RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS: REPORT (Hansard, 4 November 1987)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

With our ministerial colleagues responsible for agriculture in Great Britain we have considered carefully the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on religious slaughter of animals. We have also studied the many comments on the report which have been made by interested organisations and individuals.

Fifteen of the council's recommendations were directed to improving the methods and procedures for religious slaughter. We are determined that religious slaughter must be performed humanely and we share the council's view that it must be subject to proper legislative control. We believe that the council's recommendations will provide substantial safeguards for animal welfare, and we shall therefore implement all 15 of these recommendations.

In particular we shall ban the use of the casting pen for cattle. This will be an important new welfare advance. Inversion in a casting pen imposes discomfort and stress on cattle and the prohibition of this procedure will be widely welcomed. The ban will take effect two years after the necessary legislation has been made. In addition, in line with the council's 1078WA 15 recommendations, there will be new statutory rules for the equipment used. We shall extend the existing requirements for the licensing of premises and slaughtermen to ensure that the new standards can be properly enforced.

A paper containing our detailed proposals for implementation of the FAWC recommendations is being issued to interested organisations; a copy has been placed in the House. The interested organisations will be consulted on the draft statutory instrument required to give effect to these decisions; it will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

The abolition of casting cattle is a substantial change in established Jewish practice and was not easy for the Jewish authorities to accept under their religious law. My right honourable friends and I appreciate their readiness to overcome the difficulties they found and so to accept the change.

In addition, we have considered carefully the exemption which the legislation provides for the Jewish and Moslem communities from the requirement to stun animals before slaughter. The arguments for and against this exemption are those of religious belief and of animal welfare, both issues of great importance of those who have expressed views to us.

From its studies, the council concluded that the Jewish and Moslem communities should be required to develop alternative arrangements for slaughter in order that the exemption from stunning could be repealed. In response to this recommendation, we have explored in detail with leaders of the Jewish and Moslem communities their slaughter requirements and arranged for them to consider very carefully the scope for removal of the exemption from stunning. They have co-operated fully in these discussions. The religious communities have made it clear that elements of their slaughter requirements are fundamental obligations, forming part of their religious law which it is not open to them to alter. They have also rejected the council's assessment of the welfare implications of religious slaughter.

I can well understand why the council should recommend that the interest of the animal would best be safeguarded by ensuring efficient stunning prior to slaughter, including slaughter by decapitation. However the Government have to recognise the serious implications for the religious communities if they were no longer allowed to prepare meat as their faith requires. We do not believe that we should be justified in imposing such a burden on these communities. We therefore do not propose to ask Parliament to reverse the attitude which it has taken to this issue in the past.

We have also considered carefully the recommendation that cuts of meat from religiously slaughtered animals should be labelled down to the point of retail sale. We have concluded that a statutory requirement for labelling is not a practical proposition. There would be serious difficulties in administration and enforcement. Moreover, our freedom unilaterally to introduce additional mandatory labelling requirements is severely constrained by EC food labelling law. We are writing to the religious communities to ask them to take note 1079WA of the concern expressed by many on this subject, and asking them to take all steps open to them to minimise the amount of meat produced by religious methods which is diverted from the religious market.

I wish to record the appreciation of my colleagues and myself of the work undertaken by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on this complex subject. Our decisions were particularly difficult. That over the years we have accepted so many of the recommendations in the wide range of reports which the council has made indicates the value we place on its advice.