Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2025 · Fly-tipping: Tatton · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered fly-tipping in Tatton constituency. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this matter. Hardly a week goes by without someone contacting my office about the scourge of fly-tipping, and I am sure that is an experience shared by many hon. Members. The name fly-tipping belies the seriousness of the issue: it is a grave matter of someone dumping their waste on someone else’s land. That person has not bothered to dispose of the waste properly and so they think they will dump it on somebody else’s land. The problems it causes cannot be overestimated. I want to focus on the impact on local communities and consider what practical measures can be taken to ensure the problem does not continue to grow. This is not a new problem—fly-tipping has plagued communities for years—but it is a growing problem. In 2023-24, local authorities in England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents, a 6% increase on the previous year, and I have heard that that is rising even further. Hon. Members will be aware that under current provisions, small-scale fly-tipping on public land is the responsibility of local authorities, while larger-scale fly-tipping falls under the responsibility of the Environment Agency and on private land the responsibility generally falls to the landowner to remove somebody else’s waste. Statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that in 2023-24 the most common size category for fly-tipping incidents was equivalent to a small vanload, making up 31% of incidents, followed by the equivalent of a car boot load or less, which accounted for 28%. Whether beside a road, in a car park, on a public footpath or in open fields, we have all seen it. I share the frustration and upset felt by residents at the impact that dumping rubbish, no matter how big or small, has on their communities. Fly-tipping is rising across Tatton, from household rubbish to dumped tyres on Crowders Lane, Lach Dennis; waste on the side of the A556 at Lostock Gralam towards Plumley; household items such as mattresses on Holmes Chapel Road, Allostock; and waste dumped in the woodlands of Broad Lane, Sproston, the Sainsbury’s car park in Wilmslow and the Marston playground. That list is growing. The process to report fly-tipping to local councils is unnecessarily difficult, requiring excessive back-and-forth communication. For example, when I reported a fly-tipping incident on School Lane, Pickmere late last year, it turned out to be a veritable ping-pong of emails between departments and then a trawl of website pages just to report the incident. Only last month, I met residents from Colshaw Farm in Wilmslow, who lamented the whole process. They are now seeing an increase in fly-tipping, which has become a regular occurrence, and they have to use this system all the time. Those people, who are proud of their local community, want to keep their community tidy, but thoughtless, reckless people dump rubbish in their area.

• 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?”

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the many colleagues from across the House who supported my application for it, especially the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), and also the hon. Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines used in the UK. Its job is to oversee medical products, medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion. The responsibility it has is extremely important, as it comes with the potential not only to change people’s lives for the better, but to cause serious harm—even death—if poor decisions are made or safety signals are missed. The MHRA is required to scrutinise applications from the pharmaceutical companies for new products and devices and to remain ever vigilant over existing drugs should safety problems arise post-authorisation. It has to weigh up the arguments for and against these products and devices. After all, the companies trying to get these products on to the market—and to keep them there—are driven, as all industries are, by commercial success. It is up to the MHRA to balance that with the health and safety of the UK and the public. Alarm bells rang for many of us when, in March 2022, Dame June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, boasted of the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler. Twenty years ago, the Health Committee report, “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”, found that the MHRA was unusual in being one of the few European agencies “funded entirely by fees derived from services to industry”. Not much has changed since, with the MHRA continuing to get 75% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In this context, the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler does little to quell suspicions of conflicts and the implications that has for patient safety. One of the most worrying issues is the MHRA’s mismanagement of the yellow card system. Established in 1964, the system is a way for patients, relatives and healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs or medical devices. The reporting scheme should be a valuable source of information about possible harms, and act as an early warning system, but there is gross under-reporting to it. As the IMMDS’s 2020 review put it, the system is “too complex and too diffuse to allow early signal detection.” Under-reporting is a big problem because it makes it difficult to spot safety signals and assign causation. That then translates into unnecessary harm or death, with devastating side effects from treatment going unnoticed for years, months or even decades. That was recognised by the IMMDS review led by Baroness Cumberlege in the case of Primodos, sodium valproate and surgical mess—I meant to say mesh, though perhaps the word should have been “mess.” According to research from Bangor University in 2019, potentially avoidable adverse drug reactions cost the NHS £2.2 billion a year in hospital admissions. In 2018, the MHRA estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2% and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. More recently, it has claimed that reporting rates for covid vaccines are better due to higher public awareness, but it has not been able to point to published evidence to back up that claim. The yellow card is currently a voluntary scheme that doctors and members of the public can report to, but I echo calls from the Sling the Mesh campaign and others for the UK to follow the example of Denmark and Sweden by making it mandatory for all healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions. Let me turn to the MHRA’s failure to act promptly on evidence of adverse reactions. We have seen that historically. For example, sodium valproate was known to cause harm to unborn babies in the 1980s, yet the MHRA did not establish a valproate pregnancy prevention plan until 2018. The known harms to unborn babies were allowed to persist for over 30 years. More recently, in 2021, the MHRA reacted slowly to strong signals that there was a serious problem with the AstraZeneca vaccine causing an autoimmune condition called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Denmark and other European countries suspended the vaccine for all age groups on 11 March 2021. The MHRA, by contrast, only started to restrict the vaccine in some age groups nearly two months later, on 7 May—yet there was a signal in the yellow card reports as early as 8 February. How many people were needlessly exposed to a risk?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, as would all Members, that we want excellent standards for all schools. One idea that the Conservative Government had was that if a school was failing, new management would go in to increase standards, yet the Secretary of State wants to dismantle that. I would call that vandalism of our education system.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Suicide and Mental Health of Young People: Tatton · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of suicide and mental health of young people in Tatton constituency. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I would like to convey my appreciation to the Minister for replying to this extremely important and sensitive debate on the management of withdrawal from antidepressant medication, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and the profound impact that that process can have on the mental health and suicide risk of young people. I would like to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to my constituent, Gina Russell, who met me and bravely shared the experience of her daughter, Olivia, who tragically took her life in September 2021, following withdrawal from SSRI medication. Olivia’s mum is unable to be with us in Westminster Hall today. However, I know that she and her family are watching this debate at home, as they are determined to help prevent others having to suffer the same fate as Olivia. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the charities Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide, as well as to The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition and the House of Commons Library for the information provided to me before this debate. While the information was insightful, it was deeply disturbing, as it revealed that Olivia’s experience of declining mental health as medication was withdrawn was far from unique and was a known risk, which made me determined to pursue this debate on behalf of her family and thus bring Olivia’s story and her family’s suffering to a wider audience. Let me start by painting a picture of Olivia, who was an intelligent, creative and hard-working 25-year-old who had just left Tatton to live in London. Her parents remember her as wonderful and vibrant—a loving daughter and a loving younger sister to her brother, Luke; a cherished and adored granddaughter; and a loyal, kind and supportive friend. She lit up a room and was admired by all who knew and loved her. In November 2020, during the pandemic, Olivia became anxious. She began taking an SSRI—citalopram—to manage her anxiety. Initially, Olivia responded well to treatment. However, when the time came to discontinue the medication in June 2021, she experienced a rapid decline in her mental health, which was far worse than what she had previously faced. She then resumed SSRI treatment in August 2021, finally taking her life in September 2021. When she first came off her medication it was without consulting her GP, because she was feeling better. She should have been warned about stopping taking the antidepressant. The family was later to discover that citalopram is one of the most difficult antidepressants to come off. Tragically, the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that between a third and half of people who take antidepressant medications experience withdrawal symptoms to some extent. The severity and duration of these symptoms, and whom they affect, is not certain. In Olivia’s case, the withdrawal symptoms were severe and the resulting deterioration in her mental state ultimately led to her taking her own life. Members should bear in mind that suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people under 35 in the UK, and the mental health of young people has declined alarmingly in recent years.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. I know time is tight, so I will keep to a couple of very specific points. One such point is on the Government’s plans to add VAT to private schools and how that will affect SEND provision. My first question to the Minister is this: what impact assessment did the Government carry out, with regard to the VAT changes to private schools, of the effect on children with special educational needs and on SEND school places? If the Government have done an impact assessment, will they publish it, and if they did not, why on earth not? I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer that question here and now, but I see the officials are in the room behind her, so I am happy for that to be sent to me. As I understand it, the Government policy is not to impose VAT on private school places where the school place is allocated on the basis of an EHCP. However, there will be very many children with special educational needs who have not yet secured such a plan, and so VAT will apply.

• 5 Sept 2024 · SEND Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. We know that families have to go through a rigorous set of tests to obtain an EHCP, often ending in an appeal or taking many weeks to be finalised. In those cases where the plan has not been finalised, parents will have to make the difficult decision whether to send their child to an independent school. In those instances there will be a significant uplift in those pupils’ fees—a massive worry for parents. Some will now no longer be able to afford the fees. We can only imagine their guilt and concern. What are they going to do? Will they have to stop their child’s progress at that school? Will the child need to leave that school? How can it be fair that a child who is delayed in the education, health and care plan process, through no fault of their own, faces VAT costs, while another child who has secured their EHCP in time does not have that burden? Could the Minister explain that unfairness that the Government have now introduced into the system, and whether they plan to put a stop to it as soon as possible? In light of that unfairness, I urge the Government to look at what steps can be taken to reduce the time that the assessments for an EHCP take, more generally. There are three local authorities in my constituency, all of which consistently go beyond the legal timeframe. I asked Cheshire West SEND accountability group for parents how long the EHCP process takes. Legally, it should take only 20 weeks, but some have waited more than 60 weeks. Anecdotally, they say on average it is taking 30 to 50 weeks—