← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Non-stun Slaughter of Animals
09 June 2025
Lead MP
Jamie Stone
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
LD
Responding Minister
Daniel Zeichner
Tags
No tags
Word Count: 13796
Other Contributors: 19
At a Glance
Jamie Stone raised concerns about non-stun slaughter of animals in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Calls on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and ensure that any free trade agreement with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The e-petition has attracted more than 100,000 signatures. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals expressed concern about the large increase in non-stun slaughter from 25.4 million animals in 2022 to 30.1 million in 2024.
Andrew Rosindell
Con
Romford
Suggests introducing mandatory multi-labelling to provide consumers with informed choices about the method of animal slaughter, acknowledging public sentiment against ritual slaughter.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
Asked if Rupert Lowe adopts the same position for kosher meat, which Rupert Lowe confirmed but stated would be covered later in his speech. He expresses concern about the potential misuse of the debate by those who wish to stoke hatred against religious communities. He argues that a blanket ban on non-stunned meat would harm local farmers and exports, and points out that welfare standards abroad may be less stringent than in the UK.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Helen's Bay
Discussed ongoing efforts to improve farm animal welfare and acknowledged the sensitive nature of non-stun slaughter methods.
Hendon
Inquired whether there was a school of kosher slaughtering that permits stunning.
David Taylor
Lab
Hemel Hempstead
Acknowledged the sensitivity of the debate and highlighted that constituents have written to him on both sides. Emphasised the importance of animal welfare standards and suggested a permit system for non-stunned meat.
Caroline Johnson
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
She questions whether changes to legislation are needed for labelling food regarding whether animals were stunned before slaughter, to which Ayoub Khan agrees that such labels should be provided.
Winchester
The MP emphasised the importance of discussing animal welfare based on science and evidence, opposing any discussion hijacked by antisemitism or Islamophobia. He highlighted that stunning animals before slaughter is more humane.
Asked Jerome Mayhew why the current Government had not responded to the previous Conservative Government's consultation on food labelling, completed last May.
Iqbal Mohamed
Ind
Dewsbury and Batley
The rhetoric around non-stunned slaughter is deeply concerning as it targets religious practices of Jewish and Muslim communities. He argues that the methods are long-standing, regulated, and designed to minimise suffering.
Jamie Stone
LD
Caithness and Sutherland
Emphasises the importance of religious tolerance and highlights discussions with Jewish and Islamic communities regarding labelling as a compromise solution. Thanked everyone who spoke during the debate, highlighting that people all over Britain and religious communities are watching. Emphasised the importance of proper consideration for petitions.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Asked when the Government would provide an official response to a previous consultation on method of production labelling.
Josh Newbury
Lab
Cannock Chase
He declared personal opposition to non-stun slaughter and supported animal welfare concerns, noting that his constituency had the second-highest number of petition signatories. He discussed religious practices around halal and kosher slaughter, emphasizing respect for both animal welfare and religious observance.
Adnan Hussain
Ind
Blackburn
Questions whether this debate is truly about animal welfare or if it is a pretext for antisemitism, drawing parallels with historical bans that marginalised Jewish people.
Naz Shah
Lab
Bradford West
Clarified whether Rupert Lowe's proposal targets pre-stunned halal meat and questioned the complexity of stunning practices. She highlights the similarities between stunning methods used for halal and conventional slaughter, emphasizing that the debate should focus on wider animal welfare issues rather than a small percentage of non-stunned meat.
Tiverton and Minehead
Expressed concerns about animal welfare, arguing that non-stun slaughter is outdated and barbaric.
Rupert Lowe
Ind
Great Yarmouth
Described his opposition to non-stun slaughter as a farmer, emphasizing the cruelty involved and advocating for an end to halal and kosher slaughter. Highlighted that millions of Brits unknowingly consume halal meat due to poor labelling.
Sarah Owen
Lab
Luton North
Stresses the importance of religious freedoms for Muslim and Jewish communities, arguing that the focus is predominantly on halal meat despite kosher slaughter being equally relevant.
Shockat Adam
Ind
Leicester South
The debate often focuses narrowly on the method of death rather than the overall suffering animals face throughout their lives. Scientific studies suggest that kosher and non-stun halal slaughter may cause more pain, but pre-stunning methods also have high failure rates leading to animal distress. The MP emphasizes the importance of protecting religious freedom under Article 9 of the Human Rights Act.
Yasmin Qureshi
Lab
Bolton South and Walkden
Opposes the petition, highlighting that non-stun slaughter accounts for only 2.9% of all animals killed in the UK, with 88% of halal meat already pre-stunned. Criticises the debate as focusing on Muslims rather than animal welfare.
Government Response
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs
Government Response
Stated that while the Government prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, they respect religious freedom. Mentioned that 97% of poultry and 86% of red meat animals are stunned before slaughter, but non-stun sheep slaughter has doubled over recent years. Highlighted improvements in animal welfare regulations post-EU legislation.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.