Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

8. What the responsibilities of the Ministers without Portfolio are.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)]

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.

[Alison McGovern]

I welcome the right hon. Lady back to the Front Bench. If a Prime Minister needs to install a Minister for common sense, is that an admission that they do not really have any?

[Esther McVey]

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.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I welcome the Minister to her post. If her Front Bench is full of common sense, which will she tackle first: a Home Secretary who thinks that Stockton North is a proverbial toilet; a Foreign Secretary who, during a critical time in geopolitics, is not even accountable to this House; or a Transport Secretary whose Network North plan thinks that Manchester is in Preston?

[Esther McVey]

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.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new role. Will it include the possibility of re-examining the vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been described at the public inquiry as not fit for purpose? The £120,000 maximum payment has not been increased since 2007, and the 60% disability threshold is causing a massive injustice. Will she address those issues, please?

[Esther McVey]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new Minister without Portfolio on her position, and I wish her well. Having seen the Prime Minister’s struggles using a contactless card at a petrol station, and his impression that a private helicopter is the best way to get to Southampton, I think he probably was in need of some common sense, so it is no surprise that the right hon. Lady has been referred to in that way. Given she is in the market for some common-sense ideas, I suggest that the Government adopt a policy that people who live here pay taxes on all their income, and abolish the non-dom tax status. Perhaps she could cast her mind to abolishing the tax breaks for private schools, and spend that money on the 93% who go to state schools. Is it just the case that this Government are totally out of common sense and ideas?

[Esther McVey]

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.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of compliance with the ministerial code.

Public Procurement Processes

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mick Whitley]

Yes, and the Minister should address that question in his response.

In summary, we cannot continue with a system under which one in six procurement contracts over a five-year period was found by the Fair Tax Foundation to have been awarded to companies with connections to tax havens. We cannot continue with VIP lanes. We need a system that is accountable and transparent and made watertight against cronyism; that places social value, local economies and fair employment practices at its heart; that enables the Government to recoup money from those who fail to deliver; that gives real opportunity to small, medium and social enterprises to win; and that recognises that outsourcing has been a complete failure and the time for a return to insourcing is overdue. Without extensive amendment, the Procurement Bill does none of those things.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. We will go to the Front Benchers no later than 10.33 am, mindful of the fact that Mick Whitley will need time to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Super. I look forward to debating that further in the weeks ahead.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, rightly highlighted that debarment is a crucial area of the Bill. In the past few days, we have tabled new amendments on debarment, which strengthen the regime. I am not going to go into all the details now because there is ample opportunity in the days ahead, but she is right to draw attention to it. On subcontractors and 30-day payments, there are implied payment terms within the Bill. Even if it is not a subcontract, the SME can demand this and raise it. Again, we could go into further details, but we have thought through the point she raised.

In conclusion, this is a great opportunity. We have come a long way from the starting point that we found ourselves in when we were in the EU. We are starting to make British procurement rules that will benefit British taxpayers, British employees, British public authorities and British suppliers. That is a good thing for all of us.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call Mick Whitley to wind up.

Emergency Service Personnel: Posthumous Awards

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I certainly remember the visceral emotion I felt on hearing about the murders of PC Hughes and PC Bone. It is really important that we do not let those memories be forgotten, and that we give their families some degree of comfort.

I took the time to recount the events of 1976 because Constable Taylor’s courage was never properly acknowledged. The description of the attack, and Chief Constable Hamill’s assessment of George Taylor’s bravery, are taken from a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Bruce Millan, recommending that Taylor be recognised by the late Queen for his bravery.

Three of the police officers who were involved in the ultimate arrest of McCulloch and Mone were given awards. I have a copy of the London Gazette from August 1978, which details the award of the Queen’s gallantry medal to the officers from Cumbria constabulary who were involved. No such recognition was provided to Constable Taylor, who died while bravely trying to stop the attack and escape of those two armed and dangerous criminals.

It has never been made clear why George Taylor’s courage was overlooked. The best guess of people who have been engaged in the campaign longer than I have is that it was simply a mistake. We know that mistakes happen; I am sure that they happen with typed and written letters and paper records, given the electronic issues that we have today. That is not to blame long-retired civil servants or Bruce Millan, now deceased, who was a well-respected and effective politician, but mistakes happen. When it was a mistake on the part of the Government, they cannot hide behind an arbitrary and absolute rule of awards having to be made within five years; sadly, that is what the UK Government said today.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is giving a very powerful speech. As she recognised, the number of Members here shows that she has brought forward such an important issue. Does she agree that the very least we can do when people have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty is to recognise them with an award?

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for our nurses for all the work they do, but it is simply unreasonable and unaffordable to have a 19% pay rise. If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks is reasonable, I am sure the Labour party can explain to us how it would pay for that and the impact it would have on inflation. If he really wants to support working people, maybe he should get off the picket line and end the strikes.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Q12. The train service between Wilmslow in my constituency and London was always hourly, direct and took one hour and 50 minutes. Now, we would be very lucky if we got a direct train and the journey time is often double that. And that is not restricted to strike days; it is day in, day out on Avanti trains. Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents what the Government are going to do to sort this out and get the west coast service back to what it used to be, because the service at the moment is completely unacceptable?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the unacceptable deterioration in the quality of Avanti’s service. The Transport Secretary is rightly monitoring it and holding Avanti to account. There is a plan to increase the number of trains—with the 100 additional drivers—and restore the full direct service between Manchester and London. But what this plan needs—and I hope the Labour party supports it—is trade union co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady. She will know that we have extended the eligibility of free school meals to 1.9 million pupils. On top of that, there is the £200 million holiday activities and food programme and the £1,200 of direct payments to the most vulnerable. I gently say to her that we also need to keep an eye on the macroeconomic picture. The No. 1 priority is to get inflation down, and we will not be able to do that if we follow the Opposition’s plans.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Given that we have the highest burden of taxation in living memory, it is clear that the Government’s financial difficulties are caused by overspending, not due to under-taxing. Does the Deputy Prime Minister therefore agree that if the Government have enough money to proceed with HS2 at any cost, then they have sufficient money not to increase taxes; but if they have so little money that they have to increase taxes—the last thing for a Conservative Government to do—then they do not have sufficient money for HS2? So can I gently urge the Deputy Prime Minister not to ask Conservative MPs to support any tax rises unless and until this unnecessary vanity project is scrapped, because I for one will not support them?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I think I followed the various steps of logic in that question. I understand her opposition to HS2. I think we have some very difficult decisions to make. They will inevitably involve a balanced approach. I will leave it to the Chancellor to set them out in the autumn statement tomorrow.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Esther McVey Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

There have been so many wonderful and moving tributes today, it has been a real pleasure to be in the Chamber to listen to them all. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make my tribute through the eyes of the schoolchildren of Tatton.

So many MPs have mentioned the curiosity children have about the late Queen Elizabeth II. The question they ask, particularly in primary and junior schools, is, “Have you met the Queen?” When I say yes there are literally squeals of delight and gasps of disbelief. Uncontainable excitement ripples through the class. Such was the impact that this lady had on people of all ages and in all parts of the country. She loved children and children loved her. And the clatter of questions that followed! “Were you nervous when you met her?” “How was she?” “What’s she like?” “Where did you meet her?” So I try to describe the Queen to them as they sit and listen, eyes wide open.

“Well,” I say, “she was diminutive, yet she was imposing. She was gentle, yet steely. With that powderpuff grey hair, she was radiant and she shone, but it was her eyes that were remarkable and memorable. They were penetrating and bottomless, the knowledge behind them limitless. You could almost feel what she had seen and experienced. You were in the presence of wisdom—and they were kind, too. She was a curious blend, quite disarming and yet incredibly caring. And was I nervous? Without doubt. You’re in the presence of greatness, whose life has spanned war and peace, and that nervousness is amplified by the royal protocol that she lived through and by.

“When you are made a Privy Counsellor and you have steps to take and kneels to bow, there is meticulous choreography—the timing, quick steps, kneels, the precision of words and taking oaths—and the seal of office at Sandringham. It was magical; it was a whirl of rooms and doors opening. It was brevity, but intensity, and as we left we were all handed a packed lunch.” All I can say is that it was thoughtful but simple, no frills—I think it was nutritionally balanced, but there was no fuss whatsoever; there was no bother or nonsense. As deputy Chief Whip, I was also Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household.

What the Queen loved, and where I met her and spent more time with her, was Windsor Castle, with her horses in her stables, which she absolutely loved. She confided that one of her best memories was the day that Estimate, trained by Sir Michael Stoute, won the Gold Cup at Royal Ascot. She spoke to her trainers, Nicky Henderson and John Gosden, every week without fail. That was what she loved. I am delighted that the St Leger is going ahead this weekend, not least because the Queen won it in her silver jubilee year with Dunfermline, ridden by Willie Carson, one of her favourite jockeys.

She was kind and, finally, thoughtful. In my final conversation with her, she questioned social media and its impact, and said, “Could anybody these days keep a secret?” She talked about Operation Mincemeat, the deception that fooled Hitler and helped us to win the war, and she said, “Can people keep things to themselves, or do they feel that they’d sooner tell everybody, and maybe spoil what should be done?”

When I leave children, I say, “Have you got discretion? Can you keep a secret? Are you selfless? Can you think of the greater good more than you can think of yourself? And if you can, then the Queen has done her job and her spirit and her qualities will live on in all of us.” God bless the Queen. God save the King.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We had a referendum, as I have told the House before, in 2014, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should respect the mandate of the people. He keeps saying that he wants independence for his country. Our country is independent—though the Leader of the Opposition tried 48 times to reverse it —and the only way that independence would ever be reversed is if we had the disaster of a Labour-SNP coalition to take us back into the EU.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Q4. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister wrote that“you cannot just spend your way out of inflation, and you cannot tax your way into growth…We will cut the costs of government.” Hear, hear—I completely agree. May I suggest that, as a strong start, he scraps the inflated white elephant that is HS2, saving the Government tens of billions of pounds from a budget that is spiralling out of control?

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

Since the last Justice questions, I have published the Government’s response to Jonathan Hall’s independent review of terrorism in prisons and the Government’s root-and-branch review of the parole system in England and Wales. I have also discussed action to hold to account the perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine with International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan and United States war crimes ambassador Beth Van Schaack.

[Esther McVey]

Delays in family courts were already far too long before covid, and the problem has only got worse since then. It often means that a parent is not able to see their child in the meantime—a point raised by many parents in my constituency of Tatton. Will the Minister make the reduction of those delays in the family courts a priority?

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As was mentioned earlier, something like 50% to 55% of cases that go to the family court are safeguarding or domestic abuse cases. I do think those need the authority of a judge, but the rest, frankly, should by and large be dispensed with before court through an alternative dispute resolution of one sort or another. We talked about considering making mediation compulsory, but crucially, we need the incentives and disincentives for early resolution to be unequivocal.

Covid-19 Update

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman is at variance with his Front Bench on that point, and not for the first time. I do not think he is right. I think that we should trust in the judgment of the British people, and that is what we are going to do.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I, too, welcome today’s statement and the review of the plan B measures. Like Conservative colleagues, I question the need for mandatory vaccination on behalf of the 100,000 NHS workers. Given that the chief medical officer told MPs that vaccination has a “minimal impact on transmission”, is it not the case that there is no reason at all for mandatory vaccination for care workers and NHS staff? Over the past two years, these key workers have worked tirelessly on the frontline and we have clapped them. Will the Prime Minister make sure that he does not sack them? It is utterly unjustifiable.

[The Prime Minister]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but the NHS fully supports the policy because of patient safety considerations. I repeat what I have said to several Members: I really think that it is the duty of healthcare professionals to get vaccinated.

Access to Archives

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before I call Chris Evans, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are legal proceedings this week before the information rights tribunal. I am further advised that the House’s sub judice resolution of 2001 does not apply to first-tier tribunals, so those legal proceedings are not sub judice. All hon. Members should, however, be mindful of matters that may be the subject of future legal proceedings, which may, at a later stage, become sub judice. I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of the debate.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to archives purchased with public money.

Thank you, Ms McVey, for your chairmanship; I look forward to your stout resolution as we move through the debate. Thank you also for your statement beforehand. I have deliberated with the Table Office on this matter, and I would like to place on record my thanks for its help and support during this period.

On 2 May 2012, the Minister of State for Universities and Science in the coalition Government, the now Lord Willetts, said in a speech:

“As taxpayers put their money towards intellectual enquiry, they cannot be barred from then accessing it. They should not be kept outside with their noses pressed to the window”.

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. If money from the public purse is used for the acquisition, whether direct or through acceptance in lieu schemes, of research, records or archives, they should be accessible to the public. Put simply, those who bought it ought to have access to it. The public have a right to access materials and records that have been paid for with public funds. However, because of Government actions that bar the public from accessing certain archives, that seems not always to be the case.

Barring access to archives is both a break of the public’s trust and a threat to the integrity of our academia. It also sets a dangerous precedent in terms of accountability and transparency more widely if the Government are able to censor and restrict access to archives. I am deeply concerned about recent activities of the Cabinet Office that have blocked access to certain archives that were bought with public money, which is why I called for this debate. The resulting legal battles and the costs involved with barring access are a further misuse of taxpayers’ money, and this Government need to be held accountable for it. No Government should interfere with public access to archives that have been saved for the nation and paid for by the public.

Clearly, there are some circumstances in which that right may have to be restricted. National security interests or ensuring that general data protection regulation requirements are met are both reasonable justifications for restricting access, and I do not think that anyone would deny that. There is a reason why certain documents are kept sealed by the National Archives for 30 years. The public accept that, but it seems that this Government are using and abusing that public acceptance. They are pushing out-of-date legislation to its limits. There are a number of pieces of legislation that cover the reasons for restricting public access, and some are in dire need of an update, having been drafted long before the digital age was even thought of.

This Government are using the numerous loopholes in those pieces of legislation to restrict public access to records retrospectively. That is not fair use of public money; frankly, it is an abuse of public trust in the Government to provide open access to records that have been saved for the nation. In some cases, the abuse is even worse. In cases where the purchase was agreed or funding was obtained on the basis of public access, the retrospective closure of archival material is both a costly misuse of public money and a dangerous precedent for the Government to set. It breaks the understanding upon which the funding was obtained.

I am sure that many will be aware of the Broadlands Archives. They have gained a reasonable amount of press coverage over the last few months, and rightly so. Historian Andrew Lownie has fought legal battles for four years to try to gain access to the papers, diaries and personal correspondence of Lord and Lady Mountbatten. I have spoken to Mr Lownie over the past few months about his experiences of trying to access these archives, which were purchased on the understanding that they would be open to the public. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Office has attempted to obstruct him at every turn, resulting in four costly and unnecessary years of legal battles.

Indeed, the Cabinet Office tried to get out of responding to this very debate, suggesting that I go to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport instead. That is why I sought advice from the Table Office before going ahead with this debate. When the original suggestion did not work, the Cabinet Office also inquired about the potential withdrawal of this debate completely.

Cabinet Office Ministers are not facing their responsibilities and they are reluctant to say why it has taken so long and been so difficult for Mr Lownie to gain access to these records. The Cabinet Office needs to be held accountable for spending large sums of money on legal cases to prevent access to archival material that was bought with public funds, especially when the fundraising for the purchase emphasised that the archive would be open to all.

In 2011, these records were saved for the nation when the University of Southampton purchased the Broadland Archives. The purchase was partly funded by a grant of nearly £2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund and it was subject to the acceptance in lieu scheme, which in this case equated to £1.6 million in tax foregone by the Exchequer. That funding was provided on the basis that the archives would be open and accessible to researchers and the public. Let me just say that again: taxpayers’ money was provided on the basis that the archives would be accessible to the public. If archives have been bought for the nation on the agreement that they will be accessible to researchers and the public, that agreement really ought to be upheld. It is not fair to the taxpayer or members of the public who wish to access these archives if access is then denied or obstructed after purchase. What is most worrying about this case is that it involves not the Government but an academic institution—an academic institution that should be promoting active research by historians.

I will not get into the case because the Information Commissioner is involved and there is an appeal; I am mindful about that when I speak about the case. However, I am talking mainly about the principle related to what is going on here, because the one thing that we have learned politically in the last couple of years is that there are politicians out there who peddle fake news—the idea that facts are fake. The only way that we can combat that—people saying that certain historical events did not happen—is through the work of our archivists and historians.

It seems to me that what is happening with the Mountbatten papers and Broadlands archives is hindering future historians in bringing out the full story of what went before. If we are to learn anything about the future, we must understand our past. I am worried that the Government are actively involved in restricting archives and that cannot go on. It sets a dangerous precedent for future Governments.

We may one day—I hope not—have a Government that want to burn our past and change it, and that will use this legislation, which I fear, to stop us having the truth and the real story of our lives in this country, and to fit their own political purposes. I hope that that never happens; I hope we never see what happened in Germany in the 1930s happen in this country. However, if we had the mechanism to block our archives retrospectively, as seems to be happening in this case, we would be setting a dangerous precedent not only for historians but for future society and future Governments.

I ask the Minister to look at the case carefully. I understand that there are legal procedures, but my extreme view is that the precedent being set is dangerous for the future. I hope he will look at the legislation and understand that when it was written we were not in a digital age. We had no concept of what was going to happen. In the last 10 years, the world has changed beyond all recognition. We have more information than we have ever had before. Government is now conducted over WhatsApp and text messages. We have an idea of what people are thinking. We live in an exciting time. It would be a shame if future historians could not access that, or did not know how important decisions were arrived at. I ask the Minister to look hard at the case and see the argument I am making that if we dangerously reduce access to archives, we will cause serious problems down the line.