Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Government announced the first areas to be investigated as part of the rape gang inquiry, yet under their new Sentencing Act, rapists and child groomers will be released early from prison. The Minister must see that putting these criminals on the streets not only makes an absolute mockery of Labour’s rape gang inquiry but goes to prove that Labour was never serious about having one or locking up those perpetrators.

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

  More

  That is shameful. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend brought that up; that is why it is essential that today’s debate rectifies that situation. Missing from Baroness Casey’s recommendations was the vital need for data collection on religion and immigration status—factors that surely need to be understood so that if they are found to be related to higher offending rates, strategies for protecting children can be that much more targeted and effective. As Baroness Casey acknowledges in her audit, for too long the authorities have shied away from the ethnicity of people involved, and “blindness”, “ignorance” and “prejudice” led to repeated failures, over decades, to properly investigate cases. If we had complete and consistent data, we would be able to answer more questions with greater accuracy. Are certain types of exploitation increasing? How are offenders operating? Are those from certain ethnic backgrounds more likely than others to commit certain sorts of crimes? If we understand what patterns exist, we can improve policing, bring more survivors the justice they deserve and stop these horrendous crimes happening again. Other questions need to be answered, too. Why are institutions so adverse to collecting and reporting such data? The Jay report, published in 2014, documented a reluctance to discuss offender ethnicity openly. We know that the Labour-run councils of Rotherham—

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Jean Taylor set up the organisation Families Fighting for Justice after her daughter, Chantel Taylor, was violently and savagely murdered. The murderer then desecrated and concealed her body. Jean Taylor wants to make sure that that is a crime in its own right, not just an aggravating factor. Not only could she not grieve for her daughter or bury her—Chantel’s three children could not do so either—but serious evidence was hidden by the hiding of the body. The murderer is now out on the streets. Will the Minister please meet me and Jean Taylor to discuss a Chantel’s law?

• 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?

• 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.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the points that my right hon. Friend is making, would he accept that the investigation included a range of independent, nationally recognised medical experts, including consultants and senior academics across a whole host of disciplines; and, knowing as I do that he is an enthusiastic advocate of our judicial system, that the Lucy Letby case was the longest-running murder trial in British criminal history, with a jury that considered the evidence for more than 100 hours? Lucy Letby appealed to the Court of Appeal but was refused. There was a retrial and a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was refused. Would he not accept the robustness of that process?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of clarification—

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend concerned about not only that but increasing industrial-scale dumping in rural areas and the additional pressures on neighbourhood policing—whether from the increase in illegal immigrants going into hotels and houses of multiple occupancy, or from prisoners being let out of prisons, who neighbourhood police forces have to man-mark because of Labour’s Sentencing Bill?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate, because I have a debate in Westminster Hall, but I need to ask the Minister a question. She talks about outcomes. Is she as shocked as I am that the Labour Cheshire police and crime commissioner has already spent £200,000 on two listening exercises, and is expected to spend another £400,000 on more listening exercises? The precept is going up by 6.7%, but the police force will have to make redundancies. Does she not agree that the money should go not on vanity projects, but on frontline policing?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  No, I don’t.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from the Minister’s point, I noticed today that the same Labour police and crime commissioner has put up an advert for a senior public relations officer on £45,000 to £55,000, and there are other vanity projects. Surely that money should be spent on PCSOs and police on the ground, not on the PCC himself.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way before concluding?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  At a time of great pressure on police budgets, my Cheshire police force is having to make redundancies. Was my right hon. Friend as concerned as I was that the Minister felt that our Labour police and crime commissioner could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on vanity projects? She accepted it, rather than condemning it, and that money should go to frontline policing.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; it is most generous of her. My chief constable has raised a point about Labour’s new Sentencing Act 2026, where criminals will not be sentenced for less than 12 months. My chief constable says that their force will now be man-marking criminals on the street, which will cost them approximately £1.6 million a year. Can the Minister explain how she plans to address that issue in costs and man hours?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

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

  More

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

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Who would have thought that a Government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most basic human rights, trial by jury? The Government are removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carry a likely sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to go to trial—but let us look at the evidence. There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of 10 go to trial. These reforms mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. Given those figures, there will be no realistic change to the waiting times from removing that fundamental right. Who was doing the maths for this—the “Mastermind” Lord Chancellor? No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him. My constituents in Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the northern circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this is an absolute disgrace, and they put forward some of their suggestions. A barrister at St John’s Buildings said, “Actually, I don’t believe at all that cutting trial by jury will get down these lists and sort out the problem. In fact, I’m deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice. There is no evidence that it will have any impact on the delays. A better solution for the backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of sitting days and let courts sit around the clock, and also to sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system, which does not get defendants to court, or that gets them there late and wastes time.” Another barrister—a King’s Counsel criminal barrister at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester—said, “I’m very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% have been pulled out of thin air. Very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience in these cases. It will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal court by the Government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than evidence of guilt.” What about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries and trial by jury, too. This is one thing that Government Back Benchers should really be concerned about: constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of it in the Labour party manifesto. One person said, “That would have factored into my voting decision, and it could well have been—if not would have been—a very different decision.” The debate has been revealing. There are no data, no impact assessments and no pilot. The Minister herself, who even suggests—

• 5 Jan 2026 · HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments · Hansard source

  More

  The police have said that the prisoners who absconded from the open prison HMP Leyhill are dangerous and should not be approached by the public. How can any prisoner described in that way be in an open prison? It defies logic, Minister.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government. Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place. Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said: “This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.” Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well. Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said: “Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.” On Monday, he said to the House: “Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.” He also said: “He is back where he belongs: behind bars.” —[ Official Report , 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.] If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments. While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.

• 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.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this Bill removes a deterrent. Repeat knife offenders are supposed to get a mandatory immediate custodial sentence of six months, minimum—not a guarantee, effectively, that they will evade prison because their sentence is 12 months or less. Why would anyone think twice about carrying a knife if they know that they will not see the inside of a cell, and that the courts will be powerless to send them to prison?