Commons Chamber

Tuesday 24th February 2026

(began 2 hours, 5 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tim Farron Mr. speaker, I welcome what the Minister has just said in response to my hon. Friend's question, but we start a Friend's question, but we start a long way behind the average in OECD countries that 53% of people with cancer have access to radiotherapy. In England, it is 36% in south Cumbria and Lancashire, the worst in the country just 29%. It's no doubt in our communities in south Cumbria. That is down to the fact that my patients in our communities have to travel three hour round trips to get treatment at Preston every day.

Will she support the new plans? We've got to bring a satellite radiotherapy unit to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kendal, so that people in our communities can have shorter journeys and longer lives. Minister. I thank him for his question and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his question and we share a part of that ICB because it covers my constituency as well it covers my constituency as well and this is why we've made a commitment in the cancer plan to make sure that coastal and rural make sure that coastal and rural areas are getting services that they need. It's why we're investing more in radiotherapy machines, and more in radiotherapy machines, and it's why we're working with Icbs to work with them, to make sure that they're providing the services that are needed by their communities, and that we're supporting the recruitment of the cancer workforce necessary to be able to go into those particular rural areas as well.
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
None Portrait Q11. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of health-related funding for specialist sexual violence support services. (907935)
-

Mr Speaker. Prime Minister has made tackling violence against women and girls a priority across this government, and every public service must play
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

Online services.
12:41
12:42
12:42
Esther McVey Portrait Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)
-
-
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. Mr. speaker, 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 they are clearly labelled. It is important consumers have such information so they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. And currently consumers do not have that information and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and without their 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's killed, although it might not be, and for the 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 an animal has been stunned prior to slaughter. Likewise, there are many religious groups who want to know what they are consuming too.

And if meat has been blessed by another religion. In all these 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 killing, 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 and 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 1.35 billion animals processed in English and Welsh slaughterhouses in 2024, an estimated 214.6 million were slaughtered to produce halal meat. The analysis shows the total meat supplied by Non-stun Slaughter is about four times greater than the population of Muslims and Jews in the UK.

So while government guidance is clear that Non-stun slaughter must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims, production is clearly going way beyond that. So much so. The UK is now exporting halal meat abroad. Between 2018 and 19 there was an almost 700% increase in the volume of sheepmeat exported to the UK, all of which is required to be halal. Clearly without compulsory labelling of non-stun meat, slaughterhouses have gone down the route of producing more of it. In effect, a two tier system has been created, one in which some slaughterhouses comply by stunning laws and one in which others don't.

Citing the religious exemption without ever intending to focus their sale on that market. Unfortunately, a driver of this market of non-stun meat is that a step of the process is removed, meaning this meat production becomes cheaper. Supermarkets and food outlets can produce this cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the consumer. And this is not what was intended by legislation. We have seen many examples of this over the last 15 years. Titan's biggest retailers such as Sainsbury's, Tesco's, Marks and Spencer's and Asda have sold halal or kosher meat without informing the consumer, as well as places like Domino's, Pizza Hut and KFC and Non-stun.

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, as well as it also being served in hospitals and in local councils. So in December, when Labour put forward its much vaunted animal welfare strategy, a document lauded with the aim of preventing animal suffering unnecessarily, which included the banning of boiling of 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 this labelling of halal and kosher meat, and 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 shown shows this country can no longer make such a claim.

Food for you Too, which is a biannual official statistics survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, found in 2024 that the most common spontaneously expressed food concern was food production method, and in August 2022, the government's call for evidence on labelling for animal welfare found that almost 99% of respondents said method of slaughter labelling should be introduced. Research from the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board shows that clear halal certification is stated as important for 92% of halal consumers.

So isn't it time we updated our regulations and demanded our meat was clearly and fully labelled so we know what we're 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. Mr. speaker, this bill will provide that insurance assurance to all consumers that they know how their meat was produced. And I would urge all members of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to support this measure here. The right hon. Member have looked to bring in the bill. The question is the rightful member have leave to bring in the bill. As have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. The ayes have it. We will prepare to bring in the bill. Sir. Roger Gale Alberto Costa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. Roger Gale Alberto Costa. Dame Karen Bradley. Sir Edward Lee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graham Stringer. Rupert Lowe. Sammy Wilson. Jim Allister Lee Anderson Sarah Pochin and myself. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. Will you?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Esther McVey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Food labelling. Halal and kosher meat. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? 10th of July. 10th of July. I think I remember your husband doing something your husband doing something similar. Order, order. Before we begin the debate on Andrew Button. begin the debate on Andrew Button. Windsor I. We are all ready. OK, let's try again. Order. Before we begin the debate on on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that there is a huge interest from the public on this matter, and there has been significant coverage in the media.
12:50
12:51
12:52
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous speaker, be, and I quote, previous speaker, be, and I quote, very rare, very sparing and very respectful. I encountered this respectful. I encountered this first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an adjournment debate on behalf of Lord green, who debate on behalf of Lord green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The German was bought Investment. The German was bought by the late Paul Flynn, but even he, an ardent and outspoken Republican, as I'm sure many of us remember, wasn't allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself.

Paul called it negative privilege, and that's what it was. He said his mouth was bandaged by archaic rules, and that had very real and damaging consequences. And I'm pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues in that debate. Epstein's name wasn't even mentioned once. There was no chance to debate the substance and standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the government's position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the Prince's role as the trade envoy.

Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I'm horrified by it. I can't imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praise like that, as they heard so often all around the world. So I apologise to them, and I'm determined to change things. Mr. speaker, I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre sister in law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history.

Or quote. It could be a moment where they and we decide that this is the time when cultural change happens. And as a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the Royal Family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change now. High Peak are most grateful to the leader of the Liberal Democrats the leader of the Liberal Democrats for giving way. He's making a powerful speech, and I'm sure we'll agree that decades of deferential, agree that decades of deferential, frankly sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. And I'm sure he will untouchable. And I'm sure he will join me in calling on the government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties and require both transparency and scrutiny over anything from now on, paid for by the state.

Because apparently they work for us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hi. I'm grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability. I think that is essential, and I hope we as a house essential, and I hope we as a house will look at ending the archaic negative privilege rules. Paul Flynn spoke about remove the Flynn spoke about remove the bandages from our mouths. And today, free of those bandages in relation free of those bandages in relation to Andrew, our motion focuses on finally getting the truth out about his role as Special Representative for Trade and Investment.

Give way. I'll give way again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon Mr Speaker. Can can. First of all, can I commend the right hon. Member for for bringing in his party for bringing this in his party for bringing this forward. Commend them for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. And certainly it doesn't just speak for this House. He just speak for this House. He speaks for this nation. And we're all greatly shocked at what has taken place. But does he agree as taken place. But does he agree as well? King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William, Kate, our members of the Royal family at this members of the Royal family at this time who also need our support.

And does he agree that perhaps, maybe now is the time to tell them that we in this House love them, that this nation loves them, and that we understand the pain that they are suffering, and our support is with those members of the Royal family who are above this and above this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reproach. Yes. I'm grateful. For the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I think he probably intervention. I think he probably speaks for the whole House. And indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House debate is to bring this House together and the changes that we think are necessary would indeed protect the royal family and protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places is being criticised. And I think it's important and that's why we need these reforms.

But, Mr. Speaker, if I can go back to the motion because it focuses at the start of this, at the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We've seen the reporting that the king, then Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former trade secretary, pushing for Andrew's appointment. One friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, a job that might help Epstein enrich himself.

So we clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role Mandelson himself played in it. And only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible without delay. And then there are the many questions about Andrew's conduct in the role now subject to a criminal investigation. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, as you said, we do not want to jeopardise that investigation with anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein's victims, survivors and their families.

They deserve to see justice done at last. But I would just highlight one example of the way Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew's role as trade envoy to enrich himself. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. My right hon. Friend talks about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, his role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition that I was putting on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific fine example of British scientific innovation. Mountbatten-Windsor stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, this is rubbish. This is Frankenstein's sheep.

What my right hon. Friend, agree with me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's a very poor example of promoting British trade interests. Well, I'm grateful for my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It shows that not only some of the scandals that we've heard about are things that we've heard about are things that we need to focus on, but if the trade envoy was actually the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests, that raises even greater questions. And I hope not just this debate, but other debates in select committees and elsewhere will get to the bottom of that issue. But I was saying I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew's role as trade envoy to enrich himself.

Channel four uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to put his money. I think something that the Minister actually raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. And this is what it says in one of the emails, I wondered if PA could make the intro.

A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back Libya fixed. Though the Epstein Gaddafi meeting doesn't appear to have happened. It does show clearly what these relationships were all about. Epstein increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special Trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that, to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself is truly sickening. And again, I want to pay tribute to the Minister who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn.

And it shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern debate here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Ministers. But I give way. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. I pose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opposition for giving way. I pose. The question. Democrats. I stand corrected. The leader of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand corrected. The leader of the is coming. I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats for giving way. I Liberal Democrats for giving way. I asked the question to the Chief Secretary yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, members of the House, members of Lords. We all need this process to be done as swiftly as possible. I just wonder if you agree that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, you also agree that the Chief Secretary's comments that we do need to bring this forward and that we need to keep pushing to get legislation swiftly, not in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years to come. Well. I'm grateful for the gentleman's intervention, both for his Freudian intervention, both for his Freudian slip and indeed for his suggestion that we do need to speed up action that we do need to speed up action in this area. But if I can begin to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is first, the the first truly this is first, the the first truly global scandal from the White House and Silicon Valley to Oslo and and Silicon Valley to Oslo and Paris.

But it's also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment, because can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy and the former business secretary, first Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States. Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country today. We must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency.

Because whether it is the president of the United States and his Commerce secretary or Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope, I desperately hope that is ending now, and I hope the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will approve this motion. Yes. The question is on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the Order Paper. I called the Minister Sir Chris Bryant. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. Mr. speaker, let me be clear from the outset we support this motion today. Frankly, it is the least we today. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others. The Jeffrey Epstein and others. The abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere.

It's not just the people who participated in the abuse, it's the many, many more who turned a blind eye out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit. Just as complicit. And I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now. I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern.

A man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle, a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were absolutely delighted and excited to meet a member of the Royal family. But he insisted on coming by helicopter. Unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and always came by car. He left early and he showed next to no interest
13:04
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
in the young people. That is, of course, Mr. Speaker, not a crime, course, Mr. Speaker, not a crime, nor is arrogance. Fortunately, I nor is arrogance. Fortunately, I suppose. Of course, we knew much of suppose. Of course, we knew much of this. Much of what is now in the public domain, actually a very long public domain, actually a very long time ago. And I say very gently, it is all very well for some of us to say, if only we had known then what we know now.

But I'm afraid that with me that doesn't wash. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this chamber on the 28th of February, 2011, because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi, as has just been referred to, and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kittani, I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow then for doing so, because references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful.

I didn't disagree with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, nor would I ever, as you know, Mr. Speaker, disagree with the ruling from the chair. I heard that over the next few days. I'm taking your advice, Mr. Speaker. I'm just ignoring that over the next few days. Back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain, on television, on radio and in newspaper articles, citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The mysteriously excessive £15 million cost paid for his Sunninghill home, and many other issues besides, I'm afraid, the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me.

The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again I was repeatedly told off, both in the chamber and outside the chamber. John Humphrys, the broadcaster, actually told me on the today programme on the 7th of March. I think hon. Members will be shocked by this, that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't quite a paedophile. Drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on the 11th of March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction distinction between Epstein's involvement with teenage
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page