Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between David Pinto-Duschinsky and Jamie Stone

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend makes her point with some passion; I will touch on that point in a second.

Such provisions include post-cut stunning for ruminants, minimum-stun parameters for poultry and mandatory slaughter labelling. Conversely, it is crucial that we properly and thoughtfully consider the other side of the debate: namely, the religious communities that require this method of slaughter for halal and kosher practices. Proponents of those practices argue that banning non-stun slaughter would violate their freedoms. The teachings of the Jewish and Muslim religions state that an animal must be fully alive before it is slaughtered. Accordingly, the stunning of an animal before slaughter may be interpreted as not being compliant with such religious teachings.

However, in many religions—including my own, Christianity—there are variations in the interpretation of religious laws. Leaders of more liberal branches may be more open to interpreting religious law in the light of modern customs and welfare standards. However, it has to be said that more orthodox factions may still consider changes to traditional methods as a serious offence.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he is setting out his case, given the sensitivity of this issue. Would he accept—I cannot, unfortunately, speak for the halal rules, but I can speak for the kashrut ones—that there is no school of kosher slaughtering that permits stunning?

[Jamie Stone]

I am prepared to be informed on that point. In my discussions with both the Jewish and Muslim communities, I actually learned a very great deal myself. I found particularly fascinating the fact that the method used is scripture-based, and I think that is important to remember.

After all that has been said so far, if we thought that the slaughtering of animals according to religious practice went unregulated in this country, we would be very wrong, because there are certain requirements. First, the killing must take place in a slaughterhouse—an abattoir, if people want to call it that—approved by the Food Standards Agency. Secondly, it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence, known as the COC. Thirdly, and importantly, the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice when intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people. Now, this is the gory bit: the animal’s throat must be cut by a rapid, uninterrupted movement, with both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed by a knife of sufficient size and sharpness. There is to be no sawing. These measures are required to minimise animal suffering. I am sorry if that is shocking, but I think we need to be quite clear about the practice as it is.

These existing regulations prompt deliberations on both sides of the argument. In the case of animal-welfare advocates, one could suggest that our current laws are already examples of the way religious practices have adapted in accordance with modern ethical standards, and that it is therefore entirely just for these practices to further adhere to society’s standards as those continue to strengthen. Conversely, to be balanced about this, proponents of traditional religious practice could argue that the current regulations typify compromises that have already been made between religion and law in a society like ours, which—I think this is crucial to the way we go about doing things in this country—actively supports and protects religious freedom or belief. That is a crucial factor.

As an aside, it is important to note that the petition follows the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the European convention on human rights. This is because the Court accepts that

“the protection of animal welfare can be linked to…‘public morality’, which constitutes a legitimate aim”

for which the state might justifiably restrict freedom of religion. In this case, the Court accepted that it was consistent with these standards to legislate that animals should be stunned before being ritually slaughtered. As I am sure many of us know, several European countries have already introduced a ban, including Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland and Norway. However, other fellow neighbours, including France and Germany, still allow for non-stun slaughter on religious grounds.

All of this is to say that this debate requires nuance—careful nuance—and sensibility to all the views in the room, regardless of the beliefs that one holds.