Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Caroline Johnson

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is good to see you in your place, Mr Dowd, and it is a privilege to speak in this debate on a petition that has attracted over 109,000 signatures from members of the public across the country.

At the start of my comments, let me acknowledge the importance of this issue, which touches on two fundamental principles: commitment to animal welfare on the one hand, and respect for religious freedoms on the other. Those values should not be placed in opposition one to the other, but reconciled through careful evidence-based policy. The petition argues that non-stun slaughter is incompatible with modern animal welfare standards and urges the Government to ban the practice, as has already happened in some other European nations. It is worth remarking that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that such a ban does not violate the European convention on human rights. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made reference to article 9 on freedom of religion, and the court has already found that that can be balanced against legitimate animal welfare concerns.

So there are conflicting positions. We have animal welfare, a cause close to the hearts of many Britons and many of our constituents—we can see that by the large number of signatures to this petition; I sometimes think my constituents prefer their animals to their neighbours. Many would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming all argue that slaughter without prior stunning causes unnecessary pain and distress. Their research shows—there has been some conflict between the numbers being bandied around, but the general sense of the numbers has been consistent throughout the debate—that consciousness is lost for sheep within five to seven seconds and for adult cattle within 22 to 40 seconds, although some larger numbers were referenced in other people’s contributions. During that period we have to accept that animals will endure pain and suffering. For that reason, non-stunned killing has been banned for many years in this country, with the religious practice exception going back at least until 1933.

As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said in her intervention, we need to recognise that when we eat meat an animal always dies. But I accept the argument from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his expertise as a veterinary surgeon. He said—I have no reason to doubt him—that the science is clear. Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by hon. Members during the course of this debate, welfare is improved by stunning. So where do we go from here?

I very much liked the contribution of the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), who, if I wrote this down correctly, said that there is a British answer: to maximise animal rights while defending religious freedoms. Equally venerable has been our determination as a society to defend religious freedoms. It goes back, as I mentioned a moment ago, as far as the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contains an exemption for stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims. That has been repeated more recently in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Religious slaughter in the UK is permitted under exemptions laid out in those regulations.

That does not mean that we cannot make significant improvements to the current position. One issue raised was that of oversupply: the killing of more animals without stunning than are required for religious observance in this country. That might be because they are being exported. That begs the question: why do we need a religious exemption to fund or support an export market rather than religious observance in this country? Another issue could simply be over-production. There is a wild variety of estimates as to how much oversupply there is in this country; the figures that I have seen vary between 32% over-production and 278% over-production. That could mean that as many as 99 million animals are being slaughtered annually without stunning, despite not being required for religious observance—at least, not in the UK.

Such a huge variation suggests that better data, at the very least, is required. What steps is the Minister intending to take to obtain reliable data on the end use of non-stunned meat? The second significant area where improvements can be made is in the area of labelling. Many consumers are unaware of whether the meat they purchase comes from stunned or non-stunned animals, and that is not the same as saying the meat is halal or kosher. We have heard repeatedly that 88% of all halal-killed animals are pre-stunned. Nevertheless, there are currently no legal requirements to label meat by method of slaughter. That creates a genuine lack of consumer choice—especially for those who, for ethical or welfare reasons, prefer to avoid non-stun meat, or conversely, those who wish to consume meat that has been religiously slaughtered.

[Dr Johnson]

The Conservative Government had a consultation on food labelling, which was completed last May. The current Government said they would respond, but they have now had more than a year to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that they need to get on with it and ensure they respond as quickly as possible?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend has clearly been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to say that the last Government did undertake a consultation; it is very noticeable that there has been no official response from the Government. My next question to the Minister, who I know is keen to provide us with full answers, is this: when will we receive an official response to that previous consultation? What is the current Government’s position on method of production labelling?

It must be right that increasing transparency through clearer labelling could empower consumers to make informed choices. Improved engagement with religious certification bodies could help to promote the wider use of pre-stunned methods, particularly for halal meat: some stunning methods—where the animal is capable of revival, for example—have been deemed compatible with religious standards. I hope that this afternoon’s debate leads to renewed engagement between the Government, communities, scientists, welfare organisations and religious groups, so that we find an accommodation, rather than a conflict, that both respects faiths and honours our shared responsibility for the welfare of animals.

Under-age Vaping

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Caroline Johnson

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

As the hon. Lady says, that is what they all say. Obviously that is wholly inappropriate, but part of the problem in reaching the correct solution to this shared concern has been demonstrated by the richness of the debate we have had today.

All sorts of suggestions have been made. My non-exhaustive list indicates that some hon. Members said that we should ban flavours. Some of them said that we should ban all flavours; others said that we should ban only flavours that are targeted directly at young palates. There have been suggestions that we should ban disposable vapes, or that we should require bland packaging for vapes, although others suggested that the issue is not so much the packaging as the fact that they should be hidden behind closed doors. There has been a suggestion that we should increase the cost of vapes, but that was controversial—the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) rightly pointed out that for adults seeking to give up smoking who are on very limited means, the cost of vapes is a very relevant consideration.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The cost is indeed important, both in pricing children out of the pocket money market and in ensuring that smokers who are seeking to quit can do so. However, to a smoker who can afford a packet of cigarettes, even if £5 is put on the cost of a disposable vape, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) described, the vape is still cheaper.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention. I do not have skin in the game about whether it is better to have a higher cost or a lower cost, but my hon. Friend’s intervention has highlighted my fundamental point, which is that this is a complex area where we need evidence to base our policy on.

It has been suggested that we should crack down on marketing. Others have suggested that we should increase education in schools, and there is a wider debate about schools policy and the use of loos in schools. There are other concerns, overriding all of these, about what impact our actions in relation to vapes—including single-use vapes—could have on the ability of adults to give up smoking, in order to continue the downward trend of smoking addiction in this country. These are serious and interrelated issues. If this debate were to result in a Division, there is no way that I could support the Labour motion, which focuses solely on banning branding and advertising for the young, because it may not go far enough. It may just focus on one little area, when the richness of the debate on both sides has highlighted how much wider and more complex the issue is.

As such, what we are really talking about is not so much our concerns about vaping, including by children: the main issue is, “How should we make our law?” It is a given on both sides of the Chamber that action should be taken, and the first speech on behalf of the Government, made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) made it clear that the Government have already acted and are intending to go further. In fact, the Secretary of State said at Health questions yesterday that the Government were looking to go further, particularly on single-use disposables. It is not a question of whether we are going to act: the question is, on what basis do we act? For my money, we should act on the evidence and not solely on anecdote, important though that is.