Extract from Wales Assembly: Questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs - July 11

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've had a great deal of contact recently with animal welfare campaigners who are concerned about pre-stunning of animals and ritual slaughter, in particular. And they've pointed out to me that non-stun slaughter has now been banned in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand, that the British Veterinary Association have said that pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, and that recent methodological developments in electroencephalograms allow the experience of pain to be assessed more directly than ever before, and, in relation to calves that are slaughtered by ventral neck incision, it's apparently now quite clear that this could be perceived as painful in the period between the incision and the loss of consciousness. So, in these circumstances, will the Cabinet Secretary look again—in line with the BVA's viewpoint and the RSPCA's, and many other organisations involved in animal welfare, that the only way to adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare in Welsh slaughterhouses is to ensure that all animals are stunned before slaughter for whatever reason?

This is certainly a discussion I had with the British Veterinary Association just a couple of weeks ago, and I've asked officials to look at the information they've brought forward for me in detail.

Good. Well, I'm grateful for that reply, which I regard as very positive. In the event that the Cabinet Secretary decides not to change the law in this respect, will she consider an alternative proposition, which also comes from the BVA? They say that they recognise that, whilst pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, should non-stun slaughter continue to be permitted, post-cut stunning offers a valid means of reducing the suffering of animals at slaughter. And post-cut stunning, I think, would meet most of the objections from religious groups.

Well, as I say, I'm waiting for officials to come back with advice for me following the initial discussion I've had with the BVA, so, you know, I'm not going to make policy up on the hoof now, but it's obviously an ongoing process for me.

Making policy on the hoof would not be appropriate, even for an agriculture spokesman, I'm sure. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, there has been a huge increase in the growth of the halal meat market in particular. Much of this food is not being consumed by Muslims, and it's gone into mainstream takeaways and fast food outlets as well. A lot of people have objections for whatever reason on animal welfare grounds to eating such food. Would she agree with me that it is important that people should know what they're eating and that those who are concerned about the animal welfare considerations that I've mentioned ought therefore to be able to make an informed choice in such circumstances? Will she commit to prioritising greater consumer awareness on religious slaughter and non-stun slaughter, not just through labelling products in supermarkets but also in restaurants and takeaways?

I absolutely agree—it's very important that people know what they're eating, and I think that, certainly amongst restaurants, that consumer awareness is not out there. I was in a restaurant where I noticed, when I came out, that there was a very small sign at the bottom of the door that said that all meat was halal. Now, I think that should be far more visible, in the way that we've done with food hygiene standards, for instance. So, I absolutely agree that it's very important that people know what they're eating.