Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2026 · Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain why the Government see fit to ban new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North sea—which would have provided the UK with energy security, affordability, reliability and tax revenue—while buying oil from Russia, which is a betrayal of UK citizens and Ukrainian citizens, and playing into Putin’s hands?

• 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?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  We are removing advertising for regulated, licensed gambling. Illegal gambling is now so large globally that, if it were an economy, it would be smaller only than that of America and China—that is how big the gambling black market has got.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not right to say that we cannot regulate the black economy, so what the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) is saying is not possible?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister said today, “I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible.” He is right: we do—along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister was given a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office, which told him several reasons why Peter Mandelson should not be appointed, including that he was fired twice from Government, had business dealings in Russia and China, and had maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who instigated it and who does so much in this area. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing the debate, and you, Mr Betts, for chairing it. Styal prison, in my constituency of Tatton, is a closed female prison and young offenders institution with approximately 450 prisoners. Violence levels there have increased significantly: 189 assaults on staff and 167 assaults between prisoners were reported in the 12 months to March 2025. That, in itself, tells us that greater protection must be afforded to prison staff. In one horrific incident, a prison officer in Styal, Chloe Armstrong, was left with a tennis ball-sized lump in the back of her head, a swollen face and black eyes after she was repeatedly kicked and punched for just delivering a prisoner’s lunch. What a horrific attack as a thank you for a lunch. Nationally, violence against prison staff is up. Assaults against prison staff have almost trebled in the last decade. In the 12 months to March 2025, there were more than 10,500 assaults on staff, a record high: 26% involved improvised weapons, while the rest involved blunt force or liquids such as hot oil or boiling water. It should come as no surprise that the rate of prison officers leaving each year is more than 13%—a very turnover rate that no doubt leads to understaffed facilities and further exacerbates the safety risks to both staff and prisoners. The reality is that life as a prison officer, even at the best of times, is extremely challenging. They must confront and contain unthinkable situations almost daily. To do the job, they must possess a level of bravery that most of us simply do not have. But to do the job without proper protective gear is beyond belief. If staff do not feel safe at work, it will be hard to attract and retain new employees. We know from a recent survey of officers by the POA, the largest union of prison workers, that officers want extra protection. Who wouldn’t? Some 74% want to be issued with slash and bite-proof vests. Yes, the Government have made body armour mandatory for officers working with the most dangerous offenders, and the news last year that 10,000 more officers in high-security facilities would get stab vests and tasers was greatly welcome, but the Minister should not be surprised that with the increase in violence against staff, I and other Members would like to see the Government go further. Protective equipment and clothing should be provided irrespective of the category of prison. Sadly, violence can happen in all types of prison. Figures from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons consistently show that local prisons, which are mostly category B rather than A—the high-security ones—have extremely high numbers of assaults. Although the lower categories of C and D have less violence, the risk can still be considerable, and it is rising. I will end by quoting the retired prison officer Claire Lewis, who was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. She was brutally stabbed in the back while on duty—an entirely preventable incident that left her with life-changing injuries. Claire said: “Protective clothing is not a luxury—it’s a basic necessity. It can mean the difference between an officer walking out of their shift or being carried out. Prison officers deserve to feel safe.” I have just read—this must really be a slap in the face for prison officers—that killers and terrorists have just got £1 million in compensation, plus legal fees, for being segregated alone in a prison, which was viewed as unlawful and in breach of their human rights. Surely money cannot be spent on violent criminals for their human rights when we are not looking after the human rights of our officers, who are there to protect and look after those prisoners, and who do such a good job for us in society.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The sad truth is that the Chancellor weakened the UK economy with her tax-busting Budgets and jobs tax, and that has been exposed by this middle east crisis. The Energy Secretary’s actions are making things worse: he has just refused to maximise drilling in the North sea and issue new licences, which would provide much-needed energy security and affordability. Will she now see sense and overrule the Energy Secretary’s decisions?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East Conflict: Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Given the recent jump in the price of oil, would it not be good for the UK economy, jobs and the Government’s tax receipts to maximise drilling for North sea oil, as Norway does, rather than phasing it out and closing those sites down because of this Government’s, and in particular the Secretary of State’s, left-wing dogma?

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

  More

  It is always good to have my hon. Friend—and I do call him my hon. Friend—intervene on me. He makes very good points. It is also important that a local GP chooses, and can see what their local constituents require and what is best for their health outcomes. The move to a new model based on deprivation rather than workload is, at best, an act of ignorance that fails to acknowledge the significant challenges of running GP practices in rural areas; at worst, it represents yet another example of Labour’s assault on rural life. Measuring pressures on GPs solely through the lens of deprivation would ignore the complex, distinct demands faced by rural practices. Rural communities have older populations. In 2019, the House of Lords Rural Economy Select Committee found that the average age in rural areas was almost six years higher than in urban areas, and a quarter of the rural population were over the age of 65.

• 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.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called. We will go to the Front-Bench speakers at about 3.30 pm. I am aware we are expecting a vote, which might come as early as 3.30 pm; I will obviously suspend the sitting when that happens.

• 21 Jan 2026 · UK Wine Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It’s nearly over!

• 21 Jan 2026 · UK Wine Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Tristan Osborne to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe the evidence proves that. We can look to other parts of the world where that was not the case. This policy had unwavering and enthusiastic support from across the House, with just a few of us in this House —too few—raising valid concerns, but we were shut down. It should be obvious that some people cannot be damaged in the name of protecting others with interventions such as lockdowns that we do not even know will work. The moral mathematics never added up. And now we must live with the consequences of what we did. We spent in the region of £400 billion on the covid-19 response—a vast sum that will be clawed back through increased taxation and hardship for generations to come. Of course, the Conservative party had to put up taxes to pay for that £400 billion, and it was voted for by pretty much every Member in the House. For me, such a statist, socialist intervention would never work, and that is proving to be the case. Those businesses that did manage to survive after everything that was thrown at them in the name of covid are now having to face more gloom and doom from this socialist Government in charge of our country, with their two tax-rising Budgets and their removal of business rates relief without understanding it—

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am concluding my remarks. I am pleased to have been able to speak today as one of a handful of 650 MPs who stood by “the Forgotten Ltd” and by many of our constituents whose businesses went out of business. I was one of the few in the House who stood up for them. Finally, as Professor Sunetra Gupta said, this was like taking a hammer to a fly on a pane of glass: you might or might not kill the fly, but you definitely shatter the window. It will take us a long time to pick up the pieces. Next time we face a similar crisis, let us not panic and reach for the hammer.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I added on that sentence because I felt it was very relevant that those who did manage to survive the pandemic are now not surviving, because of the extra taxes that are being put upon them and the removal of business rates relief that was introduced during covid, and it seems that the Chancellor does not even know how that works. Those businesses are suffering twofold, because some of that covid benefit is now being removed. It is no wonder Labour MPs are being banned from pubs, as we see mass closures of pubs. I simply ask that we examine the bigger picture. Those 3.8 million people who were excluded from financial support suffered a terrible injustice, but so too did those who received support, because lockdown took from everyone: children denied education; mothers forced to give birth alone; people suffering heart attacks, strokes and sepsis but too frightened to burden the NHS; bereaved families unable to mourn the dead—the list of injustices goes on and on. None of it should ever have happened. The costs were always going to be too high, and worse, there appears to be no evidence that lockdown prevented covid infections. The covid inquiry recently made two incredible assertions. One was that lockdowns were harmful but should have started earlier, and the other was that the modelling should not have been used to justify major policy but simultaneously proved that 23,000 lives could have been saved. Finally, lockdown was, as Professor Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford said—

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is no doubt that the hardship affecting families, businesses and communities as a result of covid-19 policies is ongoing. The depth of suffering is hard to read about. People have been pushed to their limits, mentally and financially, and have had to endure indignity and injustice through no fault of their own. I hope that we can now all agree that it should never have happened. It is something that we never want to see happen again. The various Government financial support schemes that were set up helped many people, but for the forgotten businesses and individuals who, for one bureaucratic reason or another, were deemed ineligible, the situation was patently unfair and unjust. Some 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from support, while the rest of the working population were paid to stay at home. Why were they excluded? The reasons were arbitrary. Financial support was not forthcoming if a person was newly self-employed, a PAYE freelancer, a director paid in dividends, starting a new job—the list goes on. The rules were random and confusing, and they pushed so many people into desperate situations. Sadly, we should not have been surprised that that happened. Although some marvelled at the speedy roll-out of the Government’s schemes, the reality was that they were patchy, poorly thought out and full of gaps—of course they were. How could we ever expect to shut down our society and economy and be able to cover the gigantic financial cost of doing so while ensuring that every person was properly looked after? It was unrealistic —an unprecedented state intervention that was doomed to fail. I totally agree with Members present who are pushing for assurances that that will never happen again, but if we cannot look back with honesty and clarity about what was done, we are doomed to make the same mistakes again. Lockdown was the mistake from which all that injustice and suffering flowed. It was an unknown and unevidenced imposition that should never have been inflicted upon the British people. Many experts predicted from the start that it would cause misery and, horrifically, cost hundreds of thousands of lives through unintended but very real collateral damage.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from Tatton constituents concerned about careless drivers on country roads and the dangers they pose to horses and riders. Does she share my concern about the changes to planning rules by this Labour Government—a Government who show so little regard for the countryside, as we saw with the family farm tax—under which green belt will disappear and cities will bleed into the countryside, making the roads even more dangerous, city dwellers not understanding the etiquette of country roads?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Low-income Households · Hansard source

  More

  The biggest issue for those on low incomes is losing their jobs. Does the Chancellor believe that there is any link at all between her increase in employer national insurance contributions —her job tax—and employment levels slumping to a 14-year low?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House encourage the Health Secretary to break off from his leadership bid to come to the House for a few minutes to explain what progress is being made on ensuring that Knutsford gets the new medical centre that health professionals, the public and I believe is essential?

• 4 Nov 2025 · HMRC Customer Service · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has justified her lack of a licence for renting out her house as an “inadvertent error”, but HMRC is never prepared to accept that people make inadvertent errors. Will this now change, or does the Chancellor expect to be treated differently from everyone else who makes an inadvertent error?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed. Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated: “Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.” —[ Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.] Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime. Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt “the full force of the law”. —[ Official Report , 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.] The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time: “It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.” My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.