Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for all her work on this matter over many years. I know the abuse that she went through for standing up for those girls.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point; only then can we root out why people failed to investigate. Was it because of fear of being called racist, or even far right? Why were the cases not investigated? Was it because of a culture of political correctness that has been thriving in some Labour councils, such as in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, and in other agencies, such as the police? They dodged the hard questions. Why? Because they were worried that it might reveal something that did not fit with their ideology of multiculturalism. Shockingly, in her audit last year, Baroness Casey concluded that “Questions about ethnicity have been…dodged for years.” After a six-month wait, the Government responded to the Casey audit, accepting all the recommendations, but six months on from that, and a full year since the audit was published, here we are, still waiting for implementation. Will the Minister update us on that and let us know when we can expect the data to be published? Also, not only has the Government’s official inquiry into grooming gangs moved at a glacial pace, but one of their own—a Labour peer—has been appointed as its chair, and a former council chief executive and a chair of an NHS foundation trust have also been involved as panel members. That is exactly what the survivors expressly said they did not want to happen: the inquiry to be handed over to people from the very institutions under investigation. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has got on with the job, putting the Government to shame with his independent rape gang inquiry, which heard 10 days of evidence in February and which will report its findings next week. I would not say that I was “fortunate enough” to be part of that panel, but when asked to do so, I accepted. Quite honestly, what we were told was horrifying. There were horrendous stories of rape, but it was not just rape—although that is bad enough. Women were tortured—battered, strangled, cut, whipped—until they were close to death, and then brought back around to be raped again. That happened over a sustained period because nobody wanted to believe what these women said when they reached out to the institutions that should have looked after them. Some were reaching out to children’s homes, which were paid thousands of pounds a year to look after them, but they were let down. Why? Because they were white, working-class girls, many of them vulnerable. People did not want to listen to them and would literally call them “white trash”, while allowing others whom they saw as elders in a community to be above reproach, and therefore did not investigate at all. If we are to successfully end these appalling sexual crimes against children, we must fully understand what is happening, and to do that, we need the data. It is not racist to examine the ethnicity of these criminals; nor is it discriminatory to examine their immigration status. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the truth of it is. These awkward conversations must finally be had, and anyone who might be avoiding them because of a self-serving sense of political correctness must now decide to put the safety of children first. This is not a political football, a right-wing bandwagon or a dog-whistle issue. This is about life-altering suffering and abuse of the most shocking kind—suffering and abuse that could have been prevented. The survivors deserve to know the truth about the failings that were allowed to happen. I hope that all of us here today can agree that the only thing that really matters is protecting children, and that we must do everything to put them first.

• 20 May 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. For the purpose of clarity, does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should rejoin the European Union, or does he agree with Andy Burnham when he says we should not rejoin the European Union?

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

  More

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

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

  More

  You are now!

• 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

  Never!

• 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?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is pursuing a scorched-earth policy? Adviser after civil servant has been chucked under the bus to save his skin, and now it is the turn of his own MPs. If the Prime Minister has not misled the House, the correct path is to go to the Privileges Committee so that he can clear his name.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  Is the shadow Secretary of State more surprised that the promised amendments leaked to the papers at the weekend are missing from the debate or that the Armed Forces Minister is missing from the Chamber and will not be here to vote for this disgraceful carry-over motion, because he knows that it should not be voted for?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I feel it only fair to raise the same points with the hon. Lady as I did earlier. She has been written to twice by the Gambling Commission for misusing its statistics and has been written to by the Office for Statistics Regulation about the misuse of statistics. As we listen to her numbers now, I wonder, are they right?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend understands this arena very well. My concern is that the unregulated black market for gambling is growing at a rapid rate—as he says, it accounts for over half of advertising. The focus on licensed, regulated gambling operators is surely going to squeeze them out of the market, meaning that the illegal market can boom, as we are seeing across the world.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Three times they have written to you.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I will give you the information that you don’t have—

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard , are also not correct.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  It is on the record.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.

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

  More

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

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

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