Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Adnan Hussain 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.

Sewage

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for bringing this important debate to the House. As the Secretary of State said, we are all in furious agreement that the condition of our rivers, lakes and seas is an absolute scandal. It would be remiss of me not to point out that the problem is not just due to sewage, as the Minister knows. As colleagues have mentioned, agricultural pollution is a key factor in the condition of our rivers, lakes and seas, and we cannot fix the problem without addressing both sewage and agricultural pollution together. However, today’s subject is sewage, so I will focus on that.

Turning to the motion before us, I am not against introducing a blue flag system for rivers and streams, but that is just tinkering around the edges of a broken system. A shortage of flags and targets is not the problem. Last year, the Environment Agency gave the water companies a collective target of a 40% reduction in sewage incidents, but what did we have? A 30% increase. Monitoring and targets are not enough if there is no meaningful action or sanction. I understand that the water companies have well over 1,000 criminal convictions between them—some companies have over 100 convictions—but they are still getting away with it.

At the same time, bills are going through the roof by an average of over 20% in a single year, and by even more for rural constituents, including mine. It is the bill payers, not the shareholders, who are paying the price. Customer bills provide an average of 35% of company revenue to pay the financial costs—the dividends to shareholders and the interest on loans—of the privatised water and sewerage companies in England and Wales. In the case of Scottish Water, a publicly owned company that may have other problems, those costs amounted to just 8% of revenue from consumer bills.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

In my constituency, raw sewage discharge increased by 75% in 2023, yet there are plans to raise bills by 32% in the next five years. It is clear that the British public are being ripped off. Does the hon. Member agree that while better regulation and investment rules may fix some of the issues, the only way to solve the whole problem is to bring the water supply back into public ownership?

[Ellie Chowns]

I completely agree. That is precisely the thrust of my argument.

Over the last three decades, shareholders have extracted £83 billion in dividends. They have invested effectively less than nothing, because the share capital and retained earnings in those companies are now lower than they were at the time of privatisation. The capital investment has been taken out of customer bills, yet customers are still paying through the nose. A professor at the University of Greenwich—I have his report here—has shown that the cost of the investment needed in the water industry would be much lower under public ownership than under private ownership. It is clear that, ultimately, public ownership is the only way to gain the control needed to ensure that this essential public utility works for the public benefit, yet the Labour party is unfortunately not willing to consider it.

The Government have the power to bring failing companies into special administration via the High Court, but during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Minister said:

“Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors.”––[Official Report, Water (Special Measures) Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 96.]

That speaks volumes about who the Government think our water industry is for. It is not for those so-called investors—actually extractors—who have taken out so many dividends paid for by debt while neglecting our infrastructure and killing our waterways with sewage. There should be significant consequences for them. The people of this country—the British people—do not want their water to be investable: they want it to be clean, reliable, affordable and in public hands. Public ownership is the key element of the solution to the sewage scandal.