Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

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

I rise to oppose the petition and the divided narratives that surround it. Let us be clear: non-stun religious slaughter accounts for just 2.9% of all animals killed in the United Kingdom, and 88% of halal meat is already pre-stunned. The remainder is slaughtered in accordance with strict religious guidelines by trained professionals in a regulated setting, with respect for the animal, yet that small percentage is repeatedly singled out in public debate. We have heard religious slaughter described as “barbaric”. MPs such as myself have received emails referring to “Muslim meat” and “dirty men with beards”. That is not the language of animal welfare; it is prejudice—plain and simple.

Although the petition talks about “non-stun slaughter” in general, public focus has almost entirely been on halal. Kosher slaughter uses the same method, but is rarely mentioned. That reveals what many of us have known for some time: this debate is less about animals and more about Muslims.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that eating meat does mean that an animal has to be killed—that is the gross reality of what we do and what we are talking about. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, the context has been taken out of this debate. The Food Standards Agency states that 98% of cattle are stunned before slaughter and just 2% are not. Many constituents in Luton North have contacted me to say that any ban will contravene religious freedoms for both Muslim and Jewish communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that both groups care deeply about animal welfare, but are now concerned about their right to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I totally agree, and I will come to those points a little later in my speech.

As I said, for many people the debate has been revealed to be less about animals and more about Muslims. If it is truly about animal welfare, will we be talking about the 44,000-plus welfare breaches occurring in the stun industry; the millions of animals affected by failed stunning, painful procedures and transport death; or the use of CO₂ gassing in 88% of pig slaughter, which is known to cause severe distress and pain? Instead, attention is focused on a religious practice followed by a minority, which has been protected by our laws for many decades. The right to practise one’s faith should not be up for debate, and it should not be undermined by misinformation driven by culture wars.

The practice seems to be: pick a minority practice, label it backward or dangerous, and claim the moral high ground under the banner of animal welfare. But this is not about welfare; it is about control, scapegoating and singling out faith communities for scrutiny that others are not subjected to. Let us be clear: although the petition refers to non-stun slaughter, the debate outside this room has focused almost entirely on halal meat. That is what is dominating the headlines. Again, as I said, kosher slaughter is done in a similar way, so it is great that at least one community is not being picked on over this issue.

What all of this highlights is a double standard. As I mentioned, the real welfare crisis is the over 44,000 animal welfare breaches that happen in a single year; the failed stunning, which affects up to 31% of poultry and leaves animals conscious; the CO₂ gassing of pigs, which causes panic and breathlessness, and is still used on 88% of pigs; the transport deaths, which see over 118,000 chickens die before even reaching the slaughterhouse; and castration, another painful practice, which causes prolonged suffering.

Do hon. Members think that the electric bolts sent into an animal’s head—which quite often fail—are somehow painless? They cause immense suffering, yet nobody talks about them. Why do we not talk about them? Because it is easier to attack visible religious practice.