Esther McVey
MP for Tatton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Esther McVey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety?”
“Order. This is a well-attended debate, but I hope to get everybody in. I have spoken to the Front Benchers: the Minister will have 10 minutes, and the Opposition spokespeople have agreed to go down to five minutes, so there will be a limit of three minutes per speech for Back Benchers. I hope that all hon. Members will be suitably aware of their fellow Members who want to speak, and I ask that interventions be interventions and not speeches, or I will stop you.”
“Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak in this debate; it seems that quite a few Members want to. We will come to the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm. Although I will not set a hard deadline, speeches should be about three minutes.”
“The reality is that in rural and semi-rural areas such as Tatton, broadband is unreliable, poor and intermittent; when coupled with power cuts, there is no broadband whatsoever. We have heard about the needs of vulnerable people with medical devices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are rural businesses that need connection to the internet to pay for things online, and that they use a landline to dial for that automation?”
“The explanation that has been given is that the switchover is happening because of the poor condition of the copper, but has the Minister sought reassurances? Has there been a full investigation? I find it hard to believe that the copper is so bad that the switchover cannot be delayed. Will he go back and get assurances that it needs to be done?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another hammer blow to British businesses? We have had the Labour Government introducing £25 billion of tax with the employers’ national insurance contribution, £5 billion of costs with workers’ rights and a never-ending increase in energy bills as they drive forward on their net zero fantasy. Now they will be able to change regulation more or less on a whim, whenever they feel like it, destroying certainty and confidence for British businesses.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Given that the Government do not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries such as Rwanda, can the Minister explain how they plan to deport people who have destroyed their documents so that we do not know their country of origin? Or is the solution to keep those people here forever—in hotels, or in one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build?”
“A lot of Members want to speak, and I want to accommodate everybody. The Opposition spokespeople have agreed to five minutes each, but the Minister will take the full 10 minutes. That will give everybody else four minutes.”
“How precisely will these benefit cuts be realised, given this Government’s anti-business Budget, which has seen businesses close at the fastest rate since Labour was last in office? Of those still standing, 30% are planning to cut staff to cope with the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. Where are the jobs? We know Labour is the party of the magic money tree; is Labour now the party of the magic jobs tree, too?”
“When I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on reducing welfare dependency, getting 1,000 more people into work each and every day, and delivering record numbers of people into work, the Labour party opposed us every step of the way. Can I take it that the Government’s recent conversion to reducing the benefit bill is only about conning the Office for Budget Responsibility into thinking that they will balance the books after their disastrous Budget, rather than because they really believe in it?”
“Last week, the Prime Minister announced that he is abolishing NHS England to make sure the NHS is brought back under democratic control. Will the Minister be lobbying the Prime Minister to abolish the Sentencing Council to make sure sentencing is brought back under democratic control?”
“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?”
“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.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. We all understand that when a business is struggling, it has to cut costs, but these banks are closing branches despite making billions of pounds of profit. By pulling out of towns and the high street, those banks no longer provide a service for their customers—for the elderly, the disabled and local businesses. Knowing that banks need a licence to operate, does he agree that, to solve this growing problem, there needs to be a condition that, to get that licence, banks need to serve all of their customers and actually remain on the high streets?”
“Now, the death of a family member could spell the death of the family business, too. The CBI and Family Business UK have warned that the changes to property business relief alone could lead to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion. Businesses must think about how much money they will put aside for those tax changes. With every £1 put into tax, they can invest £1 less in their business, which will stifle the growth of the company. This Labour Government talk about growth, but these measures will only kill it off. The impact is not just from inheritance tax: we have the family farm tax, the increase to employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage changes. Every single one of those will add a final nail in the coffins of many of our businesses.”
“Reeves’ budget the fatal blow.” Here we have a Chancellor who wanted her legacy to be that she was the first female Chancellor; in fact, her legacy will be as the grim Reeves reaper who fatally killed off family businesses and destroyed enterprise in the UK. The Labour Government show no sign of understanding business, let alone family businesses that employ 14 million people and add £575 billion to the economy. The family business is a living entity; it needs to be nurtured, and if it is, it will grow and last hundreds of years, to be passed on to the next generation. It has a unique place in the business ecosystem—it serves a special purpose. Even previous Labour Governments knew that. That is why they introduced the business property relief; they knew that it was required. But not this Labour Government—oh no!”
“I must say, I am disappointed—as will be business owners up and down the country—that the Chancellor could not find her way into the Chamber today. If she had done, she might have learned a thing or two. In Tatton, there are family businesses that go back four or five generations. Before the Budget, some were planning to get ready for the next generation—but not now. Some, founded in the 1800s, have told me that their businesses survived two world wars, the Spanish flu, the high tax and economic lunacy of the 1970s, and even the recent covid lockdowns, but the Chancellor’s Budget will be the death of them. They have told me that on their family business gravestone will be written: “RIP. 1830-2026.”
“These tax changes are ideologically driven and the Chancellor is killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. There is a vacuum of business know-how and business knowledge among those on the Government Benches. What they are doing to our country is an utter disgrace.”
“People talk about love and passion—all those things—but it is that entrepreneurial spirit that this Government will kill, along with jobs in local communities, because family businesses have a special place in the heart of communities. This Chancellor said that the changes would only impact the wealthiest of businesses—have we not heard that before? The Government said that the farm tax would impact only the wealthiest of farms, that the removal of the winter fuel payment would impact only the wealthiest of pensioners, and that VAT on schools would impact only the wealthiest of people: that is utter nonsense. The Labour party is removed from reality, ideologically driven and blinded by jealousy. Labour’s raid on family businesses, worth about £500 million by 2030—that is the Treasury’s forecast—will actually lose billions of pounds more.”
“My hon. Friend speaks knowledgably and passionately about the business in her constituency, and she is right. A family business I spoke to said, “We are already working on small profit margins. We do not know how we will cope. The enormity of the changes will change the way we look at our business. What are we going to do? We might have to carve up the business or cut it down. We might end up selling up or we might look for foreign investment, whether we seek that out or they seek us out”. They say that their business will not survive and thrive, and there is no doubt that it will shrink or end. Another essential point, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is that family businesses are the breeding ground of entrepreneurs. Family members will work of a weekend, be trained up and go into the family business.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We would not have increased foreign aid, and I can tell Members one thing that we would not have done: we would not have capitulated to the rail unions, finding money for the railway workers without any modernisation whatsoever. There is a big list of things that we would not have been paying for.”
“I think I need to pull the hon. Gentleman up straight away. This is not in any way an entertaining speech—indeed, I would put this down as a horror speech. This is a disgrace of monumental proportions, so the word “entertaining” was used absolutely incorrectly. Let me talk about the choices that different Governments have made, and where money could have been saved. One example is GB Energy, which the new Government thought they could find money for. They could not find money for the pensioners or the farmers—this Government are giving away half a billion pounds a year to farmers overseas, but they cannot find that half a billion pounds here. We would stop money being spent on things like GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; it seems to me like another quango that will cost money.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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.”
“In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.”
“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.”
“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.”