages? Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they? Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area. What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow? What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all? The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does. Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process? The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off? The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can? The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints. There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board. I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy? Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability. Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated. The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency? The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move. We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action. I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate. Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community. Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account. Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Condition of Roads: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I completely concur with what my hon. Friend and neighbour has said about Cheshire West and Cheshire, but the roads in Cheshire East are a disgrace. As for the money—the £53 million that my hon. Friend mentioned—I have tried to get to the bottom of where that money has been spent. In fact, I have had to resort to freedom of information requests to find out where Cheshire East is spending the money—the council supposedly does not know the location, the area or the postcode; it has merely a job number. I find that hard to understand, because how do the council tell the contractors where to go? Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this money is being spent neither properly nor fairly across the council area?