Esther McVey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard , are also not correct.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat and products containing halal and kosher meat; and for connected purposes. This is a Bill about animal welfare, transparency in meat production and consumer choice. It does not seek to ban halal or kosher meat. It seeks to ensure that it is clearly labelled. It is important that consumers have such information so that they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. Currently consumers do not have that information, and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and agreement. The unique process of halal and kosher meat requires the animal to have its throat slit. In the case of halal meat, the animal is often stunned before it is killed—although it might not be—and for the shechita killing for kosher meat, there is no pre-stunning. This lack of stunning causes the animal to experience severe pain. An individual concerned about animal welfare would want to know if the animal has been stunned prior to slaughter. Likewise, there are many religious groups who want to know what they are consuming too and whether the meat has been blessed by another religion. In all those cases clear labelling is essential to make an informed choice. Currently, the legislation that regulates animal slaughter is set out in assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, as well as in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Under these laws, animals must be stunned before they are killed, but exemptions exist for killing without stunning in accordance with specific religious rites. Added to that, there are currently no requirements for such meat to be labelled. What was once an exemption to the accepted stunning process of animals has become a growing part of the UK’s meat market. The Government’s own figures show that of the 1.035 billion animals processed in English and Welsh slaughterhouses in 2024, an estimated 214.6 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. The analysis shows that the proportion of meat supplied by non-stun slaughter is about four times greater than the proportion of Muslims and Jews in the UK. Although Government guidance is clear that meat that results from non-stun slaughter “must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims”, production is clearly going way beyond that, so much so that the UK now exports halal meat. Between 2018 and 2019, there was an almost 700% increase in the volume of sheep meat exported to the United Arab Emirates, all of which is required to be halal. Clearly, without compulsory labelling of non-stunned meat, slaughterhouses have gone down the route of producing more of it. In effect, a two-tier system has been created, whereby some slaughterhouses comply with stunning laws and others do not, citing the religious exemption, though without ever intending to focus their sale on that market. Unfortunately, a driver of the market for non-stunned meat is the fact that a step of the process is removed, meaning that production of non-stunned meat is cheaper. Supermarkets and food outlets can purchase that cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the customer, which is not what was intended by the legislation. We have seen many examples of this over the last 15 years; Britain’s biggest retailers—such as Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Asda—have sold halal or kosher meat without informing the consumer, as have Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC. Non-stunned produce is being used by 17 local councils in schools, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, without parents or children having the first idea about it. It is also being served in hospitals and local councils. In December, Labour put forward its much-vaunted animal welfare strategy, a document lauded for its aim of “preventing animals suffering unnecessarily”, which included the banning of boiling live lobsters, banning the use of carbon dioxide to stun pigs, and steps to ensure the more humane slaughter of farmed fish. I was surprised and alarmed to see no mention of the more humane slaughter of animals and the labelling of halal and kosher meat. There was a clear opportunity to call for the labelling of halal and kosher meat, but it was missed. Nowhere in Labour’s 12,500-word animal welfare strategy was it mentioned. We often hear in the House that the UK holds the status of a world leader in animal welfare, but such a glaring gap shows that this country can no longer make such a claim. Food and You 2, which is a biannual official statistic survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern in 2024 was “food production method”. In August 2022, almost 99% of respondents to the Government’s call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare said that method-of-slaughter labelling should be introduced. In research from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 92% of halal consumers state that clear halal certification is important, so is it not time we updated our regulations and demanded that our meat was clearly and fully labelled, so that we know what we are buying and eating? Surely that is what consumer choice is all about, and I would wager that the overwhelming majority of animal lovers in the UK expect the House of Commons to support this Bill today. This Bill will give all consumers assurance that they know how their meat was produced. I urge all Members of the House to support this measure. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Esther McVey, Sir Roger Gale, Alberto Costa, Dame Karen Bradley, Sir Edward Leigh, Graham Stringer, Rupert Lowe, Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin present the Bill. Esther McVey accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 386).

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is always good to have my hon. Friend—and I do call him my hon. Friend—intervene on me. He makes very good points. It is also important that a local GP chooses, and can see what their local constituents require and what is best for their health outcomes. The move to a new model based on deprivation rather than workload is, at best, an act of ignorance that fails to acknowledge the significant challenges of running GP practices in rural areas; at worst, it represents yet another example of Labour’s assault on rural life. Measuring pressures on GPs solely through the lens of deprivation would ignore the complex, distinct demands faced by rural practices. Rural communities have older populations. In 2019, the House of Lords Rural Economy Select Committee found that the average age in rural areas was almost six years higher than in urban areas, and a quarter of the rural population were over the age of 65.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Who would have thought that a Government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most basic human rights, trial by jury? The Government are removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carry a likely sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to go to trial—but let us look at the evidence. There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of 10 go to trial. These reforms mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. Given those figures, there will be no realistic change to the waiting times from removing that fundamental right. Who was doing the maths for this—the “Mastermind” Lord Chancellor? No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him. My constituents in Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the northern circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this is an absolute disgrace, and they put forward some of their suggestions. A barrister at St John’s Buildings said, “Actually, I don’t believe at all that cutting trial by jury will get down these lists and sort out the problem. In fact, I’m deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice. There is no evidence that it will have any impact on the delays. A better solution for the backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of sitting days and let courts sit around the clock, and also to sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system, which does not get defendants to court, or that gets them there late and wastes time.” Another barrister—a King’s Counsel criminal barrister at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester—said, “I’m very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% have been pulled out of thin air. Very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience in these cases. It will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal court by the Government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than evidence of guilt.” What about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries and trial by jury, too. This is one thing that Government Back Benchers should really be concerned about: constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of it in the Labour party manifesto. One person said, “That would have factored into my voting decision, and it could well have been—if not would have been—a very different decision.” The debate has been revealing. There are no data, no impact assessments and no pilot. The Minister herself, who even suggests—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I will be asking the Minister for a meeting. This is specifically about older, ancient, decaying and dangerous trees, but I am quite sure the Minister will be considering all kinds of tree preservation, including during the early years. When people walk through The Carrs now, they can find a memorial for Chris: a hand-carved wooden sculpture erected by his family in his memory. Visitors can scan a QR code to learn about Chris and the need for improved tree maintenance. It is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred and a testament to Fiona’s and Sam’s determination to use their profound grief to fight for change. We owe it to them to work collaboratively for this cause and push for clear standards for local authorities that cannot be skirted or sidelined. The issue extends far beyond Chris. We know that trees have a lifespan, and when and where they have been planted. Without maintenance work on these trees, there will be other tragic cases like Chris’s. In closing, I thank the Minister for her time and ask whether she will meet Fiona and me to discuss Chris’s law, the best way forward and steps to resolve this issue, and work with us on a meaningful legislative change to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  What a disappointment. I came to the House today to listen to the Minister’s statement in the hope that we would get some detailed information about the Government’s statutory inquiry. What have we had today? A long statement and little information. In fact, I would go so far as to say that what this Government are doing with the rape gang inquiry is a masterclass in procrastination. What did we hear from the Prime Minister? That it was a right-wing bandwagon. What did we hear from senior Ministers? That it was a dog whistle issue. We want to know what the terms of reference are and when they will be put on the Government’s website so that we can all inspect them. When will this conclude—or does the Minister hope that it will go on and on past the next general election?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Teacher Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are hampering schools’ recruitment of new teachers. First they hiked up the cost through the increase in employer national insurance contributions; then the money promised to state schools from charging VAT on private school fees was spent on housing instead. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how much the increase in employer national insurance contributions will cost schools in total over this Parliament?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Housing Delivery · Hansard source

  More

  When the Minister has met major house builders, what have they told him about the chances of hitting the Government’s target of building 1.5 million new houses in this Parliament?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm the amount of money that has been saved as a result of the changes I brought in to the equality, diversity and inclusion guidance in the civil service? Will he also say if he will be maintaining those changes, or does he seek to overturn that policy?