Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The inquiry should not delay that, but the inquiry needs to be done with speed and haste, not be watered down and not brushed under the carpet, because it is essential that the victims’ voices are heard and that they have justice. The House also needs assurance there will be no exemptions from prosecution in exchange for evidence. It needs to know if witnesses can be compelled to produce documents protected by public interest immunity. When will that happen? It is not good enough that the Home Secretary was saying that it would be three years away, close to a general election. It needs to be done as soon as possible. I also wonder why it will be a statutory inquiry, not a criminal inquiry. Is it because a criminal inquiry can lead to arrest, charges and criminal prosecutions, whereas a statutory inquiry tends to make a series of recommendations to then be acted on? At the end of this inquiry, will we see prosecutions? Will we see deportations? Time and again, we heard that community cohesion was put above working-class girls. That cannot ever happen again. That issues were not investigated for fear of people being labelled racist cannot ever happen again. If somebody does wrong, the colour of their skin or their religion do not matter: they have done wrong. If they have committed a criminal act it is right that they are brought to justice. This Government will not get away with a watered-down national inquiry. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to deliver a national inquiry. That national inquiry needs to be delivered.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clause 144, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). On Monday, the Government hastily came to the House to deliver yet another U-turn and to announce a national inquiry into rape gangs. It is apparent that this U-turn was forced on them, because whenever any member of the public or Member of Parliament said that they wanted a national inquiry, the response from the Government was that they were “far right”, “jumping on a bandwagon” or even blowing a “dog whistle”—those were the words used by Ministers on the Front Bench. This was a hasty U-turn. In fact, those on the Government Front Bench were somewhat taken aback, as it appears that the Prime Minister had appointed Baroness Casey of Blackstock in the hope that the whole thing would go away and that the inquiry would not happen. She said that she changed her mind because of the weight of evidence that confronted her. Her words were, “I think I have surprised people in Downing Street and beyond.” She did, and the clincher was that the local inquiries were inadequate, because local authorities could decide whether they were going to commission an inquiry and the Government would not intervene. She also said that of the five local inquiries, only one came forward—that was in Oldham. There was reluctance from local areas to face up to the facts and to accept their failings. Denial ran through absolutely everything. Denial is like a poisonous thread: it weaves its way through all public bodies, strangles the truth and stops justice coming forward. It is essential that an investigation is held into all the failings of the police, local authorities, prosecutors, charities and political parties. The Prime Minister himself was in denial until Saturday, when the U-turn was forced upon him. He often brandishes his credentials as the former director of public prosecutions, and in 2014 he penned an article for the Guardian in which he acknowledged that there were at least 1,400 victims, but he did nothing until the U-turn was forced upon him. We need to ask questions about the statutory inquiry, because the public need to know the answers. Who will chair the inquiry? What type of inquiry will it be? It already seems to have been watered down. Will it be independent, a national inquiry or, as it now seems, a national commission? What are the terms of reference? It is not good enough to say that we will hear “in due course”. What are the inquiry’s powers? That is unclear. Will there be judicial powers to subpoena people to give evidence?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Oh no!

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Violent Offenders: Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Act 2020, otherwise known as Helen’s law, should prevent the early release of murderers who do not disclose the location of their victims’ remains. However, there are loopholes in the law in cases where the murderer makes a disclosure but no remains are found, as happened in the case of Jean Taylor’s daughter, Chantel. Will the Minister meet me and Jean Taylor, who founded the charity Families Fighting for Justice, to close those loopholes?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?

• 12 May 2025 · Protection of Prison Staff · Hansard source

  More

  Surely as a minimum, any prisoner who assaults a prison officer should automatically forfeit any right to early release and all privileges. Does the Minister agree? If so, when will he introduce that change? If not, why not?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed. Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system. This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce “an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.” I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.

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

  More

  That could well be a solution, or at least part of the solution. This issue impacts Members across the House, and I know that the Minister will have some thoughtful responses and will take that into consideration. We need to use all tools at our disposal to stop fly-tipping. My residents are gravely upset about what goes on. Sometimes, no sooner have they cleared up the mess than it is back, and it keeps reappearing. Residents of Colshaw Farm tell me that what adds to the problem is that, particularly of late, the local council is not maintaining the area: grass is not being cut, verges are becoming overgrown and broken streetlights are not being mended. That can make matters worse by attracting people to the area; they think that they can tip under cover of darkness or hide their rubbish in overgrown grass or bushes. That needs to be resolved to remove their ability to do those things. Repairing streetlights and cutting grass and hedges are not complex matters to solve. We could all make sure that they are resolved. The Countryside Alliance’s 2023 rural crime survey found that 35% of those surveyed had experienced some sort of crime within the past year, and the top reported rural crime was fly-tipping, at 37%. Residents tell me that fly-tipping is not pursued, even when there is photographic evidence—often with proof of the culprits. That corresponds with the latest figures: data for 2022-23 shows that only 110 people received a fine of more than £1,000, while more than 50% of the fines were between £200 and £500. Tougher action needs to be taken. Police must investigate these incidents, and there must be tougher penalties. If perpetrators think they can get away with it, that they will not be investigated and that it will not be taken seriously—and if the penalties are not high enough—they will do the calculation for themselves: it is easier to dump their waste rather than disposing of it properly. The fines do not go far enough. They need to be higher and more severe. In the last Parliament, the previous Government announced some sensible policies on this matter, not least putting points on the driving licences of individuals found guilty of this crime. I ask the Minister, in a constructive spirit, if she would revisit some of those suggestions and seek an agreement to further this policy. It could act as a deterrent, even a small one. There is no silver bullet, but a combination of different deterrents might work. It is becoming painfully clear, even if local councils cannot see it, that the limits on council waste sites are adding to this problem, along with limits on bin collection services and new costs for bin collection. For example, Cheshire East council has recently taken the disastrous decision to close waste centres, reduce bin collections and require an additional payment for green bin collections. If a tip remains in their area, residents seeking to visit it at the weekend or on a bank holiday need to book. Again, it creates a barrier to doing the right thing if someone has to go through all these hurdles to dispose of their rubbish properly. Starting next year, bin collections will change from fortnightly to three-weekly, as well as the council charging for green bins. In Knutsford, since changing the green bin collection, we are seeing more and more garden waste being dumped. One resident told me that is because people cannot afford the green bin charge, which has locally been called the green bin tax. On top of that, Cheshire West and Chester council launched a consultation in July on its proposals to change the way waste disposal is managed. Among the proposals is a change to limit the amount of DIY waste that can be brought to tips without charge, and a pre-registration of vehicles arriving at the tip. Councils say they are closing their tips and reducing access to waste collection because it will save them money. Cheshire West and Chester council says that the changes will help them reach their climate goals. In reality, local authorities spent an estimated £64 million in 2023 clearing up fly-tipped waste from public areas, which is an enormous burden on the public purse. These measures are more likely to act as a catalyst for fly-tippers, and any savings from the cost of green bins and closing down tips are likely to be eaten away by the cost of fly-tipping. Once again, I believe that shows a lack of foresight. The latest available data shows that there were 4,108 incidents of fly-tipping reported in Cheshire East in the year leading up to March 2023, which is 79 a week. Residents cannot afford for that number to keep growing. We need better financial management and a deeper understanding of how to prevent the issue. Fly-tipping is not a victimless crime; the victims are the landowners, the local communities and taxpayers who are left to shoulder the cost. If someone dumps on private land, it is the private owner who has to clear that up. We need a joined-up approach that aligns Government policy with councils, and consistent enforcement measures and deterrents for potential offenders. We cannot continue to pay the price for other people deliberately leaving their rubbish on somebody else’s land. It is not just the cost to remove the rubbish; dumping waste presents a risk to public health. Some people do not know what has actually been dumped—it could be toxic waste—and if it is left there for some time, it will attract vermin. There is also a concerning increase in levels of large-scale commercial tipping on our farmlands and in our countryside, which is growing to an alarming scale. I do not know why people are doing it; I do not know the root causes. I am not saying it is an escalation of fly-tipping—although we are seeing an escalation of fly-tipping in its size and regularity. Instead, it is people buying land in the countryside under the guise of doing something else, opening illegal tips as if they were commercial tips, and charging people to bring their rubbish to dump on agricultural land. That will be toxic waste—it should have been disposed of elsewhere, but it would have been much more expensive to do so, so they are dumping it on our rural land. This issue is not being taken seriously enough. It is a major problem now arising in Tatton, High Legh, Mobberley, Sproston and Little Leigh. Even if the Minister cannot mention that particular problem today, I would like her to think about what we can do to stop all types of tipping and fly-tipping. This is serious criminal activity. We must break the pattern of crime to ensure the environment and local residents are protected, improve access to our tips and local amenities, and extend their opening hours to enable people to get rid of their waste. I have some questions for the Minister. What steps can the Government take to ensure that the police force, the councils and the environment agencies work together and escalate this crime to the level of seriousness and importance that it deserves, so that we can work actively to rectify the issue, clear up the mess and bring the perpetrators to justice? Will she consider implementing a national strategy on waste disposal, ensuring that tips remain open and accessible and that bin collections are regular, to prevent councils from reducing access to those services? Finally, what actions can the Government take to tackle large-scale commercial fly-tipping, particularly when it is linked to organised crime?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I ask the Minister to leave a few moments at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Interventions should be brief.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that they should not mention any live legal cases during the debate. Members should bob if they wish to be called, and interventions must be brief. We will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at 2.30 pm.

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer national insurance contributions on police forces. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I rise to address a matter of significant concern that will affect police forces in my constituency and across the country. Hon. Members will be aware of the broader tax and fiscal challenges presented by the Government in the autumn Budget, including changes to the agricultural property relief and the cruel cutting of the winter fuel payment, which have been rightly widely condemned, and to which I have objected many times in this House. In fact, this room was jam-packed last night with hon. Members from across the House condemning the Government’s family farm tax. People sat on the ledges here trying to speak—some were not able to—such was the feeling against some of the disastrous consequences of the Budget.

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

  More

  I will not just yet. Please allow me to make the case, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know about the removal of the winter fuel payment from nearly 10 million pensioners, we know about the family farm tax and we know about the VAT on private schools. All have received much attention in this House, but we must not overlook the breadth of the ramifications of the autumn Budget, particularly the changes to employer national insurance contributions. They will have a devastating impact on individual employers and businesses, but their impact on our treasured public services has been widely overlooked. I want to focus my comments on the impact on our police forces. You will be wondering, Dr Allin-Khan, how the Member for Tatton knows what is going to happen here. Did the Treasury conduct an impact assessment? Did the Chancellor generously share the assessment with Members from across the House? Were police forces consulted on such changes? The answer to all those questions is no, as is often the case with the Government’s policy announcements. Late last year, I submitted freedom of information requests to every police force in the UK, asking for the expected additional costs that each will incur as a result of the Chancellor’s hike in employer national insurance contributions. I was shocked, yet unsurprised, to learn of the devastating impact that the policy will have on our police forces. In my county of Cheshire, the local constabulary will face an additional £3.7 million per year in employer national insurance costs.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.

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

  More

  I am afraid I will not. I understand that the Government say that they will pick up the £230 million tab, but that still means that the Government will be paying a tax bill rather than having money to spend on frontline police. Last month, we heard the Home Secretary announce a £200 million boost to neighbourhood policing to fund the recruitment of 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, as the Government said before the election, although they had been very quiet on that for a long period of time. I wonder whether the Government can do that. The numbers are very similar: £200 million for 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, yet they have given themselves a £230 million a year tax bill. Will those 13,000 neighbourhood police officers ever materialise? In her summing up, will the Minister say what will happen, particularly in light of the national insurance contribution black hole, as those national insurance contributions are to be paid year in, year out? Will the Government pay for those police officers, year in, year out? If so, what will be the amount paid during a whole Parliament? Where will that money come from? I urge the Government and the Chancellor, through the Minister, to stop this ill-thought-through, ham-fisted Budget change to employer national insurance contributions. The only solution to the problem—

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

  More

  Did the Minister receive a further letter from the chief constable, expressing serious concerns about the rising number of serious sexual assaults going on in Cheshire?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct. That is why I highlighted the cost implications of the policy to the Secretary of State for Health that day on the Floor of the House, and he was absolutely taken aback. There was muttering among the Government Front Benchers, and the Government put in a solution straight away, but they overlooked the police. Later in my speech, I will come on to the fact that the Government now think they will put money into this area. Fewer police will inevitably have broader consequences for public safety. Police officers are on the frontlines, tackling serious and organised crime, addressing domestic violence and responding to emergencies. Every officer we lose or fail to recruit means less protection for communities such as Tatton. To give an example, in Cheshire there has been a significant rise in serious sexual assaults by people who are in this country illegally. Money that should have gone into supporting our police force to halt that crime will not be there, which is making our streets less safe. This Government are fiscally illiterate. They made a £25 billion grab in employer national insurance contributions at the Budget, without really thinking where that money would come from. Remember, the Government said that they did not want to tax working people, yet we know this will hit working people—the Government never thought where that money would come from. Instead, the measure was born from ideological reasons, whether that meant funding the Government’s net zero obsession, foreign aid or their union paymasters. In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.

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

  More

  Can I finish my sentence? There is only one solution to the problem that will have the correct consequences: scrap the diabolical tax on our police forces.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget. Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.

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

  More

  I will not take another intervention, because I cannot quite get over the word “entertaining” being used about such a devastating policy, which will have devastating impacts on the streets of all our communities. There is a real risk that police forces will have to scale back on recruitment—that is not entertaining. There is a real risk that they will have to cut back on vital training—that is not entertaining—or reduce operational spending in other areas, which again is not entertaining. These decisions could have serious consequences for the police service’s ability to deliver an effective police force. The planned national insurance increases will make it harder for police forces to recruit new officers, particularly in areas where the cost of living is already high. The Government have committed to recruiting more officers, yet those efforts will be undermined by these fiscal pressures through taxation. A common theme of this Government is their lack of foresight. They failed to consult with Back Benchers, public services and Government Departments before steamrolling ahead with this policy. They failed to understand the impact of the rise in employer national insurance costs on our public services, a mistake so basic that it is sometimes hard to comprehend. I think we all remember the immediate outcry that we heard from GPs, charities, social care providers and hospices. I remember being in the main Chamber when the Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on this policy, and he was taken aback. He did not know how to answer those questions, and his plea to the Chancellor at the time was, “Where are we going to get that extra money? I hope I will get that extra money, and I will come back to Members later with answers.”