MPs criticise halal slaughter debate: ‘about prejudice, not animals’
Rupert Lowe clashes with Muslim MPs during Westminster Hall debate on banning killing of animals without first stunning them
A ban on the slaughter of animals without stunning them first would infringe on religious freedoms and stoke division, Muslim MPs said during a debate in parliament on Monday.
The Westminster Hall debate was called after a petition on the subject earlier this year garnered 109,018 signatures.
“In modern society, we believe more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled,” the petition said.
“We believe non-stun slaughter is barbaric and doesn’t fit in with our culture and modern-day values and should be banned, as some EU nations have done.”
The UK does not legally require animals to be stunned before slaughter.
In Islam, an animal intended for food must be healthy at the time of slaughter, and must be killed by a single cut to the throat.
According to the Halal Monitoring Committee, a charity that inspects and certifies halal products, some scholars believe that stunning animals causes suffering and increases the likelihood of an animal dying before its throat can be cut.
Other Islamic scholars, however, have deemed stunning before slaughter permissible, provided it does not kill the animal outright.
In its response, the government said it would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but that it respects “the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs”.
According to the RSPCA, an estimated 30m animals were slaughtered without first being stunned in 2024, though it also estimates that around 88% of animals slaughtered for halal meat in the UK are stunned first.
Related content
No animals slaughtered for kosher meat are stunned before being killed.
A separate motion calling for a ban on “halal slaughter” has been brought by independent MP Rupert Lowe, who was kicked out of Reform UK in March, and backed by Conservative MP Bradley Thomas and Sammy Wilson of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist party.
Lowe has made no written intervention on the subject of kosher slaughter, but did say during Monday’s debate that he opposed it.
Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP, said she opposed the “divisive narratives” that surrounded the debate on stun slaughter.
“Non-stun religious slaughter accounts for just 2.9% of animals killed in the UK. Yet this small percentage is repeatedly singled out in public debate,” she said.
“We have heard religious slaughter described as barbaric. MPs like myself have received emails referring to ‘Muslim meat’ and ‘dirty men with beards’. That is not animal welfare language — that is prejudice, plain and simple.
“The petition talks about non-stun slaughter in general, but public focus has been almost entirely on halal. Kosher slaughter uses the same method but is rarely mentioned. This reveals what many of us [know] — this debate is less about animals and more about Muslims.”
Speaking during the debate, Lowe accused the UK of operating under a “two-tier” slaughter system, and claimed that animals suffer more under halal and kosher slaughter methods.
“All across the country in abattoirs, we’re allowing vile practices that would turn the stomach of any decent person all in the name of religious exemption,” he said.
“Millions of Brits are eating halal meat against their will and without their knowledge due to our deceitful labelling system. Halal meat is seeping into the food chain,” Lowe said.
Independent MP Ayoub Khan asked Lowe if he felt the same way about kosher meat. Responding to him, Lowe said: “I do. We’re all eating halal meat without knowing it. You are all eating halal meat without knowing it. I find that morally repugnant. We should ban non-stun slaughter, we should ban halal slaughter and we should ban kosher slaughter.”
Related content
Labour MP Naz Shah pointed out that 88% of animals killed for halal meat were stunned. Lowe said in response: “The halal stun is a lower voltage of the non-halal stun. It is the actual level of the stun that counts.”
Independent MP Iqbal Mohamed said the framing of the debate was “deeply concerning” and that it had “a title dressed as a welfare concern but sounding like a dog whistle for xenophobia, targeting religious practices, particularly Jewish and Muslim communities”.
“These are long standing practices already regulated by clear legislation. The claim in the petition that non-stun slaughter doesn’t reflect our culture or modern values — it’s not just inaccurate. It’s worryingly exclusionary and divisive.
“This is not a simple ‘stun good, not stun bad’ issue — it’s far more complex and should be centred around good and well monitored practice. Assuming there’s only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science. It’s imposition, and doesn’t reflect the values of a pluralistic society.”
Ahead of the debate, the Halal Food Authority (HFA) announced that it “firmly disapproved of the proposed ban”.
“We recognise the profound impact that a ban would have on religious communities, food practices, the principle of freedom of belief, and broader ethical considerations,” said Dr Amir Masoom, the authority’s chief executive.
“The HFA strongly advocates for the protection of religious freedom while upholding humane and ethical treatment of animals. We are deeply concerned that a blanket ban risks alienating communities and undermining the principles of equality and freedom enshrined in UK law.”
