Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that really important question from the hon. Gentleman, and he is right to address this issue. A core part of our violence against women and girls strategy is tackling the online proliferation of harmful narratives that are being pushed on our young men and boys. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I hosted a roundtable across Government, with the Secretary of State for Education present, to look at how best we can support our men and boys in a positive way to provide them with opportunities going forward, so that they are not being pushed the message that they are to blame and are toxic. I want to be very clear that “toxic masculinity” does not mean that all men are toxic—that is a really important point to make.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Jean Taylor set up the organisation Families Fighting for Justice after her daughter, Chantel Taylor, was violently and savagely murdered. The murderer then desecrated and concealed her body. Jean Taylor wants to make sure that that is a crime in its own right, not just an aggravating factor. Not only could she not grieve for her daughter or bury her—Chantel’s three children could not do so either—but serious evidence was hidden by the hiding of the body. The murderer is now out on the streets. Will the Minister please meet me and Jean Taylor to discuss a Chantel’s law?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that issue. I had hoped to drop in to the event that she hosted yesterday in Parliament to meet Jean directly. Ministerial responsibilities meant that I was unable to do so, but I will commit today to meeting her and Jean to discuss this matter. The right hon. Lady will know that the Law Commission is looking specifically at desecration of a body; that work is ongoing. The Government will look carefully at the report to see what more we can do. I know that this is an issue, and I will happily meet her and Jean.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[Darren Jones]

Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it.

Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is very senior and makes an erudite point. We still do not know why the Prime Minister chose Mandelson—he has never said exactly why he did. We can all see the reasons he should not have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Esther McVey]

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

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Lady will know that I am not at liberty to comment in respect of any potential claim to the employment tribunal.

Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was carried out by UKSV between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. That included collecting relevant information and interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. One issue has been raised in the debate about that time period; there is a suggestion that No. 10 applied pressure on officials at the Foreign Office in relation to the security vetting process. It was confirmed in testimony today before the Foreign Affairs Committee that no such pressure was applied beyond asking for the process to be completed as quickly as possible, and confirmed by Sir Olly Robbins that there was no personal contact by telephone or message. That is testimony from the official himself in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. The following day, on 29 January 2025, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson none the less. This was an established process for the Foreign Office, which had the authority to be able to make those decisions. It is worth reiterating for the sake of clarity, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that UKSV makes decisions for many Government Departments, but not for the Foreign Office. The final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not by UKSV.

When I became aware of the details of Peter Mandelson’s case following the publication of reporting in The Guardian last Thursday, I was briefed on the matter that evening at the Cabinet Office by officials in respect of both the case of Peter Mandelson and the existing policy on UKSV recommendations and the Foreign Office’s decisions. I immediately suspended the right for the Foreign Office to overrule UKSV recommendations pending further investigation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), I can confirm that the review that Adrian Fulford will conduct for the Government should be completed in around four weeks, so that we can take a quick decision on the proper functioning of the process.

Security Vetting

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, any donations that individuals receive—from Labour Together or from a trade union, Momentum or any other organisation—are for them to declare in line with the rules, and I do not think there has been any accusation that Members have been in breach of those rules.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The steps taken by the former head of Labour Together to smear journalists when they dared to look into the murky finances of this Labour think-tank are nothing short of chilling. No longer head of Labour Together, he is now serving as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, which is the Department currently looking into his actions, so he will be marking his own homework. When is the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office going to be sacked, if he will not do the decent thing and resign?

[Darren Jones]

I know my voice is going, but maybe the right hon. Lady did not hear my response to the urgent question. The process is being led by the independent adviser for ethics, which is not the Cabinet Office. As I have said, the independent adviser will report to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will then make a decision.

Standards in Public Life

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that we are bringing forward in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will include criminal sanctions for those who breach the rules. As I said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to consider the wider recommendations for whistleblowers that she mentions.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the adviser who suggested that Peter Mandelson be made ambassador to the United States had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson—the Prime Minister —is still in post?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson. Had information that is now available been available at the time of his appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

Lord Mandelson

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

When we talk about the appointment of Mandelson, what we are really talking about is the judgment of the Prime Minister. Mandelson is now a key part of the Starmer Government —appointments, what goes on, the key people—which brings into question every judgment made by this Prime Minister, from Chagos and China to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgment is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour party.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Judgment, discretion and the way that we behave are fundamental; they are part of our character, and we know that character is set quite early in life. Certainly, we can see that Mandelson’s character has not changed in all the time he has been involved in public life and so-called public service.

It is only because of what has been revealed in the United States that we are now in a position to know that Mandelson—he is no longer Lord Mandelson or the right hon. Lord Mandelson—

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will leave Labour Members to reflect on that because many have spoken up today, but I say once again that they are just words if there is no action.

The judgment of the Prime Minister is deeply, deeply flawed. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. I ran a business. If something was going wrong, the buck stopped with me. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. It is not Morgan McSweeney. He enabled Morgan McSweeney. He needs to be held accountable for his relationship. We need to see the emails and we need to see what the conversations were—that is why this is important—but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

[Esther McVey]

I am going to raise a very sensitive issue. My hon. Friend raised a point about vulnerable women being abused, about powerful men taking advantage, and about a friend who was appointed when he was known to be a friend of a convicted paedophile. We also have a Labour Government who ran away from investigating grooming gangs—again, vulnerable women being taken advantage of by powerful men. The Labour Government have said they stand up for women, women’s rights and vulnerable women. They have shown now that they do not, at any level—whether at the highest level or in respect of white working-class girls. Labour, I am afraid, has a lot of questions to answer about protecting women.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will end with two responses to that intervention. First, my right hon. Friend is obviously absolutely right. I say to Labour Members, who were shaking their heads, that every decision—every decision—the Government have made is brought into question by the lack of judgment the Prime Minister has shown. I stood at the Dispatch Box and repeatedly called for a national grooming inquiry. I am a British-Pakistani Muslim male. I have two sons. I want them to grow up without aspersions being cast on them. One day, I hope to have a daughter—apologies to my wife—and I want her to grow up in a safe environment. We have to be honest and we have to be strong in making those calls. I say to the Minister, as he answers those questions, that the question about the ISC is really important. We need to know that under the amendment, it will have the full authority to deal with what comes in front of it, so that we and the public can make a judgment.

Secondly, why did Gordon Brown’s calls fall on deaf ears? Why was he not given the respect, as a former Prime Minister, of his calls being dealt with? Was Mandelson so strong that, despite his toxicity, he was protected and enabled?

Finally—I have made this point repeatedly—the judgment of the Prime Minister surely has to be in question. We will now find out what else was known. The Minister has the opportunity to share anything else that he might want to share at the Dispatch Box.

China and Japan

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives to see what information is available for that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but, more broadly, during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister in the then Government.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

Chinese Embassy

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman—

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

No, you’re not.

[Dan Jarvis]

I genuinely am, because I respect the wisdom of someone who has served in this House for many years. The right hon. Lady questions my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. I can give her an assurance that I have a huge amount of respect—

[Esther McVey]

Answer the question!

[Dan Jarvis]

I am answering the question. I have a huge amount of respect for Members who have served for a long time, and particularly those who have chaired the ISC. We need to find a mechanism to ensure that Members like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) have access to some of this information, so that they can make informed comments in this House. I take his point, although I do not agree with it, about mitigations. He understands that there are limits to what I can say on the mitigations. On his substantive point, I do not agree with him that this is a win for China, not least because I could not have been clearer about the importance of the consolidation of the estate. The Government have reached an agreement with China that the existing diplomatic footprint in London will be reduced in size from seven diplomatic sites to one. I am not sure that that constitutes a particularly big win in my book—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because I seem to remember that he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, whose Government had quite a different relationship with China from the one we have now. He will remember that very well, as do I. While I am grateful for his advice, I hope he has borne in mind the points I made about the consistency of the previous Government, including the one he served in.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

In the light of what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you see this as short question and I hope that I get a short answer.

Does the Minister know if the security services have any concerns at all about the proposed new Chinese super-embassy—yes or no?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Lady has seen the letter that has been published today by the director general—

[Esther McVey]

Yes or no?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not know how much time the right hon. Lady spends thinking about matters relating to national security or understands the nature of the—

[Esther McVey]

That is condescending!

[Dan Jarvis]

Not at all—I am seeking to explain to her that this Government, like the last Government, manage a range of national security risks. That would be the case whatever decision was taken around this proposal.