Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will enter the great parliamentary ice cream competition and say that Cheshire, of course, does the best ice cream. Given the huge riches in the Premier League, should there not be a greater expectation that more money flows down into grassroots football and non-league clubs such as Knutsford FC and Witton Albion in my constituency, which work unbelievably hard just to stay afloat? I say that especially as so many Premier League footballers live just up the road from the two clubs.

• 8 May 2025 · St George’s Day and English Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on bringing this debate to the House. I am delighted to join Members from across the House in celebrating St George’s day and English affairs, for it is only right that we take the time to celebrate our history, our heritage and our national character, to reflect on what it means to be English, and to come together in unity and pride. I fondly recall marking St George’s day last year as a Minister in Downing Street, where we hosted an event that brought together business leaders, charities, veterans, community leaders and voluntary organisations—outstanding members of the community who all play a vital role in our country. It reminded me just how proud we should be of our country. We must take pride in our history in order to instil the richness of our culture and our values in the next generation, and to reclaim what Britishness means to us all. For a small country, we have well and truly punched above our weight. We have defended the world not once, but twice, in two world wars—something that must never be forgotten. Before this debate, we rightly marked the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day over in Westminster Abbey. The great-great-grandson of Sir Winston Churchill lit the candle of peace 80 years on from Sir Winston’s famous speech, in which he told the nation that the war had ended. Like so many other Members, we will leave the House straight after this debate to go back to our constituencies. I will be going to Comberbach in Tatton to share in the VE Day celebrations this evening. As we reflect and commemorate VE Day, we must ask ourselves one crucial question: have we lived up to the example set by those great patriotic individuals who fought and died to protect our freedoms and give us peace? For peace and freedoms do not just happen; they are fought for. In pondering that question—and we may have different answers—we need to rethink what our duty is to one another and to our country, to make sure that we do stand up for those same freedoms today, and to protect the legacy of those who stood before us and made the ultimate sacrifice, for we cannot and must not cower to those who deny our great past, or be traduced by those who are embarrassed or who denounce it. The voice of the right-minded majority must remind those detractors of what we stand for and what we have given the world. Our great country was the cradle of the industrial revolution, and the birthplace of the computer and the internet. We gave the world football, rugby and cricket. We discovered gravity and evolution, and we eradicated smallpox. We have produced literary geniuses such as Shakespeare, Dickens and the Brontës, great composers from Elgar to Britten and, from my home town, the Beatles—those four lads who took music to the world. We have produced artists such as Constable, Turner and, yes, even Banksy. Innovation and entrepreneurialism are in our country’s DNA, and that must be remembered and continued. I know that our English character is to be stoical—to find a queue and wait patiently in it—and not to brag. In fact, we would rather hide our light under a bushel than extol our virtues, but now is not the time for that. In an era of speed and fast communications, when facts can be lost and fake becomes real, we need to remember who we are and what we have given to the world. We are a positive voice in an ever-more complicated and dangerous world, and we need to take heed of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which rightly celebrate their national days. We must do the same, too. Let us be clear: it is time for the majority of law-abiding, hard-working and patriotic people of England to have their say, to stand up for our values—the values of honour, courage, faith and freedom, which have stood the test of time—and to sing with one voice that we are proud of England, proud of Great Britain and proud to be British. We need to take on the mantle of St George, the warrior saint who is the patron saint of England, as a symbol of strength, conviction and righteous purpose, who reminds us that our nation has never been afraid to stand up for what is right. In the Chamber where I am delivering this speech, and where we have all spoken so positively today, let me say that I am very proud, as I know we all are, to serve in this Parliament. It is the mother of Parliaments, and the heart of a thriving democracy that has been the model for so many other countries around the world. Let us speak with one voice, with pride and unity, and say clearly and unapologetically that we are proud to be English, we are proud of our past, and we believe in our future. Today we stand together to celebrate what makes us all English, to celebrate that we are all British and to remember, today of all days, victory in Europe.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for saying that. I hope he too shares my delight that Liverpool is top of the football division as well. We all should share a love of this country, and we should all want the best for this country. I too want a safe country, so it is vital that the money goes to the police and the police forces to ensure that happens, and not on increased tax bills. That is why I am asking for this ham-fisted tax increase to be reversed.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe that the MHRA has taken such action. We are probably still waiting for it. Hopefully, that will come out. People are also either not getting compensation quickly enough or not receiving compensation that is commensurate with the illness and damage caused to them. It is worth noting what happened when The Daily Telegraph reported on the potential causal link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots in March 2021. The journalist who wrote the story received a threatening call from the MHRA warning that The Telegraph would be banned from future briefings and press notices if it did not soften the news—an extremely defensive approach for an agency whose No. 1 strategic objective is to maintain public trust through transparency and proactive communication. Does that sound like an agency that is doing its best to maintain public trust, let alone patient safety? It is clear that the system does not work. We have good evidence that suspected adverse reactions are under-reported, but what about the ones that are reported? We know from freedom of information requests that the MHRA does not have a process for investigating and following up individual yellow card reports. We know that the retrieval of follow-up information from the yellow card database still requires manual extraction and that only 54% of deaths reported as possibly linked to exposure to one of the covid-19 vaccines were followed up by the MHRA. That is extremely worrying or, as Matt Hancock infamously described it in a 2021 WhatsApp message, “shonky”. The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, replied to that message by saying that the system “needs to get better”. Another long-standing problem with the MHRA is its lack of transparency. Take FOIs to the agency as an example. Between 2008 and 2017, only 41% of requests were successful. In 2021, 76% were answered outside the 20-working-day statutory response time. A culture of delay and secrecy has emerged, and MHRA’s behaviour around the Commission on Human Medicines meetings for the covid-19 vaccine benefit risk expert working group show that beyond any doubt. Minutes of the meetings were published just last month, four years after they took place—why the delay? They are stuffed full of redactions that leave us with many more questions than answers, particularly as to why the new vaccines were continually described as safe and effective. In the meeting on 18 November 2020, the expert working group asks if Pfizer was “required to respond to the 36 questions asked by MHRA”. In response, the MHRA confirmed that “there is no formal obligation to reply”. Why is there no formal obligation to reply? Surely it is essential, when making such an important decision as to whether to allow a new vaccine to be rolled out to the nation, to have those replies. The minutes do not specify the 36 questions. Indeed, they do not appear to have been mentioned again. I asked a written question last week to see whether, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the MHRA would publish those questions and any answers received from Pfizer. The response was that the MHRA does not intend to publish those questions or any subsequent responses. Why not? Is this not a matter of public interest? Those issues were not resolved before the MHRA gave the green light to start the vaccination of the nation. Particularly worrying is the issue of lymphopenia, where blood does not have enough white blood cells, which was reported in phase 1 of the trials and then went away—not because they fixed the problem, but because testing for the condition was not conducted in phases 2 or 3. In summary, the failure to act on the weaknesses of the MHRA will lead only to more harm and further damage to the public’s trust in the pharmaceuticals agency and those tasked with regulating it. My hope is that the debate will help bring those wide-ranging issues further to light and focus the Minister’s mind on finding solutions. I will end on the words of Dr Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford: “You cannot support both secrecy and vaccination. Requesting data is not a sign of being against drugs or vaccines; it shows that you favour transparency. Those who try to keep data confidential and criticise those who ask for evidence are anti an evidence-based approach. How can you have informed consent if you do not know precisely what is happening?”