Esther McVey MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe that putting up taxes is good or bad for economic growth?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, that is right. Things are changing continually. The Bill goes against the age of adulthood, with lawmakers raising the minimum age for many different things. As a country we collectively agree that the age of 18 is adulthood, and with that come rights and responsibilities, and things we can and cannot do. Once we reach the age of 18, an individual can stand for election to this House, make decisions about their own medical treatment, enter into binding financial agreements, and buy cigarettes and vapes. They can even get a tattoo. Perhaps the greatest right of all is the right to vote and the responsibilities that come with that, yet under the Bill 1.7 million 16 to 17-year-olds will be granted the right to vote. We could all see that the proposal was about fixing the right to vote. It was about ballot fixing. It was in the hope that the Labour party could win the next general election if it got this generation of young people to vote for it. Now that it has seen the latest polling and that young voters are turning Green, the Government might do what they do on a regular basis: screeching U-turns. That might be done not through common sense but self-interest. They might do another screeching U-turn here.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 49 to 55 and amendments 56 to 62 to clause 1, which are in my name, and in support of amendments 6 to 12 to clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Through the Bill, the Government have taken inconsistency to a new level. In their desire to give votes to 16-year-olds, they are bringing more confusion to the legal age of adulthood. In one breath they are giving votes to 16-year-olds, yet at the same time in another piece of legislation they are saying that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to use social media and there will be curfews for those under the age of 16.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree there are inconsistencies and we are trying to get them right. Unlike those on the Labour Benches, under whom unemployment always goes up every time they are in office, we want young people to get work experience and go to work. We have, for a long period of time, allowed driving at 17. But my goodness, those on the Labour Benches, for more inconsistency, would want it to go up! I am dealing with the matter at hand, which is voting for 18-year-olds. I am saying that for those on the Labour Benches it was more about vote rigging than whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will carry on for a second. We are not saying that 16-year-olds would be sent off to combat, nor would we be saying that the inconsistencies about the age of marriage carry on. In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage and civil partnerships is 18. Arranging a marriage for anyone under 18 is illegal. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, passed by Parliament only four years ago, revoked the previous legal provision that allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent. The legislation made it clear that marriage is an adult decision and that the law treats anyone under 18 as a child. The 2022 Act passed with cross-party support and the Labour Front Bench at the time supported it. Why did they believe then that people under 18 could not make the decision to marry, but now believe that they can make the decision to vote? The same applies to property ownership and mortgages. My amendments 56 to 62 would link the age at which people are eligible to vote with the age at which they can obtain a mortgage or own a property. Our laws dictate that those under 18 lack full legal capacity, and therefore cannot enter into binding land or loan contracts. If 16-year-olds are not legally able to own a property or enter into a mortgage in their own right, why are they considered sufficiently mature to vote in elections? If 16-year-olds are not sensible enough to buy alcohol—and that has been law in our country since 1923—why are they trusted to vote? I am pleased to support amendments 6 to 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, which would tie the age at which people can buy alcohol to the age at which they are eligible to vote. The question is simple: why have the Government decided that in respect of voting the age of 16 is adulthood, while in many other areas it does not meet the threshold? We are told that votes at 16 are essential to engaging young people in our democracy and will empower them to participate in society and effect change, but which young people have the Government spoken to? I have spoken to many on my patch and have visited many local schools, and have found it interesting that many of them do not feel qualified and prepared enough to vote. We should bear in mind the impact of the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, where academic studies have shown that the boost in interest among young people has been short-lived and has failed to translate into wider political participation.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If those in Scotland want to carry on with this vote rigging, they are fully entitled to do so, and I am sure that they will conjure up many other ways in which to do it. This Government can wax lyrical as much as they like about the virtues of lowering the voting age, but we know how important it is for people to fully understand and appreciate what they are doing. It is the inconsistency that strikes me: 16-year-olds cannot buy alcohol, cannot have a tattoo, cannot be on the frontline and cannot get married, yet we are pushing for them to have a vote. It does not make sense at all. I therefore urge all Members to support my amendments and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, and to put aside their self-interest in relation to extra votes.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member clearly gave support; I had various caveats. As things have changed recently, children cannot get married now at 16, yet at the same time we do not think those under the age of 18 should be on social media. That is a new addition. We are changing the age of adulthood. Labour Members do not even think the brain is mature enough to be considered for criminal actions until the age of 25.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about two completely different things. We are talking about the age of adulthood, the age at which we think people have the ability to weigh up everything that is going on and come to a decision. The House is saying that those young people cannot go on social media, should not be on certain types of iPhone and should not be able to do other things, yet at the same time they are mature enough to vote—inconsistency. I am saying that we need to be consistent: a bit of common sense and consistency would go a long way in this House.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Cheshire police estimates that the additional cost to man-mark criminals who are back on the streets due to Labour’s early release scheme will be £1.4 million a year. Can the Minister reassure police forces up and down the country that those extra resources will be handed to them?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Prime Minister explain what was so particularly deserving about the Avanti train drivers that they warranted such a pay increase, or was it done just to avoid the embarrassment of the Cabinet not being able to get back and forth to his “No. 10 of the North” vanity project? Or do we take it that this Prime Minister will cave in to every trade union demand that comes across his desk?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Did the Minister just say, “so that the Government can part-own some of this”? Were those the words he used?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Peak Cluster Pipeline and project. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I hope to get some meaningful answers from him today on this project; up until now, those have proved elusive from his Department and the Government. The Peak Cluster is a carbon capture and storage project. It will take carbon dioxide from cement and lime plants in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, pressurise it, and transfer it 125 miles across Cheshire, Wirral and then off the coast from Wirral, where it will be stored beneath the seabed. It has been made clear to me by scientists and engineers that the project is wrong-minded and wholly unnecessary.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on another inaccurate piece of information?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my neighbour for asking that question. If he listens to the rest of the debate, he will see that this is not a private project; it has deep structural and financial ties to, and sign-off by, the Government. It is not, as he wrongly refers to it, a Shell or a BP. That is not true. That is the myth that we have to dispel today. So far, £28 million of funding for the project—nearly half of the money to date—has come from the National Wealth Fund, which is wholly owned by the Government. When announcing the project, the National Wealth Fund said on its own website that it “has an important role to play in helping to amplify government policy”, and on the gov.uk website, the Energy Secretary classed it as a “landmark investment”. The issues I am raising are not highly technical or obscure; they are straightforward, basic questions about safety, cost and the use of taxpayers’ money. The cost is billions of pounds, which rests on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The amount already spent is in the region of £60 million, and that was just to secure planning permission. The full construction costs are estimated at £5 billion, although the full cost is likely to exceed that. HyNet, a similar project, has cost £2.5 billion for just 31 km of new pipeline, in comparison with the 200 km planned for the Peak Cluster. As the Government have so far committed £28 million through the National Wealth Fund, will the Minister say what process was followed before the fund invested in the project? How was it approved, and what role did Ministers play in that? There are huge concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the technology, too. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a “high degree of uncertainty” over whether carbon capture projects would deliver value for money, so I can see why the Government are ducking away and not doing anything. The chief executive of Octopus Energy also questioned whether carbon capture represents a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money. Surely, the Department responsible for energy infrastructure did a value-for-money assessment before committing public money to the project. If so, what is that assessment? Residents I have spoken to are rightly and understandably concerned about the health and safety hazards, too. What if a leak were to happen? What emergency procedures are in place? What assessments have been made of the risks to nearby communities and to the maritime environment? The project could cause untold damage to agricultural land, sites of scientific interest and some of our towns and villages. It is ironic that the Government consider this to be an environmental project when it could very well destroy—and is already destroying—the environment. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Have I received any reassurances on those health and safety matters? No, I have not. Have the Government even taken this into account? They cannot wash their hands of this project. If something goes wrong, the public will want answers. Another claim by the Government, and by some of the people who might be getting tenders from them, paid for by the taxpayer, is that the project will support around 3,500 jobs. What will those jobs be? How many will be permanent rather than temporary construction roles? How many will go to local people, and how many will require specialist contractors to be brought in from overseas? Regarding the future of the project, how long is the infrastructure guaranteed for? I hear that the pipes are only guaranteed for 30 years. Can the Minister confirm or deny that? The north-west should not be a dumping ground for carbon dioxide from not only elsewhere in the country, but elsewhere in the world. Although the project says it will initially be used to store carbon dioxide captured from Derbyshire and Staffordshire, it has been reported that the infrastructure will be designed to allow it to import and transport carbon dioxide from other countries in future. Can the Minister confirm whether those reports are correct? What additional approval would the Government require to grant those permissions? All that the project will do is store up problems for future generations to tackle and pay for. The physicists and scientists who have contacted me mock the Government’s ignorance on this matter, saying that carbon dioxide is needed, and that if the Government really wanted to do something, they could just plant some trees. I am afraid that the Government have been suckered into a multibillion-pound waste of a project about which, as we know, they have no business acumen or know-how. Before the Minister rises and dismisses my questions, as he did last week on the Floor of the House, saying that the Government have nothing to do with this project, I remind him—I ask him to reflect on this point—that the Peak Cluster project has deep, direct, structural and financial links to the Government, with the final sign-off coming via a development consent order by the Energy Secretary. The Government are a stakeholder in Peak Cluster Ltd, the private company the Minister referred to. Local authorities cannot object to the project, as the Government have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project. The money invested in it comes from the National Wealth Fund, wholly owned by the Government. With that in mind, will the Government and the Minister kindly give some meaningful answers? If he cannot do so today and needs to go away to do some homework, I will happily accept a written response, but the Government cannot keep using obfuscation and excuses to try to hoodwink the public. The public demand answers today.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that the final sign-off on this project, via a development consent order, will be done by the Secretary of State for Energy—by, in other words, the Government? Is that true or false?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Then don’t be so dismissive!

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way in the final 30 seconds?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, but none of that has been forthcoming to the public, no matter how hard they have tried, and the public do not want the project. Right across the region, there have been demonstrations and councils have voted against it. At a recent public meeting in Byley, close to one of the proposed pipeline routes, the failings were laid bare. The local communities of Cheshire, Wirral and Derbyshire know this, and that is why they are calling for the project to be stopped. The project is completely unnecessary. It is a madness of a project—a net zero vanity project. I stand here today on behalf of all those members of the public calling for the Peak Cluster project to be stopped. I call, too, for the Government to answer the most basic of questions about the project, and to stop treating the public like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them absolute rubbish. The Government cannot dodge responsibility and accountability for this project, as they seek to by ducking parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests. Last week I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House about the woeful responses on this matter, only for the Minister to reply that the project is nothing to do with the Government. He said: “It is a private project.” —[ Official Report , 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 175.] Really, Minister? If one delves a little bit deeper into the Peak Cluster project, it is revealed that it has deep, direct, structural and financial links to Government, with the final sign-off being from none other than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. If the Government are still trying to say that they have made no estimate of the overall costs, that they have not worked out how much of the bill will land on the taxpayer, that they have done no cost-benefit analysis of it, and that they have made no assessment of the environmental impact—in fact, that they have not even bothered to work out whether the project is necessary at all—then that is a disgrace. If the Government are really trying to say that they have done no homework whatsoever on the project, then they really do need to do some, because if they did, they would come to the same conclusion as the public: that it is not necessary. Instead, the Government, in ignorance or in full-throttle support, are pushing ahead with the project. In fact, they have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project, which means that the local authorities cannot either approve or reject it, despite significant objections from local constituents; rather, it falls for sign-off to the Government. The storage of the carbon dioxide beneath the seabed will require approval from the North Sea Transition Authority, another Government quango—wholly owned by the UK Government—which has responsibility for offshore carbon dioxide storage.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project · Hansard source

  More

  I see the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) in the seat behind the Minister, although I appreciate that, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is not able to speak. The Minister might not know this. but I confirm that Wirral council in its entirety, across all parties, objected to the Peak Cluster project. Do the Minister and the PPS sitting behind him know that?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for being generous with his time. Can he clarify a point? The Secretary of State was trying to stop some of the pull factors, and I welcomed the extension from five to 10 years in the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain, but it seems that the incoming Prime Minister will now water those new policies down. Is that the case?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  How much time, exactly? The Government have had two years in office and have already changed Prime Minister.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion and to the vast number of people—720,000, including 1,093 from my constituency of Tatton—who signed this important petition and prompted this debate calling for offshore detention and deportation of illegal immigrants. According to Home Office data, just under 77,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by small boat since Labour took charge in July 2024. The average number of daily arrivals under Labour has been about 104, some 94% higher than under the previous Conservative Government —an extraordinary increase. On Friday just gone, 10 July, another shameful record was set: the highest number of illegal immigrants on a single dinghy, 128, arrived in the UK. A total of 225 arrived in three dinghies on that day. That has happened under a Government who pledged to reduce illegal migration, promising to “smash the gangs”—but those promises turned out to be smoke and mirrors. I say it was just to secure a general election victory, because reducing immigration is just not in Labour’s DNA. A fleeting search online is enough to reveal images of Cabinet members clutching “Refugees Welcome” signs. Without doubt, one of the biggest mistakes that the Prime Minister made, in a strong field, was to cancel the Rwanda scheme—an offshore processing centre and permanent resettlement programme. We know that deterrence is an important component in tackling organised immigration crime. As Steve Rodhouse, director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, told the Home Affairs Committee in 2019, the “people willing to make the journey” across the channel know “that there is a very low risk that they will be returned.” I am sure that that is more true today than it was even then. The Rwanda agreement would have tackled the issue head on. It would have allowed for the forceful relocation of asylum seekers, people who had already been refused asylum, and those who made unauthorised illegal journeys to the UK. Rwanda would then have granted them asylum or permanent residence. The National Crime Agency described the scheme as a deterrent; in fact, we were starting to see dinghies from France heading to Ireland and other countries. There was a drop in illegal channel crossings in 2023, after the plan was announced: they went from 45,000 in 2022 to 29,000 in 2023—a 35% decrease. Without the Rwanda plan or deportation to another country, we have been left with no way to remove illegal immigrants—those who destroy their documents to hide their country of origin. Like much of this Government’s foreign policy, the weaknesses of this Labour Government have become opportunities for other countries. The United States has signed agreements with 34 countries to allow for third-country deportations, and, according to the Migration Policy Institute, the US Government have plans to contact at least another 50 countries about similar agreements, including—you guessed it—Rwanda. The model has expanded across Europe, too. The EU is now in the process of adopting legislation permitting EU member states to reach agreements with non-EU member states for the establishment of return hubs. Those are logical decisions and policies. But the Government failed to see that; as a result, illegal immigration has soared. As the petition rightly points out, the “current use of hotels and temporary accommodation is unsustainable, costly and dangerous.” We simply cannot have people breaking into our country and being rewarded for their criminality with hotel accommodation, healthcare, travel, translation services, recreational facilities and more, costing British taxpayers billions of pounds a year. We have seen just how dangerous that can be, as horrific case after horrific case has shown: the brutal and frenzied murder of Walsall hotel worker Rhiannon Whyte by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who had just arrived by small boat three months previously; Haybe Nur, a Somali national, walked into a bank and stabbed a father of three dead; Hadush Kebatu arrived by boat and was then convicted of multiple sexual assaults; and Ahmad Mulakhil was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old. That is the reality of not knowing who is coming into our country. These policy failures are not only putting communities in danger; it is downright unfair on society to prioritise illegal immigrants in this way. Look at the plan for Stoke Heath in Shropshire, where the Home Office was all set to move immigrants into brand-new housing. That was a kick in the teeth for local families, who were told that that estate would offer affordable or social housing for them—many had been waiting on the housing list for years. What about veterans? Where is their brand-new housing? Where are we housing them? Thankfully, the Stoke Heath community seems to have stopped the plan in its tracks, having put up fierce opposition to the Government. The Home Secretary now tells us that new-build estates like that will “never be considered again”; we can only hope that that is true. Labour has not “smashed the gangs” as it promised, but it is certainly succeeding in smashing our local communities, which are forced to play host to a sudden influx of illegal immigrants. This Government talk tough, but that is all they do: talk tough without action. The reality is that until the Government develop a spine, reinstate the Rwanda scheme, take the UK out of the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, we have no chance of deporting those who come here illegally.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  The average daily arrivals of illegal immigrants under this Labour Government are 94% higher than under the previous Government, so can the Minister tell me exactly which policies are working?