Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I always find it encouraging to witness public participation in politics, and this is a good example. It is evident that this petition, which has attracted more than 100,000 signatures, has engaged a very large number of people from all across the country. For that reason, I must very sincerely thank its creator, Mr Martin Osborne, who is in the Public Gallery today with a group of his friends and other supporters.

Mr Osborne created this e-petition because he believes that in a modern society more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled. He and his fellow signatories believe that non-stun slaughter is barbaric and should be banned, as some EU nations have done. I had the happy privilege of speaking to him last week, and he made one thing very clear to me: he is an animal lover, and he believes that he lives in a country that shares his desire to reduce suffering at the time of slaughter in so far as it is possible to do so. Put simply, I would suggest that his motivation comes from a place of care.

But what Mr Osborne did not do is create this petition with the desire for it to be co-opted as a mechanism for prejudice and discrimination against religious communities in this country that prepare their food differently from him. I trust Members will bear that in mind while debating the topic. I also had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Halal Monitoring Committee and Shechita UK, both of which expressed respectful interest in the debate. Again, I trust that everyone speaking today will return that respect.

I turn to the topic at hand. The current rules on slaughter in England are set by the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, under which all animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. However, as we know, an exemption to those rules allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious communities.

In recent years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has expressed concern about the large increase in the number of animals that have been slaughtered without pre-stunning. In 2024, 30.1 million animals were killed in that way—a significant increase from the 25.4 million in 2022. Of those 30.1 million animals slaughtered without stunning, 27 million were for halal and 3 million were for kosher.

Evidence presented by the RSPCA makes the case for removing the religious exemption on the basis that animals that are not stunned prior to being slaughter suffer

“very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.

That is because the neck, cut, sends a stream of sensory information to the brain in the conscious animal, causing intense temporary pain and distress. Only after prolonged blood loss does the animal become unconscious and thus insensitive to the incision. That process can take up to 20 seconds in sheep, 2 minutes in cattle and 2.5 minutes in poultry. As a result, those concerned about animal welfare are calling on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and to ensure that any free trade agreement that the UK signs with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat.

If slaughter without pre-stunning is to remain, the RSPCA requests that

“provisions are used in cases where the religious exemption applies only”,

and that we amend the current rules

“to make sure it better protects animal welfare”.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the issues surrounding this practice so sensitively. I want to begin by saying that my comments are based on animal welfare issues, as reflected by my constituents. Does he agree that this practice is not only outdated but barbaric, and that it inflicts needless suffering on animals? It also does the consumer absolutely no favours, given that heightened distress and panic in the animal at the time of slaughter leads to meat of inferior quality.

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend makes her point with some passion; I will touch on that point in a second.

Such provisions include post-cut stunning for ruminants, minimum-stun parameters for poultry and mandatory slaughter labelling. Conversely, it is crucial that we properly and thoughtfully consider the other side of the debate: namely, the religious communities that require this method of slaughter for halal and kosher practices. Proponents of those practices argue that banning non-stun slaughter would violate their freedoms. The teachings of the Jewish and Muslim religions state that an animal must be fully alive before it is slaughtered. Accordingly, the stunning of an animal before slaughter may be interpreted as not being compliant with such religious teachings.

However, in many religions—including my own, Christianity—there are variations in the interpretation of religious laws. Leaders of more liberal branches may be more open to interpreting religious law in the light of modern customs and welfare standards. However, it has to be said that more orthodox factions may still consider changes to traditional methods as a serious offence.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he is setting out his case, given the sensitivity of this issue. Would he accept—I cannot, unfortunately, speak for the halal rules, but I can speak for the kashrut ones—that there is no school of kosher slaughtering that permits stunning?

[Jamie Stone]

I am prepared to be informed on that point. In my discussions with both the Jewish and Muslim communities, I actually learned a very great deal myself. I found particularly fascinating the fact that the method used is scripture-based, and I think that is important to remember.

After all that has been said so far, if we thought that the slaughtering of animals according to religious practice went unregulated in this country, we would be very wrong, because there are certain requirements. First, the killing must take place in a slaughterhouse—an abattoir, if people want to call it that—approved by the Food Standards Agency. Secondly, it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence, known as the COC. Thirdly, and importantly, the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice when intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people. Now, this is the gory bit: the animal’s throat must be cut by a rapid, uninterrupted movement, with both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed by a knife of sufficient size and sharpness. There is to be no sawing. These measures are required to minimise animal suffering. I am sorry if that is shocking, but I think we need to be quite clear about the practice as it is.

These existing regulations prompt deliberations on both sides of the argument. In the case of animal-welfare advocates, one could suggest that our current laws are already examples of the way religious practices have adapted in accordance with modern ethical standards, and that it is therefore entirely just for these practices to further adhere to society’s standards as those continue to strengthen. Conversely, to be balanced about this, proponents of traditional religious practice could argue that the current regulations typify compromises that have already been made between religion and law in a society like ours, which—I think this is crucial to the way we go about doing things in this country—actively supports and protects religious freedom or belief. That is a crucial factor.

As an aside, it is important to note that the petition follows the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the European convention on human rights. This is because the Court accepts that

“the protection of animal welfare can be linked to…‘public morality’, which constitutes a legitimate aim”

for which the state might justifiably restrict freedom of religion. In this case, the Court accepted that it was consistent with these standards to legislate that animals should be stunned before being ritually slaughtered. As I am sure many of us know, several European countries have already introduced a ban, including Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland and Norway. However, other fellow neighbours, including France and Germany, still allow for non-stun slaughter on religious grounds.

All of this is to say that this debate requires nuance—careful nuance—and sensibility to all the views in the room, regardless of the beliefs that one holds.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, given the sensitivities around this subject. Hon. Members will understand that fundamentally this country is of Christian heritage. Most of my constituents do not like the idea that an animal should be slaughtered in this way. Does he agree that some things should be done fairly quickly, even if there is not a complete ban straightaway? For instance, the introduction of a mandatory multi-labelling system that included the method of slaughter would allow the public to make better-informed decisions about the food they consume and give them freedom of choice. Surely people who do not want to eat meat that has been slaughtered in that way should have the choice. At the moment, there is no choice. Fundamentally, the British people want to be able to decide whether to consume meat from an animal that has been slaughtered in that way.

[Jamie Stone]

From my discussions with the Islamic and Jewish communities, I think that the concept of labelling—if I interpret what the hon. Gentleman said correctly—could be quite acceptable to them, if that would give people choice.

I come from the highlands of Scotland, where, to be honest, the 1715 and 1745 rebellions were based on the religious division between Catholics and Protestants, and where there have been huge arguments even within the Church of Scotland in relation to the Free Church. I am therefore very clear that tolerance among religions is crucial to a civilised society.

I have probably said enough. I can see many hon. Members who, I am sure, will make the most interesting contributions, and I look forward to the Minister’s. However, I want to end where I began, by thanking Mr Martin Osborne for the sincere way in which he put forward the petition. I also thank those I have spoken with, who have had the patience to explain the halal and the Jewish kosher points of view. I am grateful to have learned a lot over the past few days.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

I thank everyone who has spoken. People all over Britain who care about animals will be going online and watching this debate. The Muslim and Jewish communities will have been watching—we know that these debates have huge viewing figures. We have conducted this debate in a civilised fashion, and I think that will give people such as the petitioner and others the reassurance that when a petition comes here for debate, it will not just be put in a bag behind the Speaker’s Chair or put on a dusty shelf; it will be properly looked at. I hope I am not over-egging it when I say that that is quite good for British democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.

Sewage

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member would, of course, be enormously welcome to visit the lakes and the dales. He makes a key point, which I will seek to address, about the injustice of people being paid huge bonuses for failure at the top of these organisations. That is also money leaving the system and the industry that could have been invested in putting some of this right.

I have talked about my patch, but colleagues across the House, from every party and from every corner of the United Kingdom, will have seen the data for their communities too, and they should rightly be outraged.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

rose—

[Tim Farron]

I am sure my hon. Friend is outraged.

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend talks, quite correctly, about a beautiful part of England. I, too, represent a very beautiful part of the world. Here is an unbelievable fact for him—I have written it on my hand: in 2023, there were no fewer than 1,439 sewage spills in the highlands. What a disgrace that none of the Scottish nationalists, the governing party of Scotland, are here today.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an important observation from a constituency vast and rural—my constituency is the second largest in England, but it is bijou and compact compared with his. He makes a good point about the Administration in Scotland.

As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) alluded to, sewage spills are not the only things that have increased; so too has the money leaking out of the system. Water company bosses received a total combined pay last year of £20 million and more, and the water companies responsible for these failures paid out £1.2 billion in dividends. Surfers Against Sewage, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), has led the way on this issue for many years, since before many others were even talking about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why we have given the regulator new powers through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The Conservative party could have done so at any point during its 14 years in power, but at no point did it take that common-sense action. We passed that landmark piece of legislation, which became law in February. It gives the regulator tough new powers to hold water companies to account, bans unfair bonuses when water company bosses fail to meet high standards, and imposes stricter penalties—including up to two years in prison—if water company employees obstruct investigations by environmental regulators, as well as severe and automatic fines for wrongdoing. Environmental regulators can now recover costs for successful enforcement, meaning that the polluter pays and the regulators gain new resources to enforce more effectively.

[Jamie Stone]

I suggest to the Secretary of State that the problem may be more deep-seated than we realise. He mentioned algal blooms in the Lake district. Not only do those blooms turn the water a strange colour; they suck the oxygen out of the water, leading to the death of wildlife in the water. Furthermore, sewage contains heavy metals and other toxic substances that can kill fish or affect their ability to reproduce, so we may find ecosystems that have been damaged over a much longer term than we realise.

[Steve Reed]

I recognise the catastrophe that the hon. Member is talking about. It is not just that the water is polluted; the water becomes toxic, and it is killing ecosystems and damaging the wider environment. Those are all reasons that we need to move ahead quickly with the reforms that this Government are working towards.

Farming

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on opening the debate and on the thoughtful and knowledgeable speech he made. I also compliment Members on both sides of the Chamber for what they have said.

I was brought up on a farm. I was the wee boy who shooed the cows home to the faraway field. I represent the biggest constituency in the UK. I have an awful lot of farms and crofts in my constituency. Farming is part of our way of life. It is about the food we eat. It is about the fight against climate change. It is about our heritage and, in constituencies such as mine, it is about the tourism economy. The change of Government has been difficult before. Brexit did not help—we all know that argument—and botched trade deals have not helped either.

Much has been said about the taxation, and I will not repeat it, but I will remark on one thing that has been said, which is that land prices in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland are much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, so the effect of the taxation will be rather larger there.

To compound this, cuts to DEFRA’s day-to-day spending mean that many family farms and rural businesses will struggle. That is why my party is saying that we should raise the farming budget by £1 billion. If we can do that, perhaps we can help. We want to see a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers and a strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

First, I should declare that my partner is a conservation farmer in Somerset.

Having been Parliamentary Private Secretary to Vince Cable, the then Business Secretary who set up the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I recall his frustrations that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to grant the adjudicator the power she needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adjudicator will never be able to exercise meaningful control over the big supermarkets, which fund its operations through a levy, if the cost of a single investigation is greater than its annual budget? May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend to remedy this decade-old wrong?

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend brings knowledge from the past, which is very valuable to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland is also a champion of this cause, and what he says strikes a chord among farmers in my constituency. Getting a fair deal is fundamental to making farms viable for the long term. It is not that we want to do everything, but I hope that the Government will engage constructively with my right hon. Friend on this. It is too important to let this one go, and it could be an easy win for the Government and for all of us.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but does he agree as a fellow Scottish MP that our farmers are facing a double whammy? Not only do we have to deal with the vindictive family farm tax being imposed by the Government opposite, but we face the hostile environment that the Scottish National party Government are creating towards our farming communities in Scotland.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and what a pity it is that our SNP colleagues are not with us at this point, because we both might have something to say about that. There has been a lack of knowledge north of the border—or a lack of understanding, I believe—of things that are fundamental to the way of life in the constituencies we represent at the different ends of Scotland.

Time is short, but I want to conclude by mentioning three things that are causing my constituents some anxiety. In particular, I spoke with farmers this week and there has been recent publicity about what is known as lab-grown meat, produced from cells in a laboratory environment. It is thought that this could be upon us within two years. Yes, it is a way of producing food, but what does that mean for our livestock farmers? That needs to be looked at very carefully indeed.

The second thing I am duty-bound to mention is the low price of malting barley. This is the highest-quality barley and is used to make whisky. It is low priced because not so much is being bought by the whisky distillers, a reflection of the fact that they are not selling so many bottles of whisky.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am doing my best.

[Jamie Stone]

My right hon. Friend is indeed doing his bit and never ceases to do so, but this again goes back to an earlier point: that farming is intermingled throughout the entire economy. If we can have measures from the Government to increase whisky sales and to encourage exports, such as getting good-quality Scotch whisky into the Indian market, that will in the long term benefit the growers of malting barley, which will make farms more viable again. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is not with us, because, in all fairness, he did make that point.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about seed potatoes. I welcomed the Windsor framework at the time and was thanked by the then Prime Minister for doing so. It meant we could get our seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, but I know from talking to seed potato farmers that there are markets in Europe crying out to get hold of high-quality Scottish seed potatoes. They are the best, because they are some of the safest from virus, eelworm or whatever. I will be extremely grateful to the Government if they use every measure at their disposal to try to improve sales.

Finally, I want to make rather a strange point. A number of farmers have told me that people who have worked on the farm, sometimes for decades, are now moving on to other jobs. People who drove tractors or used implements to cultivate fields are sometimes taking the option of going off to drive a digger for a builder, and a labour shortage is beginning to occur on some of our farms. That should be a worry not just for way farms are run presently but for finding new entrants into farming.

I again commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland for his speech and for bringing this debate before us. Farming is absolutely fundamental to the country and the way we feed ourselves, and in a world that, as we have seen, is quite dangerous to say the least, the more we feed ourselves and the less we rely on imports, the better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden]

My colleagues are doing well at predicting what I am about to say. I have not shared my speech, but my next paragraph goes on to say that I heard from two pupils this morning about how they miss out on all the after-school clubs and activities because they have to be on the school bus and cannot get home later in the day. That directly impacts kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and embeds that disadvantage even further. It is something we must resolve.

We all know that there is an affordability crisis in housing, but it is massively exacerbated in areas with a high number of second homes and flats, and with flats and houses used as short-term lets rather than being residential.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the big problems that we have in my very remote constituency is the cost of delivery charges and surcharges. They are a lot higher than one would pay in cities such as Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is the same for the highlands of Scotland as it is for the rural parts of England. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the Government could look at this and try and take it down to a level playing field, so that people are not disadvantaged because of where they live?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to the delivery of services and the costs later on.

Higher than average house prices coupled with lower than average wages is a toxic combination. The median full-time salary in South Devon is significantly below the national average, but the average house price—at £337,185 —is significantly above the national average. Newly built homes regularly go on the market for around £1 million. That means the house price to full-time salary ratio in Devon is 10:6, well above the English average of 8:7. Devon as a whole has the highest ratio in the south-west.

On top of all that, we must also look at the issue of deprivation. Deprivation in rural areas tends to be dispersed, which means it is much less well identified. However, south-west England is one of the rural areas where deprivation is more prevalent. In small communities, just one or two very wealthy residents can skew the figures for the whole settlement, meaning pockets of deprivation can be even more hidden. The index of multiple deprivation, used to capture need for core local authority services, is a relative measure of deprivation based on data from 2019. The index is urban centric and it misses small, dispersed rural pockets of acute deprivation. It is simply not specific enough to capture need—especially in social care.

In Devon, most sub-domains are less deprived than the national average. However, Devon is considerably more deprived compared to the national profile, when looking at housing quality and barriers to housing and services. Of the total Devon population, 47% fall into the most-deprived fifth nationally for the indoor environment quality measure. In rural areas, one in four households do not have a mains gas supply, and are more likely to be reliant on oil or solid fuels for domestic heating, which are less efficient and more expensive.

In 2022, the average fuel poverty in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings was nearly three times as high as the average for England as a whole, and 25% of the Devon population were also in the most deprived fifth nationally for the housing services sector, which measures distance from services such as GPs, food shops, post offices and primary schools, along with measures of housing overcrowding and affordability and homelessness. It is not all thatched cottages from the front of chocolate boxes.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that using deprivation as an indicator of demand for services does not consider local authorities with a higher number of elderly or vulnerable residents, and the additional demands those residents place on our services. Under the previous Government, DEFRA and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities commissioned a piece of work to investigate rural deprivation as part of an update to the English indices of deprivation. It was anticipated to complete this year, so I ask the Minister for an update on when this work will be completed and published.