Westminster Hall once again became an arena to host yet another debate on whether all animals should be stunned before slaughter.

Although an EU directive says all meat and poultry has to be stunned, member states do have the right to allow exemptions on religious grounds.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said Halal and Shechita (Kosher) methods will continue to be exempt from stunning. A stand echoed by the Labour leadership, but the debate never seems to rest.

Just four months ago in November the same debate was held in the very same hall.  At that time brought forward by Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, Neil Parish.

This time the debate was brought into the hall by his fellow party member the MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone, who also proposed the Face Covering (prohibition) Bill last March, a very slightly amended version of his Face covering (regulation) Bill proposed in 2010.

This debate was instigated by an e-petition to end non-stun slaughter. The petition, which received around 115,000 signatures over a period of around nine months, supported the view of the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA and animal rights groups.

During the debate Conservative MP for Watford, Richard Harrington, spoke out on behalf of his Muslim and Jewish constituents and said, “I know that this debate is not simply a ‘mine’s bigger than yours’.

“However, the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin, had a counter-petition called “Protect religious slaughter in the UK and EU”, which has received 125,000 signatures.”

The counter-petition now stands at around 130,000 – just two weeks after being launched.

Mr Hollobone raised the issue of labelling meat and poultry so that the public can make a conscious choice of what they are eating.  He was quickly questioned as to whether this labelling would extend to ‘other means of causing death to an animal, which could include clubbing, electrocution and gassing.’

The MP for Kettering, whose constituency has 0.8 per cent Muslims, did not agree labelling should go that far, he said “There is of course a danger that if meat products are labelled in such detail, people will be put off buying them altogether.”

Labour MP for Ladywood, Birmingham, Shabana Mahmood, strongly disagreed. She rejected Mr Hollobone’s statement on “the danger of too much information”.

“If we say that people should be able to make a choice, we should ensure that their choice is fully informed. If we want to shed light, we should not say that that light can extend no further than an arbitrary threshold. That seems very unfair to me.” She said.

Ms Mahmood explained how important clear labelling already was for those concerned about what they consume.

“I have spent my whole life looking at labels and trying to work out whether something contains, for example, derivatives of alcohol or derivatives of pig meat. For me, labels that provide a lot of detail and information are a great thing, because they enable me to exercise choice.”

The MP for Ladywood defended the right to religious slaughter, its importance and how this act of worship is not taken lightly. “For religious people, who are looking for religious slaughter of animals before they consume meat, that act itself is an act of faith, because religious people, who care about these issues, do not take the killing of animals lightly.”

Mr Hollobone had made the point that ‘there is no good way to kill an animal’ Ms Mahmood stressed, “I made that exact point in the last debate—but for religious communities, the right to take the life of an animal is an expression of faith. It is a God-given right that can be exercised only in very specific and prescribed circumstances.

“For people who take their religious obligations seriously and who practise their religious obligations, these are matters of great concern. These things are not done in a way that is negligent or reckless as to what act is being committed.”

The argument of stunning is also not as clear-cut as some may wish to believe. During the debate a number of issues related to mis-stunning causing undue suffering to the animal were raised.

Dr Mathew Offord, Conservative MP for Hendon, said this debate had a sense of “déjà vu” having only been discussed on 4 November, and that he was surprised the discussion was taking place again so quickly.

Dr Offord, who described himself as a vegetarian for 32 years, said he did not support the petition to end non-stun slaughter and that he opposes stunning practices. “I oppose stunning on the basis that mis-stuns cause animals more pain and distress and that it does not improve animal welfare.

“I am uneasy about the idea of ending non-stun slaughter coming forward so soon after the previous debate. I defend people’s right to eat meat and I defend my right not to eat meat; I also defend my constituents’ right to eat meat slaughtered in the way that they want it to be.”

“Some people have said that these methods of slaughter are alien practices that are not part of British culture and not something we do in Britain. That starts to produce a divide between some groups and the so-called British public, and I am greatly concerned about that.”

During the three-hour debate conditions of abattoirs and slaughterhouses were also brought into question and many Mps felt that this was the bigger issue. CCTV to become compulsory on the premises and the Food Standards Agency’s responsibilities and failures were highlighted as areas to look at.

Although neither the Conservative or Labour leadership seems to be interested in ending the religious slaughter exemption, there was mention of a compromise of post-slaughter stun. This debate also heavily differentiated between the rulings of Shechita and Halal, with ministers hearing the Jewish method has no exemption for pre-stun slaughter whilst 80 per cent of what is consumed as halal is pre-stunned.

With the debate having re-entered political discussion so soon MPs spoke of how Muslims and Jews are unconvinced on these debates being about animal welfare.

Diane Abbot, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said “My local Muslim community is concerned about this debate. Many do not feel that it is really about animal welfare; they worry that it is some sort of covert attack on them and their way of life.”