Being Chair of the Petitions Committee has been a learning curve and also a joy. One is exposed to a wide variety of topics that make the general public tick, from animal welfare to school reforms and the infamous call for another general election. The debate I led last week on the request to ban non-stun slaughter was a prime example – and it was a well-attended, respectful and balanced debate. Exactly what I think politics should be.
In preparation for this debate, I had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of lobbying groups, from the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to the Halal Food Authority and Shechita UK. The willingness of these groups to educate me on all facets of the non-stun slaughter debate meant that I emerged confident enough to weave a balanced speech that outlined the debate. To them I am very grateful.
As a wee boy, I grew up on a farm in the Far North of Scotland. Surrounded by cows, dogs and a much loved pussycat called Kidney, I was a born animal lover. With this hat on, I could easily understand the sentiments behind the petition for non-stun slaughter. To minimise the suffering of animals is an instinct of any animal lover, and one I subscribe to.
The RSPCA, the BVA, and the Farm Animal Welfare Council are all in agreement: non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and distress to animals, who remain conscious for far longer than anyone would wish.
Because of my farming childhood, as a boy I was not ignorant to the realities of rearing and culling cattle. The prospect of rearing a cow and then finding it on the kitchen table for supper was a reality I was familiar with. This truth of our omnivore diet has been somewhat masked by the rise of the supermarket. To put it bluntly, the kindest way to eat meat is by not eating it at all. Vegetarianism never appealed to me, so instead I personally choose to buy free range meat which has been stunned before slaughter.
Let me be clear though – this is a choice that I personally make, and I feel no urge to force this choice onto anyone.
As a liberal, I hold the view that religious freedoms are paramount. In a world increasingly less tolerant to minorities, it would be remiss of me to advocate to exclude these views because they do not align with my own.
Those whom I spoke to from religious organisations point out—quite reasonably—that their dietary laws are not some whimsical affectations, but a core part of their faith. And while the RSPCA et al are calling for the abolition of religious exemptions, Jewish and Muslim groups are left wondering when exactly their right to practice their religion became subject to a national referendum.
There’s also the small matter of proportionality: the vast majority of halal meat in the UK is already from pre-stunned animals, and yet somehow, halal and kosher practices are disproportionately scrutinised.
Naturally it seems, the debate has become less about animals and more about whose values are being protected, and why. You don’t have to look far to find someone using the debate as a proxy for all sorts of anxieties about multiculturalism and integration.
So, how do we square this circle? I believe the answer lies in respectful dialogue and practical compromise. We must continue to work closely with animal welfare experts, religious leaders, and the wider public. Where possible, we should encourage the use of pre-stunning that is compatible with religious requirements—as is already the case in some countries. We must ensure that non-stun slaughter is limited to genuine religious need, not commercial excess, and that consumers are empowered with clear labelling.
Above all, we must approach this debate not as a zero-sum contest between faith and compassion, but as an opportunity to show the world that Britain can be both principled and pluralist. If we listen to each other, if we seek understanding rather than division, I am confident we can find a way forward that respects both the welfare of animals and the rights of our communities.
Thoughts on the e-petition debate on non-stun slaughter
