Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.

I am also an animal lover, and it is really important to put that on the record. I think everybody in this room would be happy to be described as an animal lover. However, we are omnivores, and some of us eat meat. As a Muslim, I will only eat meat that has undergone slaughter using the traditional Islamic halal method.

The rhetoric around non-stunned slaughter, and the way this debate is being framed in Parliament today, are deeply concerning not just to me, but to other Members, to organisations and to many of my constituents. I care about animal welfare, which is the supposed topic of the debate, but I am equally disturbed by the undertone—a title dressed as a welfare concern, but sounding like a dog whistle for xenophobia, targeting religious practices, particularly those of Jewish and Muslim communities.

The methods of slaughter we are discussing are long-standing practices already regulated by clear legislation. Previous Governments have ensured that safeguards are in place to protect animal welfare during religious slaughter. So why are we having this conversation again, if not to stigmatise kosher and halal traditions?

The claim in the petition that non-stun slaughter does not reflect our culture or modern values is not just inaccurate; it is worryingly exclusionary and divisive. It shows a lack of understanding of why these practices exist and how they are monitored.

Let us make this conversation what it should be: about learning and inclusion. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, many people may not realise that both halal and kosher slaughter practices are centred around minimising suffering. They require the animal to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter. Animals must not be shown the implement with which they will be slaughtered. They should not be in the presence of other animals that are being slaughtered. If that is not humane, I do not know what is.

A sharp knife is used to make a swift incision, cutting key arteries and the windpipe, but not the spinal cord, causing rapid unconsciousness and minimal pain. Evidence shows that when done properly—the key word here is “properly”; I am a proponent of halal and kosher slaughter done in the proper way—kosher and halal methods can be as humane as stun slaughter, if not more so. In fact, if we flip the narrative, mistakes in stunning can cause suffering and expose animals to bad welfare in pre-slaughter handling, or cause pain and fear.

We have heard how halal and kosher slaughter are performed. In the UK, the main methods used to stun an animal before slaughter include penetrating captive bolts, which are used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt through the skull into the brain, causing unconsciousness after excruciating pain. In electrical stunning, which is used on sheep, calves and pigs, an electric current is passed through the brain, temporarily rendering the animal unconscious, but not always. Chickens are often stunned before slaughter using an electrical water bath, which involves shackling the birds upside down and passing them through a bath of electrified water. Does that sound humane to anyone in this room? It does not sound humane to me. We have already heard about gas stunning and killing, which is primarily used for pigs and some poultry. Animals are exposed to mixtures of gases, such as carbon dioxide, that cause unconsciousness and eventually death. Each of those stunning methods can lead to the death of the animal, and the eating of a dead animal by Jewish and Muslim believers is not permissible.

This is not a simple “stun good, not-stun bad” issue. It is far more complex and should be centred around good and well-monitored practice. Assuming that there is only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science; it is imposition, and it does not reflect the values of a pluralistic society. To claim that halal and kosher practices are outside of “our” culture is a dangerous path—one that risks vilifying communities under the guise of animal welfare.

If we are talking about welfare, let us talk about factory farming. Are the same concerns being raised about that industry, which still allows animals to live in cages, to be mass culled and to suffer through profit-driven systems from birth to death? Despite the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and subsequent legislation, certain intensive farming practices are still legal and widely used. One is enriched cages for hens. Although barren battery cages were banned in 2012, around 28% of the UK’s laying hens are still kept in enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours. Another is farrowing crates for sows, which prevent mother pigs from turning around or interacting properly with their piglets.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is putting forward his case passionately. Does he agree that this debate is not about animal welfare? We once saw Nazi Germany put into law policies similar to those we are discussing. The justification then, too, was animal welfare, but in context it was a thin pretext for antisemitism. That ban was part of a broader programme to marginalise and dehumanise Jewish people by stripping away their rights and religious freedoms. Does the hon. Member agree that such a ban threatens to have a similar effect on Britain’s Muslim and Jewish communities?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

We in this place must drive our society to move away from divisive rhetoric, hurtful behaviours, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Any attempts to bring them to the fore should be challenged, and communities should be protected.

Another practice that is allowed is the use of individual calf pens. Young calves can be kept in isolation for weeks, which can cause stress and developmental issues. All the practices I have mentioned are legal under current UK law, but are increasingly seen as inhumane by animal welfare advocates. Many of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley have written to me in support of the RSPCA’s campaign to end cages that restrict an animal’s movement for life. Why are we not debating that?

These are not questions of belief; these are clear, systemic welfare violations, undisputed and urgent. Yet, here we are instead scrutinising faith-based practices rooted in ethics and compassion. This debate must not become a platform to demonise or criminalise. If we truly care about welfare, we must look at the bigger picture: intensive farming, mass culling, corporate cruelty, the prevalence of illegal fox hunting, and the importing and selling of fur products, which is still permitted. That is where the real, meaningful change lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe]

The issue of stunning is complex, as the hon. Member probably knows. The halal stun is a lower voltage than the non-halal stun. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly said, chickens are put into an electric bath before they are killed. It is the level of the stun that counts.

Freedom of belief does not mean freedom to cause cruel and brutal pain. When I care for animals, I have the most stringent set of rules to abide by. I am regulated on how I house them, feed them and transport them. There are inspections, paperwork and codes of practice, all to make sure they are treated with dignity.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rupert Lowe]

I am going to finish.

A halal abattoir can brutally butcher an animal alive, and all is fine. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the humanity in that?

This is not a fringe issue. In 2024, an estimated 214.6 million animals were slaughtered for halal meat: 27 million entirely non-stunned and the remainder with some form of weak and ineffectual attempt to ease the animal’s pain, often just causing an epileptic fit. It is state-endorsed butchery. We talk so much in this place about being a nation of animal lovers. It is time to prove it. Let us ban non-stun slaughter, along with any fig leaf of reduced-stun slaughter, which simply accentuates the suffering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

If the RSPCA has different figures, I would ask it to explain where its figures come from. Not all non-stunned meat is halal. Some of it is shechita slaughter, and the hind quarters are not considered kosher, so they would go into the normal food chain. That could be why there are some discrepancies, but I am not familiar with how the RSPCA generated its figures, so I would take it up with the RSPCA.

I acknowledge that, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there are failures in stun slaughter as well. That is sometimes due to bad practices and inadequate training in abattoirs, and is one reason why I was pleased to be part of the successful campaign to put CCTV in all abattoirs. We should ensure that legal standards are upheld, that anyone breaking those standards is held to account, and that adequate training is given.

I share the concerns about slaughter in which pigs are stunned with CO₂. I eat pork, but I am aware that such slaughter is a welfare concern in the veterinary world. We are looking at how we can improve that experience for pigs.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On CCTV and enforcement of existing humane slaughter processes, does the hon. Member agree that the Government must ensure that there are adequate resources for inspectors’ visits and audits of abattoirs so that the right level of treatment of animals is maintained?

[Dr Chambers]

I totally agree. The resourcing of trading standards and the veterinary profession is a hugely important issue. We know that we are short of vets working in public health and farm animal medicine.

As many hon. Members have pointed out, the British Veterinary Association has made several sensible recommendations, including that the UK Government should introduce

“a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed the relevant demand of the UK’s religious communities”

and that they should

“stop the export of meat from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter.”

The British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers Union also support greater uptake of the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. Although that protocol is not perfect, it can help improve welfare outcomes, even in non-stun contexts. I urge all abattoirs to adopt it.

The Liberal Democrats believe that consumers deserve full transparency. That is why we back clear and honest labelling that includes information on whether the animal was stunned before slaughter, the conditions in which it was reared and the environmental impact of the product. Our goal is simple: to give people the information that they need to make informed choices—not to stigmatise any group, but to raise welfare standards across the board. Religious consumers who wanted halal meat, for example, would be able to see whether it came from stunned or non-stunned animals. That matters deeply to many of the individuals in those communities with whom I have spoken.

There have been many calls for a way to know whether meat is stunned or non-stunned, and for freedom of choice. I point out that British consumers already have the freedom of choice to ensure that they eat only meat that has been stunned. All farm assurance schemes, including Red Tractor, Soil Association, and RSPCA Assured, have minimum welfare standards throughout the animal’s life, and require stunning before slaughter. Someone like me, who wants to ensure that they eat only animals that have been stunned, can do that with current farm assurance label systems.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very important point about the need for more local abattoirs, to reduce transport time and stress, and to ensure that more meat is produced and sold within local communities. I commend him for that point.

Let us move forward with a science-based, respectful approach that works in partnership with, not against, religious communities; that improves welfare without fuelling division; and that ensures the UK remains a world leader in compassion and evidence-based policy, while allowing for expression of religious freedom.

Sewage

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I will just finish this point, and then I will take the intervention.

The importance of that is emphasised by the interventions we have already had, because Members across this House have been citing the very stark and shocking statistics on storm overflows, sewage overflows and so on in their constituencies. They have rightly relied on those figures already in this debate, and I have no doubt that they will rely on them in their speeches as well. In the dark days before 2010, their predecessors would not have had that information. [Laughter.] I see a Labour Member—the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—laughing about that. I do not know why she is laughing at knowing more through data collection so that we can correct the situation.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. Monitoring sewage overflows does not immediately improve the health of our environment or of the public. It is the first minimum step to be able to take meaningful action, but I am sorry to say that the previous Government failed to take meaningful action. Between 2021 and 2023, Dewsbury and Batley experienced a massive number of sewage spills, totalling 4,604 incidents with a total duration of a staggering 28,383 hours or approximately three and a quarter years. Does the right hon. Member agree with me and my constituents that the privatisation of the water industry has been a total and abject failure, causing significant harm to our environment, public health and wildlife, and—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member will know that interventions need to be brief, and should not be prepared and read out from a script.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Consumers listening to this debate have been concerned about the role of Ofwat. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give them that Ofwat, the regulator, will put consumers’ interests and environmental interests before corporations’ interests?

[Steve Reed]

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission will be reviewing precisely those points, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to contribute his views when the call for evidence begins in just a few weeks.

The changes the Government have made in a short amount of time show that with collective determination and ambition we can turn the water sector around. The failures of the past are ending. The future of the water sector is full of promise. Our waterways have been poisoned by unacceptable levels of sewage and other pollution for too long. With these changes, finally, we will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

Waste and Recycling

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

I agree wholeheartedly. Putting these plants in the right place is a very big deal—I know how hard my right hon. Friend worked to prevent that. I could not agree more. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out of the deposit return scheme and say when it is set to be delivered.

Of course, it is not just businesses but local communities that can support the Government’s goals to ensure responsible waste disposal.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If the hon. Member could come further forward and sit back down, a formal intervention could then be made quite smoothly and quickly.

[Matt Vickers]

I would be very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On the matter of consumers taking responsibility for recycling, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prevalence of accessible recycling centres, and having them close to where people live, is important in increasing the volume of recycling that we can achieve? One recycling centre that was used by my constituents has been closed down, which means that the nearest centre now is more than 3 miles away. Does he agree that keeping these recycling centres open and making them more effective at recycling would be a step forward?

[Matt Vickers]

I agree entirely. As we look across the piece at the challenges we face in recycling, we should be doing everything we can to make it as convenient and as local to people as possible. We have to worry about the consequences of not having local recycling schemes. Some people might dispose of their waste irresponsibly and choose to fly-tip instead of making the journey.

An estimated 2.25 million pieces of litter are dropped every day in the UK, with the consequence that around £1 billion is spent every year by local authorities and land managers to clear it up. In Stockton West, we are fortunate to have some amazing, community-spirited litter-picking groups: the Thornaby community litter pickers, the Eaglescliffe community litter project, the Ingleby Barwick litter pickers and the Hartburn community litter pick. These incredible volunteers protect our environment and restore pride in our communities.

The last Government took action and increased the maximum fines for fly-tippers from £400 to £1,000, alongside increasing the maximum fine for those who litter or graffiti from £150 to £500. What further steps are the Government taking to tackle that important issue, and what steps are they taking to support and recognise these important community litter pick groups?

The Government must allow an environment for businesses to innovate and help to create solutions that support households to reduce waste, and they must tackle the 40.4 million tonnes of commercial and industrial waste generated every year. Businesses that innovate in this space for the common social good include Amazon, whose Multibank initiative helps redistribute 750,000 items of surplus goods to families in need. We were delighted to see its most recent scheme launch in Teesside, reducing waste while improving people’s lives.

Humans waste around 40% of the food produced, and that contributes 10% of global emissions. The Government should champion enterprises such as Too Good To Go in their efforts to reduce food waste, taking excess produce and ensuring that it is put to good, value-for-money use. Currently, the Government’s target is to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030, and they must take further policy measures to ensure that we reach that target. One cost-effective measure to the taxpayer that Too Good To Go is calling for is mandatory public food waste reporting, which would deliver a vital first step in measuring food wastage and drive businesses to innovate for meaningful change and allow customers to make informed decisions. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are considering mandatory food waste reporting?

The answer to our waste and recycling challenges starts at home—in fact, in every home in the country, and how they dispose of their waste. Local authorities have the biggest role in determining that, as they decide how and where people can dispose of their waste and recycling. Although the Government can go so far directly, they also have a role in ensuring that local authorities are doing all they can to support residents and businesses to drive up recycling rates. While UK councils are required to run a service that collects recycling and garden waste separate from general waste, councils are not obligated by legislation to separate the different types of recycling. Different recyclable materials may not be collected if it is not “technically or economically practicable”.

A study by the TaxPayers’ Alliance found that many constituents and households had concerns that they would have to deal with multiple different bins, placing unnecessary obligations on households and businesses. We have seen a complete disparity among local authorities when it comes to delivering the Government’s waste and recycling strategy. Some local authorities have up to 10 different bins compared with others that have only two. Although waste collection is one of the primary services provided by councils, the inconsistent and often inefficient approach has hugely varying consequences. Good, efficient councils provide accessible, reliable, well-used services, while others less so, with real consequences for littering, fly-tipping and recycling rates.

In my constituency, Stockton’s Labour-led council provides the worst example, with poor services and even poorer value for money. Stockton’s Labour council has presided over the worst recycling rate in the region, and its rates are so poor that they are among the worst in the entire country. Local litter pickers have questioned why the council are failing to take action on fly-tippers, with Stockton being among the lowest performing when it comes to issuing penalties. All the while, the verges of the A66, one of the gateways to the town, remain covered in discarded cans, bottles and rubbish.

It is about to get a whole lot worse. Despite Labour subjecting residents to some of the highest council tax rates in the entire country, the council decided to vastly reduce waste and recycling services. It is axing weekly bin collections, and now residents will have to stack up waste for fortnightly collections. It has closed four local recycling centres, making people travel to other towns to dispose of their recycling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I will come on to those points later in my speech, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not get the satisfaction and clarity that he seeks. Good things come to those who wait.

Let me begin with the strategy. We want to have an economy-wide transformation of our relationship with our resources, which is all about supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and accelerate the path to net zero through our efforts to tackle waste crime and take back our streets. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton West, preventing food waste is key to my Department, and we are reviewing a range of issues associated with food waste in the supply chain. We hope to make further announcements soon.

Let me address the collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member outlined. They are an important starting point in transitioning to a circular economy, and we are proud of the steps that we have taken so far. Over the next three years, simpler recycling, extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme will deliver transformational change, creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating billions of pounds’ worth of investment. Those three areas make up the three-legged stool of this Government’s plan to kick-start the circular economy, so I will briefly take each one in turn.

The first area is simpler recycling. We recently affirmed our commitment to delivering simpler recycling in England, which will be introduced for businesses from 31 March 2025 and for households from 31 March 2026. This Government inherited legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) that could have required households to have up to seven bins. As the hon. Member for Stockton West rightly said, some councils have up to 10 bins, but that is because they thought they were doing the right thing, given the signals that were being sent out under the previous Government. That places an unnecessary burden on people and businesses, and unnecessary clutter in everyone’s front and back gardens. We are simplifying the rules to make recycling easier for people, while stimulating growth, maximising the benefits and ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Across England, people will be able to recycle the same materials at home, work or school.

The legislation for simpler recycling has already come into force. To confirm the final details of the policy, we laid regulations before Parliament on 3 December. The policy will support our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. It is important to remember that figure, because when the last Labour Government brought in the landfill tax reforms in 2002, the original target was to have a recycling rate of 50% by 2015—a target that, sadly, was lost under the previous Government. Ten years on from that date, the target has still not been met.

The policy will also deliver an estimated £11.8 billion-worth of carbon savings between 2024 and 2035. As we have heard, local circumstances differ across the country, so we are making sure that councils and other waste collectors have the flexibility to make the best local choices. We know that local authorities may want to review their waste collection services to ensure that they provide best value for money. As is currently the case, local councils will continue to decide the frequency of waste collections in a way that suits the needs of their local community. The Government’s priority is to ensure that households’ needs are met, so we have recently published guidance to support councils in this area.

The second area is extended producer responsibility for packaging. To help fund simpler recycling, we are introducing in parallel extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, which will require obligated producers to pay the full end of life costs associated with the packaging that they place on the market. That will bring more than £1 billion of investment into local government waste collections, and incentivise producers to reduce unnecessary packaging and make what they use even more sustainable. Those regulations have now been debated in both Houses. They received unanimous cross-party support and will come into force on 1 January 2025.

The third and final leg is the deposit return scheme—DRS—for drinks containers. We have seen this work in over 50 countries around the world. The DRS will make a real difference to people’s lives by tackling litter and cleaning up our streets. Recycling rates will increase and the drinks industry will benefit from the high quality recycled materials that the DRS will provide. We are committed to delivering a deposit return scheme in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in October 2027 and we will continue to work closely with industry partners, the Scottish Government and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch the scheme.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I worked across Europe for more than 15 years, and a DRS scheme has been in place all over Europe during all that time. I have been hearing for so long that it would arrive in the UK, but it has not, so I would be interested to hear the timescales. Also, will the Government consider putting restrictions on the use of fresh plastics for drinks bottles? Instead of them being recyclable, can we make them recycled?

[Mary Creagh]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience. I am old enough to remember, as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in 2017, hearing several predecessors of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire promising that we would have a DRS scheme. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) is also right to say that there is no point in recycling if there is no end market. I welcomed the plastic packaging tax that was introduced under the prime ministership of Theresa May, which mandates a 30% recycled content. The question, where fossil fuels are very cheap, is how we drive business’s behaviour change, and that is under active consideration to ensure that there is an end market for the recyclates that are placed on the market.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the timescale, we laid the regulations for England and Northern Ireland before Parliament on 25 November and we plan for the regulations to come into force in late January, parliamentary time permitting. The Scottish Government will then make the necessary amendments to legislation in Scotland. After that, the three Governments will appoint the Deposit Management Organisation in April 2025, for which applications opened on Monday 2 December, so this is all hot off the press, and this is a timely debate. The aim is for the DRS to come into force on 1 October 2027.

However, there is much more to do. On Friday, I was delighted to visit Suez’s Malpass Farm facility in Rugby. Working in partnership with Cemex, Suez has provided 1 million tonnes of climafuel from non-recyclable waste, diverting it from landfill and reducing coal consumption in the neighbouring Cemex plant by 75,000 tonnes, thus enabling big industrial decarbonisation. Earlier today, I made a quick trip up to Newark to visit the Curry’s site, which is home to one of its unique repair centres. I saw how Curry’s, a great and proud British company, is using its resources and its market position to repair and refurbish broken phones, laptops and tablets, and I recommend its refurbishment website to anyone looking for a last-minute gift from Santa.

Such industrial partnerships, working together to maximise the value of resources, demonstrate the role that the resources and waste sector can play in supporting net zero and supporting economic growth. A high-performing resources and waste sector is key to driving a circular economy. However, waste crime threatens this by taking resources away from that circular economy and from the good businesses that want to do the right thing and make those green investments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is interested in this, and I am glad to see him in his traditional place. Waste crime costs the country £1 billion a year, and we know that 18% of waste may be handled illegally at some point in the waste supply chain. That is around 34 million tonnes of waste every year. We are committed to tackling this scourge.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is very good to see my near neighbour. What I will say to Cambridgeshire farmers is that the thing they need most of all is a stable economy, and they also need a sound environment in which they can farm. The measures that we are putting in place will ensure their prosperity for the future.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Can the Minister reassure the House and the people of my constituency and our country, that the Budget will not add to the cost of producing food and will not result in consumers having to bear the brunt of rising prices, higher inflation and higher interest rates?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The people of this country suffered gravely under the last Government, and we will do nothing to make their situation more difficult. In fact, this Budget protects the pay packets of the vast majority of the British people.