YouSaid · the spoken record

Esther McVey

Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.

On the record 2010–2026

2,842
LINES ON RECORD
551
SITTINGS AND EPISODES
1
SOURCE
2010–2026
ON RECORD

hansard

This is everything the corpus holds for Esther McVey. It is not everything they have said on the record.

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “Can the Secretary of State update the House on the status of Alan Milburn? Does he still attend meetings in the Department and have access to confidential information? Does he now have an official role in the Department? Does he still have private sector interests in the healthcare sector?”

    House of Commons15 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  2. “In this case, however, the Labour Government has opted for the urgency provision, which allows SSAC consideration to be retrospective. Some say that is bypassing SSAC scrutiny. As well as evading that scrutiny, where is the Government’s impact assessment on removing winter fuel payment from these pensioners, particularly in the light of the latest information that bills will be rising by £150 this year?”

    House of Commons10 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  3. “Who would have thought that a Prime Minister not even in office for 10 weeks would be so out of touch with the public? Yet here we are, and yes this Prime Minister is so out of touch, along with the Chancellor and the whole of the Cabinet who are going along with and supporting this cruel policy. The Chancellor should be under no illusion: the public know that this decision to rob millions of pensioners of their winter fuel allowance, for which the Government have no mandate, has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with cynical political calculation. The haste with which the change is being made is breathtaking. All benefits regulations are required by law to be considered by the independent Social Security Advisory Committee. That is generally done in advance of the legislation being laid.”

    House of Commons10 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  4. “By announcing the scrapping of the forthcoming and long-awaited cap on care costs, as well as laying the ground to remove the council tax allowance for single people, Labour has basically declared war on pensioners, which will be neither forgotten nor forgiven. Our pensioners deserve better than this. It is time that Labour reversed this decision and restored the winter fuel allowance to all pensioners.”

    House of Commons10 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  5. “We all know, however, that that is poppycock, as it was not the Government’s message to the already highly paid train drivers. When they met them, money was no object. They said, “Have as much as you want.” The public are not as stupid as this Government think they are. This is good old-fashioned pork barrel politics, taking money away from the people who the Chancellor thinks do not vote Labour, such as pensioners, to hand to people who she thinks do vote Labour, such as train drivers and public sector workers. Millions of pensioners, many struggling to make ends meet, are being sacrificed in this political strategic game.”

    House of Commons10 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  6. “Well said. What is worse, that this Labour Government are so out of touch so early on in their government, the unnecessary haste that this change is being brought in with, the lack scrutiny of this policy, or Labour’s breathtaking hypocrisy? Back in 2017, when the Conservative manifesto stated that we would means-test benefits, the Labour party’s reaction was one of horror, saying that this could not be done and publishing research showing that up to 4,000 pensioners’ lives would be at risk and that pensioners would struggle to heat their homes. The Conservatives did not do it. What are we seeing here? We are seeing that a Labour party in office ditches its beliefs and its research. This Government have been telling pensioners that they did not want to do this, but that tough financial decisions must be made.”

    House of Commons10 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  7. “Anecdotally, they say on average it is taking 30 to 50 weeks—”

    House of Commons5 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  8. “As I understand it, the Government policy is not to impose VAT on private school places where the school place is allocated on the basis of an EHCP. However, there will be very many children with special educational needs who have not yet secured such a plan, and so VAT will apply.”

    House of Commons5 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  9. “I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. I know time is tight, so I will keep to a couple of very specific points. One such point is on the Government’s plans to add VAT to private schools and how that will affect SEND provision. My first question to the Minister is this: what impact assessment did the Government carry out, with regard to the VAT changes to private schools, of the effect on children with special educational needs and on SEND school places? If the Government have done an impact assessment, will they publish it, and if they did not, why on earth not? I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer that question here and now, but I see the officials are in the room behind her, so I am happy for that to be sent to me.”

    House of Commons5 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  10. “How can it be fair that a child who is delayed in the education, health and care plan process, through no fault of their own, faces VAT costs, while another child who has secured their EHCP in time does not have that burden? Could the Minister explain that unfairness that the Government have now introduced into the system, and whether they plan to put a stop to it as soon as possible? In light of that unfairness, I urge the Government to look at what steps can be taken to reduce the time that the assessments for an EHCP take, more generally. There are three local authorities in my constituency, all of which consistently go beyond the legal timeframe. I asked Cheshire West SEND accountability group for parents how long the EHCP process takes. Legally, it should take only 20 weeks, but some have waited more than 60 weeks.”

    House of Commons5 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  11. “Not at the moment. We know that families have to go through a rigorous set of tests to obtain an EHCP, often ending in an appeal or taking many weeks to be finalised. In those cases where the plan has not been finalised, parents will have to make the difficult decision whether to send their child to an independent school. In those instances there will be a significant uplift in those pupils’ fees—a massive worry for parents. Some will now no longer be able to afford the fees. We can only imagine their guilt and concern. What are they going to do? Will they have to stop their child’s progress at that school? Will the child need to leave that school?”

    House of Commons5 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  12. “Does the Secretary of State agree that handing over powers to the World Health Organisation, undermining the UK’s ability to make its own sovereign decisions, would be unacceptable?”

    House of Commons23 July 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  13. “I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. He is a tireless campaigner on this matter, on which he has met with me and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As I said to my hon. Friend, I am dealing with this matter with the permanent secretary; he will know that we have a new permanent secretary in the Department, and we are working at pace to resolve it.”

    House of Commons25 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  14. “Since 2010, female representation has risen to 29.1% and ethnic minority representation had risen by November 2021—those are the latest verified figures I have—to 6.6%.”

    House of Commons29 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  15. “It is a long-standing tradition that anybody who reaches the height of Prime Minister—irrespective of which party that is for—has a resignation list. The former Prime Minister has appointed accomplished people, and I am quite sure that they will contribute significantly to the other House.”

    House of Commons29 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  16. “It is a long-standing convention under successive Governments that outgoing Prime Ministers can draw up a resignation list. That has been the case under past Governments from across the political spectrum, and any names proposed are subject to the usual propriety checks.”

    House of Commons29 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  17. “Many people in the other House are probably somewhat insulted by the hon. Member’s words. Many of them are highly accomplished in a variety of specialisms and bring much insight as they scrutinise the legislation that comes from this House.”

    House of Commons29 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  18. “My hon. Friend is a champion and a campaigner on behalf of all those people who have suffered covid vaccine damage. We have met, and I have taken the issue to the permanent secretary to see what we can do, whether it would involve extending the timeframe that he was talking about or not starting the clock ticking until a decision had been made.”

    House of Commons29 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  19. “We have just had an Opposition day debate on knife crime, which has gone through the roof in Sadiq Khan’s London. Does it not say everything about the priorities of the Labour party that it proposes emergency legislation in respect of this debate and not that one?”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  20. “14, the motion would enable the Opposition to bring in a Bill and race it through Parliament by proceeding through all its substantive Commons stages in one day. The truth is that if the right hon. Lady is so keen to decide the business of the day in the House, she should not have supported her neighbour, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), to become the Prime Minister. Given that she did support him, she clearly is not all that keen on being in charge of parliamentary business. Although it is sometimes necessary for Parliament to legislate at pace—in exceptional circumstances and in response to emergencies—this is not a policy matter that warrants setting aside the procedure of the House. To do so would inhibit proper parliamentary scrutiny.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  21. “It has been interesting to hear the Labour party—yes, the Labour party—make the case for the terms and conditions of workers to be changed unilaterally, in one day, and without consultation or a proper review. I am sure that Labour’s union paymasters will be fascinated to hear the case made by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) today. I start by making it clear that the motion before the House departs from the fundamental principle that it is the Government of the day—that is the party that won the election, voted in by the public—who are able to determine the business of the House. That is something the House itself has long recognised, in Standing Order No. 14. By setting aside Standing Order No.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  22. “The hon. Member has raised a point about redundancy payments, and that is fundamentally what we are talking about. Severance pay is a redundancy payment, in that Ministers can be turfed out of office without any notice of termination and without any proper consultation. They have been given what would otherwise be called redundancy payments. I entirely agree that people have accepted those redundancy payments, just as Labour Ministers did when the Prime Minister changed from Blair to Brown, and just as Labour Ministers did when Labour went out of office in 2010.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  23. “Member for Islington South and Finsbury attaches to the issue—wanting to seize the business of the day, wanting to push through emergency legislation—can she confirm that this will be the first piece of legislation that any new Labour Government would introduce?”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  24. “I will carry on for a little while longer. I want to talk about what the Opposition are doing today, which is, as I said at the outset, seizing the business of the day and trying to make this a case for emergency legislation, which it is not. So many emergencies confront the country and the world, and it is striking that of all those emergencies—it could be the middle east, it could be Ukraine, it could be illegal migration—the Opposition deem this to be the most important. We know why that is: it is because they have no plan to deal with any of those big issues of the day. They do not know what to say, they do not have a clue, and they change their minds, flip-flippity-flop, all the time, so they have been reduced to talking about this issue. Given the importance that the right hon.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  25. “So it is not going to happen today, but in fact the Opposition are not going to do it if they come into power—which, hopefully, they will not. That is how much of an emergency it is. However, there is some good news here. The right hon. Lady is putting herself at the vanguard of cutting waste, which must be a first for the Labour party. Will she take this opportunity to apologise for the private finance initiative schemes that her party inflicted on the country and on much of its public services? Will she take this opportunity to apologise for the hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of waste? I will give way to her if she would like to make an apology for those huge amounts of PFI waste.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  26. “While the incorrect payments were caused by an administrative error and the former Ministers concerned were at no personal fault whatsoever, it is important that the Government seek to recover that money. I am sure I am not the only one who recalls the catastrophic overpayment of tax credits when Labour was last in office, and the fact that many families got into huge difficulties because of that. It is such a shame that the right hon. Lady was not so exercised about that when they were in office.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  27. “Under the Act, Ministers who leave office are entitled to a payment equivalent to a quarter of the annual salary that they were being paid in respect of the ministerial office that they are leaving. To be eligible for a payment, they must be under a certain age—65—and must not be reappointed to ministerial office within three weeks of leaving their previous office. I note—and I thank the right hon. Lady for drawing it to my attention—that in 2022 a small number of severance payments were made incorrectly to departing Ministers. I want to make it clear that the Cabinet Office guidance to Departments is that they should seek to recover any mispayment in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance, “Managing Public Money”.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  28. “So the right hon. Lady could not apologise. She could not, or did not want to, stop the waste of hundreds of billions of pounds. I will say this: the Government accept that the current legislation is now a third of a century old, and that this may be an appropriate time to review it and consider changes, but this is not the right time or place to take action. Proper consideration must be given to new legislation. As Members will know, severance pay is governed by legislation. The statutory provision for ministerial severance pay is contained in the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991. It has therefore been in place for successive Administrations, and has been paid to Members of all three parties who have made ministerial office during this period.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  29. “Members will be aware that similar arrangements are in place for Members of Parliament, who also hold the status of officeholder. In certain circumstances, Members of Parliament who lose a seat at a general election are eligible to receive a loss of office payment. The eligibility for the loss of office payment is determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is responsible for setting and regulating MPs’ salaries, pensions, business costs and expenses. Severance payments recognise the unpredictable nature of ministerial office. The fact that a Minister can lose their office with no notice when the Government or a Prime Minister change will inevitably lead to a substantial increase in the money paid out in that financial year—”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  30. “No, because we are talking about waste. We are talking about appropriate measures taking place and this faux emergency legislation that the right hon. Lady wants to bring in. Turning to ministerial severance pay more generally, it is important to note that this is the long-standing policy that successive Governments from both sides of the House have retained. The reason they have retained it that the principle of paying severance remains sound. The Prime Minister, in his constitutional role as a principal adviser to the sovereign, can recommend the appointment and removal of Ministers at any time. This flexibility, necessary as it is within our political system, means that having a reasonable severance pay policy to reflect the uncertain nature of ministerial office has had wide support from across the House since its introduction.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  31. “From a sedentary position, I get £1 million quoted at me. I remember, although maybe the right hon. Lady does not, that it was over £1 million in 2010 when Labour lost office, and that is quite a long time ago. It is for these reasons that the Government do not currently intend to reform severance pay for departing Ministers, although I am happy to review it, as I mentioned earlier. The current system respects the essential constitutional principle that Ministers serve at the discretion of the Prime Minister and that it is right to provide some protections associated with the loss of ministerial office. The principle has applied, as I said, to all Governments since the Act was passed in 1991, and we need to be careful not to change policy on the basis of exceptions that will occasionally occur under Governments of all forms.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  32. “I am sad to say no I cannot, because we have said that it is essential that there is due process on the Floor of this House—not like the Opposition, who want to whisk it through in a day. We are completely transparent about the payments of severance, and all such payments are published in departmental annual reports.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  33. “My noble Friend Lord Cameron introduced a 5% cut to ministerial pay when he came into office in 2010. Since then, Prime Ministers have asked Ministers to waive the increase in their statutory pay entitlement year on year. For example, ministerial salaries are roughly half—that is half—of what they would have been had Lord Cameron not introduced the salary reduction when he became Prime Minister. In April 2010, Ministers of State earned £42,370, which is £63,594 in today’s money, yet a Minister of State today receives £31,680. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury did not want to reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), but will she confirm today that her party would continue with the ongoing cut in ministerial pay?”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  34. “My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I think that that would be looked at under the review as well, should we review this, but the law that was set out at that time stipulated that age. That is something else that I agree would need to be looked at. I want to be clear that severance pay cannot be looked at as a stand-alone issue. It is part of an overall picture that governs payments made to Ministers. More broadly, the Government have consistently demonstrated restraint and always sought to minimise the cost of government, at the same time as modernising ministerial office to bring it into the 21st century. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Government’s policy on ministerial pay. Ministerial salaries today are lower than they were when this Government took office in 2010, which in real terms constitutes a significant pay cut.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  35. “Member for Islington South and Finsbury could not say whether her party would maintain our cuts to ministerial salaries, could not apologise for the last Labour Government wasting money on PFI schemes and could not say whether this Bill, because it is such important emergency legislation, would be the first piece of legislation introduced by a Labour Government, so we can safely conclude that the Labour party does not care about taxpayers’ money.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  36. “I conclude by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to recovering the money paid in error to a small number of former Ministers. I reassure the House that departmental processes have been strengthened to ensure that this error does not happen again. For the reasons I have set out, the Government do not think there should be wholesale legislative reform on this matter during this Parliament. We believe that a Government committed to the principle of integrity in public life is the most effective way to control the cost of government to the taxpayer. In that spirit, we will continue to demonstrate restraint in how we are paid and we will continue to modernise ministerial office to meet the expectations that the public rightly have of us. The right hon.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  37. “That is well dodged again by the right hon. Lady. She will not confirm that Labour would keep a tight fiscal grip on ministerial pay. Obviously, one of the key things about today’s motion is waste and expenditure. We will see what happens. As always, money runs away with the Labour party. This Government passed the transformative Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021, which for the first time enabled Ministers to take paid maternity leave and be replaced in their Department. Several Members have now benefited from this legislation when in office, and I am sure it will continue to be of immense value. The Government are committed to returning to Parliament in due course to set out proposals on extending the Act.”

    House of Commons6 February 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  38. “There is an established process in place for the declaration and management of interests held by Ministers, as set out in the ministerial code. The independent adviser on ministers’ interests publishes a twice-yearly list of Ministers’ interests. Since 2023, interim updates to the list are also issued as needed. The latest list was published in December.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  39. “As the hon. Member says, integrity is vital in this place and we all adhere to high standards. He will also know that there is an established regime in place for those declarations. The Foreign Secretary has adhered to those and, as he has said, he has just one job now, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom. He is very proud to have that job and to work with the Prime Minister to try to make sure our country is as safe and prosperous as possible.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  40. “I repeat that there are established regimes in place for the declaration and management of interests, and they are overseen by an independent adviser, who publishes reports twice a year.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  41. “I refer the hon. Lady to the latest list of Ministers’ interests, which was published on 14 December 2023 and included the relevant interests of all Ministers forming the Government as of 14 December 2023, including the Foreign Secretary. Our clear-eyed position on China remains unchanged and our approach of engaging directly and robustly with China in the UK national interest is the right one and is firmly in line with that of our G7 and Five Eyes partners.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  42. “We have made a number of important changes to increase transparency. We have launched a new website and online form to make it easier for anyone to make a nomination. We have brought the recruitment of the independent honours committees, which make the honours recommendations, into line with the governance code for public appointments, and we have bolstered probity checks through new and renewed agreements with vetting bodies.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  43. “I do agree. Given that my hon. Friend is a former sub-postmaster, I can fully understand why he feels so strongly about this matter; he is absolutely right to do so, and I thank him for all the work he has done for his fellow postmasters and sub-postmasters. It is important that we protect the integrity of the honours system, which is something to which this Government are committed. We have undertaken a range of actions to strengthen checks, including expanding criminal record checks and working closely with regulators and other bodies to ensure full due diligence for all nominees.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  44. “I will say from the Dispatch Box that the answer has been sent and given. If it needs to be reissued, we will do so, but it has been sent. Baroness Mone has taken leave of absence from the Lords, and there are separate investigations into the allegations against her. In my mind, if she is found guilty of wrongdoing, she needs to resign membership of the Lords—the public would expect no less. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 ensures that a Member convicted of serious offences will cease to be a Member of the House of the Lords, and that is what we want to see. We do not want people in Parliament who bring either House into disrepute: they need to leave.”

    House of Commons18 January 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  45. “Ministers without Portfolio contribute to the policy and decision-making process of a Government. It is routine for the chair of the governing party to be made a Minister without Portfolio. As such, they serve as a member of the Cabinet. My role as a Cabinet Office Minister is to provide scrutiny and oversight across all Departments to ensure that we deliver best value for the public.”

    House of Commons23 November 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  46. “I have seen the reports in the paper describing me as the Minister of common sense. I appreciate that the concept is difficult for Opposition Members to grasp. I am committed to delivering common-sense decisions, such as delaying the ban on petrol and diesel cars, delaying the ban on oil and gas boilers, scrapping High Speed 2 from Birmingham to Manchester and reducing the overseas budget—all common-sense policies that those on the Opposition Benches have voted against. Those on the Government Benches are full of common sense. I am building on all those policies.”

    House of Commons23 November 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  47. “First of all, I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say the comments that the hon. Member repeated; as far as I am aware, he has denied saying them. As I said, I am building on the success of this Government. Let me give another: the biggest permanent tax cuts in modern British history announced yesterday—cutting taxes, not like the Opposition, who want more borrowing and spending.”

    House of Commons23 November 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  48. “I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter, which he has worked extremely hard on, to the attention of the House. I am grateful for that suggestion; I will take it away and come back with further information.”

    House of Commons23 November 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  49. “It does not surprise me that those on the Labour Benches attack private schools, which lots of parents want to send their children to. For them, that is common sense. For them, that is freedom of choice, which I stand by. Of course, should they close private schools down, the public sector would have to find billions more to fund it: again, not value for money—something that I am here to deliver—from Labour.”

    House of Commons23 November 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

  50. “We must also, as an urgent priority, look after those who have been damaged, or those who have tragically lost loved ones. We may then begin to restore the faith that has undoubtedly been lost in the authorities responsible for protecting and promoting public health. There are many unanswered questions and the repetition by Ministers of those three words—“safe and effective”—is simply not a good enough answer, for all the reasons I have just given, so I am delighted to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.”

    House of Commons20 October 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗