Fur: Import and Sale

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.

I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds.

Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes.

These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Last year, I was pleased to promote a private Member’s Bill—now the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025—to stop puppy smuggling, specifically given the issue of ear cropping. It has been illegal to crop a dog’s ears in the UK since 2006, but it was legal to import dogs with cropped ears. We thought that it was unacceptable to do that in the UK on welfare grounds, but people were getting around the loophole by acquiring dogs from abroad. This seems to be exactly the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be offshoring our ethical animal welfare issues by banning something in the UK but allowing people to get those products from abroad? If we think something is unacceptable here, it should be unacceptable anywhere.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world.

The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.

The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available.

Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.

Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework.

The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Ms Jardine. We have had a consensus-driven debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing it. I note that she is extremely busy today because she also has a ten-minute rule Bill; since that deals with pets, we know that she has her speeches in the right order. She demonstrates through her work—we also heard it in her speech today—how much she cares for animals in whatever context, whether they are wild, domesticated or livestock.

My hon. Friend represents a deep vein of concern that all of us have recognised that this country is well-known for: its concern for animals. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. The world’s first animal welfare law was passed here more than 200 years ago in 1822, so there is a long tradition that all of us draw on when thinking about these issues. The Government take that legacy seriously. Last December, we published our animal welfare strategy, which is the most ambitious programme in a generation. It is not just warm words; it is a real plan that is already in motion, with consultations launched on laying hens and lamb welfare.

The UK has been at the forefront of animal welfare for generations. As many hon. Members have mentioned today—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), who had both done a little work and discovered this—it was my sibling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who introduced the private Member’s Bill that led to the ban on fur farming in this country. Some of the speeches I heard this morning had a familiar ring to them from the epic battles that my sister had to try to get her private Member’s Bill on the statute book. It was talked out by Members of the then Conservative Opposition, and it was only after that failure that the then Labour Government decided that they would take forward the ban on fur farming, because it had been overwhelmingly demonstrated that that was what the public wanted.

That win was not easily gained. People who are thinking about how to change the law and the moral attitude on these things need to understand that private Member’s Bills, not least the ones brought to the House by hon. Members who care about these things, often have a very important legacy. They can persuade Governments that they ought to get on and do what is sometimes controversial, but more often than not right.

We were the first country to ban fur farming and we did that when a ban was not popular—those arguments had to be made from scratch. That meant other countries then recognised the reality of what was going on and moved to ban it too. We have to recognise, however, that the number of countries that have banned it is still quite small and it remains actively pursued in many other countries. I suspect that the way the ban was done left the loophole that many hon. Members have pointed out: while animals can no longer be farmed for their fur in the UK, the import and sale of fur and fur products from both farmed animals and those hunted or trapped in the wild remain legal.

We heard today that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals. People need to bear that in mind—this is not particularly an issue of trapping wild animals. If we read our history, we know that, particularly on the North American continent, a lot of wild animals were hunted nearly to extinction in earlier times.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Minister says that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals and 5% from trapped animals, but the estimate is 100 million animals in total, so that is still 5 million animals that are trapped. Those traps do not only capture the animals they target; there is collateral damage, with other animals being trapped and killed. Some animals are not killed immediately and are left to die a slow, agonising death. What is stopping this Labour Government taking the lead, as the Labour Government in the 2000s did, on banning the import of fur products?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on.

I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality.

The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from.

My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us.

I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Once my hon. Friend gets the letter off to us, she will certainly get a reply. The UK has a robust regulatory framework to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation work closely with the devolved Governments, local authorities and port health authorities to ensure that documents are appropriately checked and verified on seafood imports from all countries. If she wants to demonstrate cases where that is not happening, I would be very interested indeed to hear from her.

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

What steps is DEFRA taking to raise public awareness of the impact of methane-reducing feed additives used in livestock farming, such as Bovaer? What steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that all chemicals and additives are tested and proven to be safe for humans, animals and nature before being approved for use in agriculture and food?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

We have a system. Methane-reducing food products, including seaweed, oils and synthetic products such as Bovaer, are a key tool in reducing emissions from agriculture by up to one third. Bovaer is approved for use in 70 countries, including those in the EU, Switzerland, the US, Canada and Australia. We are building the market for safe, effective options and helping farmers to adopt them. Such products are approved by the Food Standards Agency, and that advice has not been changed. Bovaer has been reviewed by 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Tackling violence against women and girls is my No. 1 priority in government, just as it was when I was in opposition. I am in awe of the bravery of the victims who have come forward. I am absolutely disgusted and sickened by the revelations that have come out in recent days, and I stand in solidarity with the victims. I will ensure that I am speaking across Government to see what more can be done.

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

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the UK is meeting its legal obligations under international law in relation to Palestine.

[The Solicitor General]

The suffering in Gaza is indefensible. We have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has a critical role. The priority is for aid routes to be fully opened, international aid to get in and international non-governmental organisations to be permitted to operate in Gaza again. UK support so far has meant that over 430,000 people have received essential healthcare and over 650,000 have received food. We are working intensively to support global peace initiatives, and humanitarian aid delivery is an integral part of that.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that it is “plausible” that Israel’s acts could infringe rights of the Palestinian people protected by the genocide convention. Since then, tens of thousands have been murdered and Gaza has been reduced to rubble. The ICJ has affirmed that states have a duty to act when they learn of a serious risk of genocide and must take immediate and effective proactive measures to protect vulnerable populations. Will the Solicitor General confirm what specific proactive measures the UK Government have taken to fulfil their obligations to prevent genocide under the genocide convention in Palestine and what more they need to do?

[The Solicitor General]

Since this Government have come to office, we have been very clear that Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to ensure the provision of aid in Gaza and that UNRWA has a critical role in delivering that response. The UK remains firmly committed to upholding international law. It is the UK Government’s long-standing position that any determination as to whether a genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court. That is consistent with our obligations under the genocide convention.

Water White Paper

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Before we legislate for the new regulator, we are encouraging and working with Ofwat to see what can be done to move to a more supervisory approach—similar to what we do in financial services, of which my hon. Friend is well aware—so that we can have a much more tailored and targeted approach. Different water companies are in different situations: some are performing better than others, and some are performing very poorly. I am really sorry to hear what she said. This Government have more than doubled the compensation that consumers will receive if there are outages and problems, which is to be welcomed.

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

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the White Paper. Some £7.6 billion has gone from the pockets of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, and all other customers of Yorkshire Water, into the pockets of shareholders in the form of dividends. In addition, there has been £1.4 billion in interest payments on money held by the company, yet bills have risen by an eye-watering 28% to 34% in the past year, and are predicted to rise by a further 30% between now and 2030. What steps will the Secretary of State and the Government take, and will they consider retrospective penalties for past failures to claw back dividends that went to shareholders instead of being invested in pipes or used to reduce customers’ bills?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for the kind words with which he started his question. Within days of taking office, my predecessor ringfenced the money that should be invested in maintaining the water infrastructure he talks about. If it is not spent on that, it will go back to customers. We took that action as soon as we got into government.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

That is another fantastic example of how poorly water companies across the length and breadth of our country are performing. It is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend and many other Liberal Democrat colleagues have done a fantastic job of holding the water bosses to account. Her constituents are very lucky to have her, and I am sure she will continue to do that.

Last summer, I took part in the Knaresborough bed race, which ends with participants crossing the River Nidd after running around town, up and down hills, with kids on beds. It is a fantastic event. If Members have not seen it, they should google it—even better, they should come and watch it. Hopefully, I will get a place to do it again this year. But in recent years the river crossing at the end has become contentious. There was talk of scrapping it altogether because of the danger of having to cross the river when sewage overflows have been pumping. Locals advise those competing in the race to drink a can of full-sugar Coke at the end in the hope that it will kill off any bacteria and nasty things that they may have swallowed during the river crossing. When that is the best piece of advice that people can give to those competing in a sporting event, something has gone very wrong. The regulation of the water sector is completely failing. No one should have to fear sickness from their local river in 21st century Britain, but that is Yorkshire Water’s legacy in my constituency.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about Yorkshire Water, which also serves Dewsbury and Batley. In 2024, there were at least 346 sewage dumps in local waterways in Dewsbury and Batley, lasting over 1,000 hours. That equals 1.5 months of continuous sewage discharge. Discharges around Batley beck, the River Calder and the River Spen are blighting our waterways and our community. In addition, sewage is backing up into streets and people’s homes because of a failure to maintain pipes or design the system correctly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water companies have been getting away with almost murder for too long and must be held accountable? Customers must not have to pay any longer for their failings and their profiteering.

[Tom Gordon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of Yorkshire Water. All too often, we hear that there will be investment and improvement, but it is frankly too little and often too late. There has been a lack of investment in infrastructure over decades, which has left the system creaking at the seams. I completely agree that we need to get a proper grip of the issues that I have outlined.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be greater education on who we are giving our waste to. Digital waste tracking will make a big difference, because we will be able to see whether the waste ends up in the place where it is meant to end up.

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

In 2023-24, there were 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents across England, with about 47,000 classified as tipper-load lorry sized or industrial. A tip fire occurred at an unauthorised waste dump in Dewsbury in early 2012. It burned for four weeks, causing significant disruption and house evacuations, and it cost over £1.2 million to manage and to clear the waste. There is no excuse for fly-tipping, and perpetrators must be made to pay for the clean-up. What resources are the Government providing to Kirklees council to help keep waste and recycling centres maintained and open, and what enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against illegal dumping?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As I have mentioned, the national fly-tipping prevention group is sharing best practice through local authorities coming together to look at how we are tackling this issue across the country. Unfortunately, it is one that seems to be everywhere at the moment.

Independent Water Commission

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I cannot take credit for the picture—that was Sir Jon—but I can join my hon. Friend in crediting the campaign groups who have done such a fantastic job at keeping this issue at the top of the political agenda. Sir Jon makes proposals in his report about those labyrinthine structures that she is talking about. We need clarity and transparency, and that is what we will now work towards.

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

Between 2001 and 2023, there were over 4,600 incidents of sewage overflows in Dewsbury and Batley, amounting to over 28,000 hours. Bills for my constituents and Yorkshire Water customers have gone up by 40% in the last five years and by nearly 30% in the last 12 months. Some £84 billion has been taken in dividends by all the water companies in the UK, with £74 billion of that saddled on to the companies themselves. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce the bills of my constituents and residents of the whole United Kingdom, and what steps will he take to claw back that £84 billion so it can be invested to fix the pipes?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that important point. His constituents, just like people right across the country, were last year forced to pay the price of 14 years of Conservative failure, because the Conservatives allowed the companies to pay out millions in dividends and bonuses when that money should have been invested in upgrading infrastructure. I have ringfenced customers’ money so that it will now only be spent on the purposes for which it was intended; otherwise, it will be returned to customers.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this important Bill. It is an absolute honour and a privilege to speak on this subject. I have spoken on animal welfare in two Westminster Hall debates in the past month, and it is an important topic to speak about on the anniversary of my election, so I am grateful for the opportunity.

I am also an animal lover. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members present are extremely well informed, so the facts and information I will share is not for their benefit. I want to use this opportunity to provide some education for communities across our country and to share the message further afield, beyond this place.

As Mahatma Gandhi said:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

We often say we are a nation of animal lovers, and today is a test: if we legislate, we must legislate like one. Cruel practices like smuggling pregnant animals or separating young animals from their mothers at an early age violates all levels of mercy. These acts cause unnecessary suffering and must be stopped.

Having researched and had information provided by my team, I found the scale of the issue staggering. Between 2015 and 2019, dog imports under the pet travel scheme rose by 86%. Many of those were illegal or misclassified commercial imports. A single journey from Romania to the UK is over 1,500 miles. Puppies as young as 13 weeks are transported in cramped, filthy vans, We have heard about cropped ears, a cruel thing to do to any animal. More than 21,000 dogs with cropped ears are now estimated to be in the UK population—a result of the legal grey area that we hope the Bill will address.

I pay tribute and express my gratitude, I am sure on behalf of the House, to the many charities and organisations that look after animal welfare and ensure issues are brought to the attention of this place, and that are on the ground helping: Battersea, Dogs Trust, Countryside Alliance and many more that are local, regional, national and international.

It is important to share some of the key issues around biosecurity and health risks. Many smuggled puppies and kittens arrive in the UK without the core vaccinations required to prevent rabies, distemper, parvovirus and other life threatening illnesses. These animals are often too young to have received their vaccinations or to have developed any immunity. That is dangerous for them and also poses a serious public health risk to our communities and domestic pet population. The current system allows these animals to enter the country with minimal scrutiny, creating a perfect entry point for zoonotic diseases—those that can jump from animals to humans.

I will share two or three case studies from Battersea. Milo, a six-month-old dog rescued by Battersea, had been brutally mutilated. His ears were hacked and crudely stitched shut with cotton thread, which had been left to fester. That was not just illegal; it was deliberate torture masquerading as aesthetic enhancement. We need to tackle the glorification of mutilated animals on social media or any other platforms that do not make it clear to the people viewing that it is not the natural state of the animal—it has been mutilated. That is an important point that I hope, through this debate, will become more well known.

To give some more examples, Sunny, Ray and Sky, three Cane Corso puppies, were trafficked over 1,500 miles from Romania. They were just 13 weeks old—under the legal import age—and unvaccinated, mutilated and forced into cramped, stressful conditions. Their ears had been cropped and their tails docked—all illegal here but still allowed under import loopholes. Snowy, a heavily pregnant dog, was smuggled during the final 10% of her pregnancy, in breach of current law. She endured the journey in squalid, dark and suffocating conditions without adequate food or water. These journeys not only traumatise the animals but endanger the lives of unborn puppies and the mothers carrying them.

I did not have much experience of the importation of animals into our country until my preparations for this and previous debates. I am aware that in my constituency there is an illegal trade of puppies, which are kept in small, cramped cages outside until they reach the age when they can be sold. These cruelly treated puppies can be sold for thousands and thousands of pounds. I hope that part of the work we are doing on the Bill can also look to address that.

On the exploitation of loopholes, we have heard that the current pet travel scheme designed for holidaymakers has been systematically abused by organised puppy traffickers. Breeders mislabel commercial sales as personal pet movements to sidestep import rules, veterinary checks and regulations. Smuggling heavily pregnant dogs is a deliberate move, allowing traffickers to appear legitimate by showing the puppies with their mother, deceiving buyers into thinking that the litter was bred responsibly in the UK.

These are not one-off cases. This is organised animal trafficking, often international in scale, that thrives on weak legislation, poor enforcement and consumer deception. Without the Bill, we are effectively enabling profit from pain through a loophole-ridden system that is ripe for abuse.

On constituent engagement on this issue, through Battersea alone over 14,680 people across 649 constituencies have contacted their MPs to urge them to support the Bill. This is a groundswell of support that cuts across party lines. While I have only had one email from a constituent directly about the Bill, I have had over 87 emails in this Parliament from constituents calling for stronger animal welfare protections. This speaks to a powerful public mandate. People are demanding action to end the suffering of trafficked animals and uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader on welfare. Passing this Bill is the right and compassionate thing to do.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate.

The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, said:

“Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, he is kind to himself.”

Caring for animals is not just an ethical issue in Islam; it is an act of worship to God. Mahatma Gandhi said:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

The way we treat farmed animals is not only our responsibility, but a reflection of our values and what we stand for in this country.

Unfortunately, right now, the reflection I see is distorted, because despite all the proud talk about Britain’s leadership on animal welfare, millions of animals are still confined in cages and crates that violate the most basic standards of dignity and care. I rise in support of the petition, not just because of what it asks us to do—to ban cages for laying hens, farrowing crates for sows and individual pens for calves—but because of what it represents: a call for us to honour our moral duty to animals that feed us and often clothe us, and for which we consider ourselves caretakers.

That call is echoed by my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, who are deeply disturbed that, despite UK legislation that protects animals, practices such as the use of farrowing crates, enriched cages and calf pens remain legal in the UK. They are legal, but they are increasingly indefensible. Just because something is legal does not always mean it is right. Many highlight that after watching documentaries or seeing images, they are horrified by how our food industry treats animals throughout their lifetime, simply to make it easier to farm their produce.

Recent footage from a Devon pig farm exposed by campaigners and reported by The Guardian shows sows trapped in crates so tightly that they cannot turn around, care properly for their piglets or even lie down in comfort. In that practice, the pig is reduced to a machine, treated as an object for the benefit of the food industry. That is a moral failing. Let us be clear: the farrowing crate is not an unfortunate glitch in a mostly humane system; it is the system itself, and it is built on a trade-off we no longer need to accept. We prioritise production over compassion, but public support is strong and nearly 75% of vets are concerned about the welfare impact of farrowing crates. What are we waiting for?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very encouraging that the industry is already making great strides to move away from the traditional crating system to new flexible systems, and that we have already seen 8% change to those systems in the last couple of years?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree. I do not oppose farmers’ critical work to provide food for our country. I hope that the Government will push to speed up the transition by supporting the 8% of farmers who have already implemented new systems and supporting the other 92% to make the transition.

As the petition highlights, this issue affects not just pigs, but birds and calves. One of the most shocking facts I came across while researching it is that hens are confined to cages that give them little more space than the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Imagine that! The RSPCA calls those cages “unacceptably restrictive” and companies like Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s have committed to change. If private businesses can do it, why have the Government not? Other countries are ahead of us; even in Scotland, a consultation on cages in farming practice has been launched. We must follow them.

This is not just about discomfort; it is about denying animals the chance to express their natural behaviours—to peck, stretch, dust bathe or nest. It is about mothers being unable to care for their young and calves being kept alone, unable to bond or play. These are not just welfare issues; they are issues of dignity. They are about whether we accept a food system built on the routine suppression of life’s most basic instincts—even if it is an animal’s life.

[James Naish]

Everything the hon. Member says is absolutely valid, but for a farmer with 200 acres of land, which cost £10,000 per acre, who therefore has to use some of the practices he described, it is practically very difficult to suddenly end all those practices by acquiring 50 or 100 extra acres to provide the required space. I am interested in his reflections on how, from the commercial perspective of a farmer, all those objectives can be achieved.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

It is a very difficult challenge, but, as has been mentioned, food produced elsewhere that is allowed to be imported needs to meet the standards that we follow in the UK. Cost cannot be a reason to compromise on the welfare of animals. I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Government will help farmers.

[Steve Yemm]

I wonder whether the hon. Member might also reflect on our farming competitors, in particular countries like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland and, to some extent, Germany, Austria and New Zealand, which have banned such practices in their pig industries, and the extent to which that means there can be a viable business model under a reformed system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I think we should look at good practice elsewhere and at how other countries have transitioned away from these practices. I am not having a go at farmers at all, but I hope the Government will expedite their manifesto commitment to look at animal welfare and help farmers transition to a more humane system.

Farm animals do not just feed us; they live their entire lives under farmers’ care—our care. I am sure we can all agree that care must mean more than simply the absence of cruelty, but even that we do not have. We cannot argue that it is a radical or long process, because alternatives are popping up and farms are taking initiative to move away from these practices without waiting for legislation.

Although it is embarrassing that we are not leading the way, we can catch up and set a new standard for all, which would be met with little pushback as long as we had the appropriate Government support for our farmers. This debate must be the beginning of addressing intensive farming practices that strip animals of dignity in service of profit and drawing a line between industry and responsibility. If we want to be a country that preaches welfare, let us prove it: ban the cages and give animals a life that reflects the respect they deserve, not just as a means to an end, but as living beings entrusted to our care. This is not radical; it is responsible, it is compassion and it is necessary.

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.