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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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
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
“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.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons17 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons17 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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!”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.””
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In her summing up, will the Minister say what will happen, particularly in light of the national insurance contribution black hole, as those national insurance contributions are to be paid year in, year out? Will the Government pay for those police officers, year in, year out? If so, what will be the amount paid during a whole Parliament? Where will that money come from? I urge the Government and the Chancellor, through the Minister, to stop this ill-thought-through, ham-fisted Budget change to employer national insurance contributions. The only solution to the problem—”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid I will not. I understand that the Government say that they will pick up the £230 million tab, but that still means that the Government will be paying a tax bill rather than having money to spend on frontline police. Last month, we heard the Home Secretary announce a £200 million boost to neighbourhood policing to fund the recruitment of 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, as the Government said before the election, although they had been very quiet on that for a long period of time. I wonder whether the Government can do that. The numbers are very similar: £200 million for 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, yet they have given themselves a £230 million a year tax bill. Will those 13,000 neighbourhood police officers ever materialise?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can I finish my sentence? There is only one solution to the problem that will have the correct consequences: scrap the diabolical tax on our police forces.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for saying that. I hope he too shares my delight that Liverpool is top of the football division as well. We all should share a love of this country, and we should all want the best for this country. I too want a safe country, so it is vital that the money goes to the police and the police forces to ensure that happens, and not on increased tax bills. That is why I am asking for this ham-fisted tax increase to be reversed.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Did the Minister receive a further letter from the chief constable, expressing serious concerns about the rising number of serious sexual assaults going on in Cheshire?”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have to say that I already see—in just seven months—that this Labour Government with that awful, awful Budget are doing exactly the same thing: they are crashing the economy all over again, but in record time. I just want to make sure that our police and our streets are protected. I wish to thank the Minister because I know that she takes this matter very seriously. Whatever she said or did not say in the debate today, I know that she will take that message back and I know that she will be fighting to get this terrible employer national insurance contribution policy reversed. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer National Insurance contributions on police forces.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all Members for taking part in today’s debate. I think I understood from everyone that they would not want to see police officers taxed off our streets. There was one area on which I did not get consensus, which was why I said that the current Government were fiscally illiterate: what Government Members did not seem to understand is that money going to pay for extra taxes means money that will not be going on the frontline. The very fact that it is going in taxes and has to be compensated for shows that it will not go on the frontline. That is why I am asking for this policy to be stopped and reversed. There seems to be collective amnesia among those on the Government Benches. The coalition Government came into power because the previous Labour Government pretty much crashed the economy. That was why the coalition was voted in.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour leadership is in serious jeopardy of stubbornly painting itself into a corner, when what is needed is pragmatism and for the Labour leadership to listen to the farmers, the public and its own Back Benchers? For today’s debate to mean anything, for Labour Back Benchers to mean anything and for their words not to be cheap, it is time for the leadership to actually listen and find a way to graciously stop this farm food tax.”
House of Commons10 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am hugely concerned, my constituents are hugely concerned and the Cheshire police force is hugely concerned about the rising number of serious sexual attacks by those here illegally in this country and those who have been housed in immigration centres in Cheshire. May we have a debate on the rising risk in Cheshire, a review of legislation to remove foreign offenders, and the risk assessments undertaken on the threat posed by individuals placed in accommodation centres in Cheshire?”
House of Commons6 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How does losing £450 million of investment on Merseyside and into the wider north-west area equate with the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth?”
House of Commons3 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called. I also remind Members that, if they wish to speak, they need to be here for both the opening and closing speeches.”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on Thursday afternoon I led a Backbench Business debate on the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, during which lots of critical comments were made about the MHRA. I specifically made reference to the minutes taken from meetings of the Commission on Human Medicines for the vaccine benefit risk expert working group. On Saturday, following the debate, the MHRA removed the minutes from its website. I should be grateful for your guidance and advice as to what can be done to ensure that those minutes are put back on the website immediately, and without alteration. Surely public bodies should not be using debates in this Chamber as an excuse to remove information that is in the public interest.”
House of Commons20 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More recently, in 2021, the MHRA reacted slowly to strong signals that there was a serious problem with the AstraZeneca vaccine causing an autoimmune condition called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Denmark and other European countries suspended the vaccine for all age groups on 11 March 2021. The MHRA, by contrast, only started to restrict the vaccine in some age groups nearly two months later, on 7 May—yet there was a signal in the yellow card reports as early as 8 February. How many people were needlessly exposed to a risk?”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The yellow card is currently a voluntary scheme that doctors and members of the public can report to, but I echo calls from the Sling the Mesh campaign and others for the UK to follow the example of Denmark and Sweden by making it mandatory for all healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions. Let me turn to the MHRA’s failure to act promptly on evidence of adverse reactions. We have seen that historically. For example, sodium valproate was known to cause harm to unborn babies in the 1980s, yet the MHRA did not establish a valproate pregnancy prevention plan until 2018. The known harms to unborn babies were allowed to persist for over 30 years.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was recognised by the IMMDS review led by Baroness Cumberlege in the case of Primodos, sodium valproate and surgical mess—I meant to say mesh, though perhaps the word should have been “mess.” According to research from Bangor University in 2019, potentially avoidable adverse drug reactions cost the NHS £2.2 billion a year in hospital admissions. In 2018, the MHRA estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2% and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. More recently, it has claimed that reporting rates for covid vaccines are better due to higher public awareness, but it has not been able to point to published evidence to back up that claim.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reporting scheme should be a valuable source of information about possible harms, and act as an early warning system, but there is gross under-reporting to it. As the IMMDS’s 2020 review put it, the system is “too complex and too diffuse to allow early signal detection.” Under-reporting is a big problem because it makes it difficult to spot safety signals and assign causation. That then translates into unnecessary harm or death, with devastating side effects from treatment going unnoticed for years, months or even decades.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Twenty years ago, the Health Committee report, “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”, found that the MHRA was unusual in being one of the few European agencies “funded entirely by fees derived from services to industry”. Not much has changed since, with the MHRA continuing to get 75% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In this context, the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler does little to quell suspicions of conflicts and the implications that has for patient safety. One of the most worrying issues is the MHRA’s mismanagement of the yellow card system. Established in 1964, the system is a way for patients, relatives and healthcare professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to drugs or medical devices.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The MHRA is required to scrutinise applications from the pharmaceutical companies for new products and devices and to remain ever vigilant over existing drugs should safety problems arise post-authorisation. It has to weigh up the arguments for and against these products and devices. After all, the companies trying to get these products on to the market—and to keep them there—are driven, as all industries are, by commercial success. It is up to the MHRA to balance that with the health and safety of the UK and the public. Alarm bells rang for many of us when, in March 2022, Dame June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, boasted of the agency’s transition from watchdog to enabler.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the many colleagues from across the House who supported my application for it, especially the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), and also the hon. Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines used in the UK. Its job is to oversee medical products, medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion. The responsibility it has is extremely important, as it comes with the potential not only to change people’s lives for the better, but to cause serious harm—even death—if poor decisions are made or safety signals are missed.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House notes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) continues to need substantial reform, as recognised by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review (IMMDS), with patient safety concerns persisting and exacerbating since the review’s publication in 2020; believes that the MHRA’s 2017 expert working group report on Primodos was deeply flawed, with IMMDS later concluding the drug had caused avoidable harm; further notes that the yellow card system for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions is failing, with no process for following up on serious or fatal reactions and conflicts of interest, with 75% of the MHRA’s funding being derived from industry fees, a concern raised in the Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 of the Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, HC 42-I, published on 5 April 2005; also notes the MHRA’s delayed response to reports of myocarditis, pericarditis and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia following covid-19 vaccination, despite action from regulators in other countries; and calls on the Government to fully implement the recommendations in the IMMDS review and to acknowledge the harm done to patients and the financial burden on the healthcare system as a result of the MHRA’s widespread regulatory failures.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Requesting data is not a sign of being against drugs or vaccines; it shows that you favour transparency. Those who try to keep data confidential and criticise those who ask for evidence are anti an evidence-based approach. How can you have informed consent if you do not know precisely what is happening?””
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those issues were not resolved before the MHRA gave the green light to start the vaccination of the nation. Particularly worrying is the issue of lymphopenia, where blood does not have enough white blood cells, which was reported in phase 1 of the trials and then went away—not because they fixed the problem, but because testing for the condition was not conducted in phases 2 or 3. In summary, the failure to act on the weaknesses of the MHRA will lead only to more harm and further damage to the public’s trust in the pharmaceuticals agency and those tasked with regulating it. My hope is that the debate will help bring those wide-ranging issues further to light and focus the Minister’s mind on finding solutions. I will end on the words of Dr Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford: “You cannot support both secrecy and vaccination.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗