I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. As we have heard, it has attracted a great amount of attention. The e-petition on which the debate is based has attracted, according to my iPhone, more than 116,000 signatories. On the other hand, the other petition, which is aimed at protecting religious slaughter, has attracted more than 124,000 signatories. This issue clearly attracts a great deal of interest and arouses a great deal of passion, and it is a credit to Members of this House that the debate is being conducted in such a calm and rational manner.
We must not be under any illusions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) pointed out, any form of animal slaughter is a distressing business and all rational people, whatever their beliefs, would wish to do all they can to minimise, if not obviate altogether, any suffering caused to another sentient creature. In that regard, the scientific evidence is clear: stunning minimises the distress caused to the animal before and at the time of slaughter. The Dialrel report of 2010, for example, stated:
“It can be stated with high probability that animals feel pain during and after the throat cut without prior stunning.”
It also found that in the case of stunned slaughter, the hazards of restraint stress and injury were low, as were pain and suffering during the cut and immediately afterwards, while in the case of slaughter without stunning, those hazards were considered to be high. On purely scientific grounds, therefore, it seems clear that the case for stunned slaughter is strong.
It is with good reason, therefore, that European law and United Kingdom law require that animals should be stunned before slaughter, but as we have heard, the relevant EU directive permits member states to apply a
derogation to permit non-stunned slaughter for religious purposes. Out of understandable consideration for religious beliefs, the UK and certain other member states have decided to apply the derogation, but it is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) pointed out in his excellent opening remarks, that there is no uniformity in how that derogation has been applied. In some countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, non-stunned slaughter is not permitted. In others, such as Austria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia, post-incision stunning is required if the animal has not been previously stunned. That is the halfway house my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire mentioned.
Interestingly and importantly—this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering—in Germany, where the derogation has been applied, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs of the community concerned before a licence is granted. There may well be different approaches to the interpretation of the derogation by individual states, but all the member states I have mentioned have a great deal more clarity on how the derogation has been applied than the United Kingdom. Indeed, I specifically ask the Minister to address the lack of clarity in the application of the UK derogation.
The fact is that in the UK in 2013, some 15% of sheep and goats were not stunned before slaughter. That is some 2.4 million animals. Given that the Muslim and Jewish communities together comprise only 4% to 5% of the British population, and given that most halal meat —we have heard that the figure is 80%—is from stunned animals, it follows that a significant proportion of sheep and goat meat from non-stunned slaughter is being supplied otherwise than to the market for which it was intended. In other words, I would go so far as to say —this was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—that there seems to be a gross over-provision of non-stun slaughterhouses in this country, and I would be interested to hear what the Government intend to do about it. The extent of non-stunned slaughter in this country tends to go against the UK and EU legislation.