Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] Consideration of Bill, as
amended in the Public Bill Committee New Clause 1 Duty to prepare
an Animal Sentience Strategy “(1) The Secretary of State must
prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy. (2) The Strategy under
paragraph (1) must set out how Her Majesty’s Government plans to
have regard to animal sentience including plans to— (a) respond to
Animal Sentience Committee reports, (b) require animal...Request free trial
Animal Welfare
(Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill
Committee
New Clause 1
Duty to prepare an Animal Sentience Strategy
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an Animal Sentience
Strategy.
(2) The Strategy under paragraph (1) must set out how Her
Majesty’s Government plans to have regard to animal sentience
including plans to—
(a) respond to Animal Sentience Committee reports,
(b) require animal welfare impact assessments, and
(c) commission independent research.
(3) The Strategy must set out policies that the Secretary of
State may invite the Animal Sentience Committee to review.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish an annual statement on
progress on the Animal Sentience Strategy.
(5) An annual statement under subsection (4) must include a
summary of changes in policy or implementation that have occurred
in response to an Animal Sentience Committee report over the last
12 months.
(6) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of
Parliament in relation to the annual statement.
(7) The Secretary of State must publish an updated Animal
Sentience Strategy at the start of each parliament.”—(.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to
produce an animal sentience strategy, and to provide an annual
update to Parliament on progress against it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
7.39pm
(Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on the use of sentient animals in Ministry of
Defence exercises—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under
section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of
their use by the Ministry of Defence.
(2) The report shall cover use of animals as defined by this Act
in section 5(1).
(3) The report shall cover use of animals by the Ministry of
Defence in—
(a) military exercises,
(b) military engagements, and
(c) experiments by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
(4) This report shall include recommendations for future
government action under section 2(3) and (4).”
This new clause requires the Animal Sentience Committee to
produce a report on the use of sentient animals in scientific
experiments and military exercises by the Ministry of Defence and
its executive agency the Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory.
New clause 3—Report on the use of sentient animals in animal
experimentation in government policy—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under
section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of
government policy on experimentation on animals.
(2) The report shall cover both animal experimentation where
alternative (non-animal based) methods of testing exist, and
where no alternative exists.
(3) The report shall cover—
(a) medical testing,
(b) cosmetics testing, and
(c) weapons testing.
(4) This report shall include recommendations for future
government action under section 2 (3) and (4).”
New clause 4—Animal Welfare Strategy—
“(1) The Animal Sentience Committee must publish and lay before
Parliament an animal welfare strategy within 12 months of the
passing of this Act.
(2) The animal welfare strategy must set out the process by which
government departments and Ministers are to ensure that in the
formulation or implementation of policy all due regard has been
had to any adverse welfare consequences for the welfare of
animals as sentient beings.
(3) Each department must notify the Committee of any policy under
consideration where there is a reasonable likelihood that it
would have an adverse impact on the welfare of animals.
(4) Where the Committee is of the view that in the process of
formulating or implementing policy a department has not complied,
or is not complying, with the process set out in the strategy and
therefore may not be having, or has not had, all due regard to
animal welfare, the Committee can make recommendations to that
department or request an explanation from the relevant minister.
Any recommendations or explanation must be made in writing and
published.
(5) Recommendations and explanations need not be published if
they concern a matter of national security or commercially
sensitive information.
(6) Failure to comply with the process set out in the strategy,
will not automatically be taken as a failure to have had all due
regard to animal welfare, if the Minister can demonstrate that
they have met the objective of having had all due regard by other
means.
(7) Ministers and departments must provide the Committee with any
information the Committee reasonably requests to enable it to
carry out its function.”
This new clause would ensure that there is a clear strategy
setting out how the animal welfare implications of policies in
formulation or implementation are to be incorporated in the
process of developing, deciding and implementing those policies.
This would ensure that the same process applied across all
departments.
New clause 5—Report on the impact of government policy on river
pollution on
sentient animals—
“The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report on the
impact of government policy on river pollution on sentient
animals.
(1) The annual report must include—
(a) the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result
of polluted rivers.
(b) a description of the actions of water companies to guarantee
the protection of sentient animals.
(c) an assessment of the effect of government policy on (a) and
(b).
(2) The first annual report on the impact of polluted rivers on
sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes
the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before
Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which
the report relates.”
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to
produce a report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient
animals.
New clause 6—Report on the impact of trade agreements on sentient
animals—
“The Animal Sentience Committee must produce an annual report on
the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of UK trade
agreements.
(1) The annual report must cover how the UK government has taken
the sentience of animals into account when establishing new trade
deals.
(2) The first annual report on the impact of trade agreements on
sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes
the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before
Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which
the report relates.”
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to
produce a report on the impact of UK trade agreements on sentient
animals.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “must” insert “by
regulations”.
This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be
established by regulations.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in
the process of formulating policy, it is satisfied the Government
is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the
policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as
sentient beings.
(1B) It is not the function of the Committee to—
(a) comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend
future policy or changes to existing policy, or
(b) consider other considerations of public interest, including
economic, cultural and religious considerations, or impacts on
different species, in the formulation and implementation of any
policy.
(1C) Schedule 1 makes provision for the Committee’s membership
and powers; and other aspects of the Committee’s work.”
This amendment clarifies the Committee’s role and makes clear the
Committee is limited to commenting on process. It makes explicit
that Ministers should take into account any other public interest
considerations. It also gives effect to NS1, which sets out the
structure, membership criteria and operation of the
Committee.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
and insert—“(2) The regulations must set out—
(a) details of how the Animal Sentience Committee is to be
composed, and
(b) its terms of reference.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory
instrument.
(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft
statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by
resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This would require the Animal Sentience Committee to be
established by regulations, which must set out its composition
and terms of reference, ensuring Parliament has the opportunity
to approve the final form of the Committee.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential on NS1.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(4) No person may be appointed as a member of the Committee
unless they have confirmed that they—
(a) are not a member of, or affiliated to an organisation
promoting animal rights;
(b) are not employed and have never been employed by or been a
consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights; and
(c) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of,
direct or indirect payments or funding, from an organisation
promoting animal rights.”
The amendment would ensure that a person may not be appointed a
member of the Committee without confirming that they are not and
have never been a member of or affiliated to an organisation
promoting animal rights, nor are or have been in receipt of
funding from such an organisation.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have
all due regard to the need for the Committee to possess
appropriate expertise and experience, to include animal
behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science,
law, and public administration. The Secretary of State may not
appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person
is—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority.
(g) is an employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former
consultant to, a charity or campaigning organisation concerned
with animal welfare or animal rights, or is or has been in
receipt of any payments or funding from such a charity or
organisation, whether directly or indirectly.
(1B) Appointments shall be subject to regulation by the Office of
the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”
This amendment would clarify the range of expertise of the
membership of the Committee and preclude certain categories of
person. This is an alternative to Amendment 6 and uses the same
wording as that found in NS1.
Amendment 21, page 1, line 8, leave out clause 2 and insert—
“Reports of the Committee
(1) The Committee must lay before Parliament an annual report
setting out whether it is satisfied that all due regard has been
had to animal welfare, in accordance with the Animal Welfare
Strategy. The report is to be published and laid before
Parliament.
(2) The report must state in the affirmative or negative whether
it is satisfied that each department of state has complied with
the Animal Welfare Strategy.
(3) The Committee may produce interim reports relating to
individual departments and policy areas under consideration, at
any time, including making recommendations, where it considers it
is necessary to ensure compliance with the animal welfare
strategy for the purpose set out in section 1(2).”
This amendment largely replicates the existing Bill but takes
account of the Animal Welfare Strategy, while still allowing the
Committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a
failure of process in compliance with the Strategy at a stage
before a policy decision has been made.
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “or has
been”.
This amendment would ensure the Animal Sentience Committee looked
at policies under consideration, or proposed, not policies that
have already been decided.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 9, leave out “or implemented”.
This amendment would ensure that the Committee is focused on the
process of deciding policy and not the implementation of that
policy. It would also ensure the Committee did not look at past
policy decisions being implemented.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 10, leave out “may” and insert
“must”.
This amendment would require the Animal Sentience Committee to
report on all government policy across departments.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 12, leave out “or has had”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The report must state whether in the view of the Committee
the question in subsection (2) has been answered in the
affirmative or in the negative.”
This amendment would require the Committee to state clearly
whether in deciding any policy the minister had, or had not, had
full regard to the implications of that policy on animal
welfare.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect
legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in
particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional
heritage.”
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have
regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty,
Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before
Brexit.
Amendment 16, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(8) In producing a report under this section, the Animal
Sentience Committee must consult the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee and publish a
note in the report of the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion and
advice on the recommendations contained in the report.”
This amendment requires the Committee to consult the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Animal Welfare Committee
on its reports and include a report of its opinions and
advice.
Amendment 22, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3 and insert—
“Response to reports
(1) The relevant Minister must lay before Parliament a response
to the report, where a failure to comply with the Animal Welfare
Strategy has been identified.
(2) The response must be laid before Parliament within a period
of three months from the day on which the Committee’s report is
published.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and ensures that ministers
must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the Animal
Welfare Strategy identified by the Committee.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, after “2,” insert
“where the committee has found the question in section 2(2) to
have been answered in the negative,”.
This amendment would require the Minister to respond only where
the Committee has found that the minister has not had all due
regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse
effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
Amendment 17, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The response must contain the views of other expert
committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee, and, where they
disagree with the views of the Animal Sentience Committee, the
Secretary of State must state which view the Government supports
and the reasons for making that decision.”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State’s
response to the Animal Sentience Committee report includes the
views of other expert committees, and, if in conflict, the
Secretary of State must state with which committee’s view the
Government agrees and give the reasons.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of
Parliament in relation to each response to a report from the
Animal Sentience Committee laid before Parliament under paragraph
(1).”
This amendment would require the Minister to give an oral
response to Animal Sentience Committee reports, creating an
opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of report recommendations
and the Government’s response.
Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 1, at end insert—
“‘Policy’ means any proposal or decided course of action by or on
behalf of a minister in the exercise of their statutory or common
law powers. Policy does not include the decisions of ministers
not to act, including changing an existing policy or law.”
This amendment provides a definition of policy for the purposes
of the Animal Sentience Committee.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 1, at end insert—
“(1A) Nothing in this Act applies to an animal while it is in its
foetal or embryonic form, except in relation to an animal to
which sections 1 (protected animals) and 2 (regulated procedures)
of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as amended
apply.”
This amendment ensures consistency with existing legislation.
Amendment 20, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (2) may only be exercised if the
Secretary of State is satisfied, on the basis of scientific
evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are sentient, and
the Secretary of State lays a report before Parliament setting
out the scientific basis for determining that the species
concerned is sentient.”
This amendment, as in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, seeks to
ensure the power to extend the scope of sentience is based on
scientific evidence and does not result from a political
motivation or personal preference.
New schedule 1—The Animal Sentience Committee—
Membership
1 (1) The Animal Sentience Committee is to consist of—
(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the
Committee, and
(b) at least 8 but no more than 11 other members appointed by the
Secretary of State.
(2) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have all
due regard to the need for the Committee to possess appropriate
expertise and experience, to include animal behaviour, animal
welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law, and public
administration.
(3) A member is appointed for such period not exceeding 4 years
as the Secretary of State determines.
(4) The Secretary of State may reappoint as a member of the
Committee a person who is, or has been, a member. A member shall
not normally be reappointed consecutively for more than two terms
of office.
(5) The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member
of the Committee if the person is—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority,
(g) an employee or former employee, or a consultant or former
consultant to a charity or campaigning organisation concerned
with animal welfare or animal rights, and
(h) a person in receipt of, or previously in receipt of, any
direct or indirect payments or funding from a charity or
campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal
rights.
General Powers
2 (1) The Committee may do anything which appears to it to be
necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with,
the performance of its function as defined in section 1(2).
(2) The foregoing includes, but is not limited to, requesting
from the government such information and material as it considers
necessary.
(3) So far as is reasonable and practicable, the government shall
comply with any request from the Committee under paragraph 2(2).
If the government declines such a request it shall provide to the
Committee its reasons for doing so in writing.
(4) In the event that the Committee considers the government has
failed to meet the duty in paragraph 2(3) it may make reference
to this in any report produced in accordance with section 2 of
this Act.
(5) It shall be for the Committee to identify those policies
which in its view might have an adverse effect on the welfare of
animals as sentient beings.
(6) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the government shall take
reasonable steps to advise the Committee of its intention to
formulate or implement any policy which might have an adverse
effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
(7) If in producing a report under section 2 of this Act the
Committee considers it to be desirable that the government
receives further guidance on how animal welfare might be improved
in relation to the relevant policy, it may refer the matter to an
appropriate committee established for the purpose of providing
such advice to ministers.
(8) The Committee may invite to attend its meetings on either a
permanent or temporary basis any person appointed to chair a body
established by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the
Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive to provide
advice on the welfare or protection of animals in relation to the
process of the formulation and implementation of policy. Persons
attending in such an ex officio capacity shall not participate in
any decisions of the Committee.
(9) The Committee shall publish the name and qualifications of
any person invited to provide advice to the Committee and shall
publish any advice given.
Independence and transparency
3 (1) The Committee shall be independent and autonomous of any
other body.
(2) Within six months of its establishment, the Committee shall
publish a memorandum setting out how it intends to carry out its
function. The memorandum is to be kept under review and may be
amended from time to time as the Committee considers
appropriate.
(3) The memorandum shall include guidance as to how it expects
ministers to demonstrate they have had all due regard to the ways
in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of
animals as sentient beings.
(4) Within 12 months of being established, and thereafter as soon
as practicable after the end of each calendar year, the Committee
shall prepare and publish a report on the exercise of its
functions during that year.
(5) The Committee’s reports shall be laid before Parliament.
(6) The Committee will determine the form and content of each of
its reports.
Expenses and resources
4 (1) Members of the Committee, and any members of sub-committees
established under paragraph 6, who are not members of the
Committee, are entitled to such expenses as the Secretary of
State may determine.
(2) The government is to provide the Committee with such staff
and other resources as the Committee requires to carry out its
function.
(3) Staff serving the Committee shall be based in the Cabinet
Office and independent of any other Department of State.
Early termination of membership
5 (1) A member of the Committee may resign by giving notice in
writing to the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by giving notice to the member in
writing, remove a member of the Committee if the Secretary of
State considers that the member is—
(a) unable to perform the functions of a member, or
(b) unsuitable to continue as a member.
(3) A person’s membership of the Committee ends if the person
becomes—
(a) a member of the House of Commons,
(b) a member of the House of Lords,
(c) a member of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) a member of Senedd Cymru,
(e) a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(f) a councillor of a local authority, and
(g) an employee of or a consultant to a charity or campaigning
organisation concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, or
receives any direct or indirect payment or funding from such a
charity or organisation.
Sub-Committees
6 (1) The Committee may establish sub-committees.
(2) The membership of a sub-committee may include persons who are
not members of the Committee but those persons are not entitled
to vote at meetings of the sub-committee.
(3) The Committee must publish a list of the membership of any
sub-committee where it includes persons who are not members of
the main Committee.
Regulation of procedure
7 The Committee may regulate its own procedure (including quorum)
and that of any sub-committees.
Validity of things done
8 The validity of anything done by the Committee or its
sub-committees is not affected by—
(a) a vacancy in membership,
(b) a defect in the appointment of a member, and
(c) the disqualification of a person as a member after
appointment.”
This new schedule is consequential on Amendments 3, 4 and 5. It
sets out a structure for the Committee, criteria for appointments
and how it is to operate.
At long last, this legislation has finally found its way through
Parliament. The Government could have dealt with this years ago
had they not opposed the recognition of animal sentience and had
they included it in other laws that carried over in the European
Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
The Conservatives have a track record of umming and ahhing, and
they cannot seem to decide whether animal welfare is important.
The truth is that, despite their warm words, the action never
quite lives up to the promise. There were rumours that, due to
unforeseen political concerns, the Government planned to let
animal welfare legislation simply fall away at the end of the
Session, for no other reason than managing internal party
tensions.
It is quite clear that this issue continues to paralyse the
Government Benches. That is why we have little bits of animal
welfare Bills floating around here, there and everywhere, each
intended to narrow the scope and avoid having to address issues
such as blood sports, hunting and shooting, and each in the end
destined to fall.
We should be discussing a comprehensive animal welfare Bill. That
is what the country wants, and it is what the Government
promised. Nevertheless, the Minister could clarify that any
outstanding Bills relating to animal welfare will either be
completed in this Session or, if not, carried over into the
next.
Turning to this Bill, my Labour colleagues and I support
enshrining animal sentience in law. My party has been saying for
a number of years that that is desperately needed. We support the
Bill, in the sense that it is better than doing nothing, but it
feels as though the Government are more interested in using this
as a photo opportunity than in seizing the moment and ensuring
that we have a long-term strategy on animal welfare.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West () tabled this new clause and
amendment 1. Labour’s new clause 1 places a direct legal
obligation on the Secretary of State to produce an animal
sentience strategy, requiring annual updates to Parliament on its
progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge () rightly stated at
Committee Stage, the Bill in its current form,
“places indirect responsibilities on Ministers”,
in that,
“they must simply establish and maintain a committee and lay
written responses, rather than assuming direct responsibilities
on these matters, which is what we would like to see.”––[Official
Report, Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] Public Bill
Committee, 10 February 2022; c. 27.]
This new clause would not only bring us into line with
neighbouring countries, but significantly strengthen the
responsibilities of the Animal Sentience Committee and ensures
that the work is about more than just words and symbolism. For
the same reasons, we wanted the Minister to give an oral update
on the Floor of the House on the Animal Sentience Committee
reports, providing a platform for parliamentary scrutiny of the
report’s recommendations and the Government’s response.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge also said at Committee
Stage, for the Animal Sentience Committee to have any heft at
all, the Government cannot be allowed to simply shrug off the
recommendations in its reports, especially if they are
politically inconvenient or cause Back-Bench stirs on the
Government Benches.
The new clause would require a Minister to make a motion in both
Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity
to properly scrutinise the reports and the Government’s response.
Without that, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given
the attention they deserve, and we will not have the right
scrutiny on the critical issue of animal welfare.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said, as it
stands the Animal Sentience Committee risks becoming just another
toothless talking shop—a Whitehall committee where, in the end,
the reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare
within policy making go unaddressed.
Opposition Members care deeply about animal welfare. In
Government, the Labour party brought forward landmark legislation
in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Hunting Act 2004. We are
the party of animal welfare, so we cannot help but feel that this
piecemeal piece of legislation will not address the long-standing
concerns on animal welfare.
The Opposition are clear that all animals deserve protection,
whether they are pets, wild animals, ocean animals or farm
animals. It is hard to believe that this Government are serious
about animal welfare, given that they are still resisting banning
foie gras and fur imports, both of which are horrifically cruel
and completely unnecessary. In last year’s Queen’s Speech, the
Government committed to ending the export of live animals for
fattening and slaughter and taking further steps to limit the
foie gras trade. So where is that promise? The Secretary of State
could have included that piece of legislation right here, right
now but, as is typical with a Conservative Government, they are
big on promises and small on delivery.
7.45pm
It is not right to promise tougher laws in a manifesto, only to
fail to see that through, and frankly it is disrespectful to Her
Majesty to include in the Queen’s Speech the promise of
legislation that does not arrive—especially in this, her platinum
jubilee year. Will the Government confirm that reports over the
weekend of their dropping legislation on trophy hunting imports
are correct, or will the Secretary of State commit to addressing
those imports?
Britain is a nation of animal welfare lovers. We want to lead the
world on animal welfare and animal protection, but it is clear
that that ambition is not matched by the Government, who, faced
with minor difficulties, do not have the courage to see that
through. Worse still, while we are expecting far more of British
farmers and producers, the Government are signing trade deals
with countries around the world with far lesser animal welfare
standards than ours in the UK.
The Government could have used this Bill as an opportunity to
address the animal welfare concerns in relation to those trade
deals and standards—concerns raised not only by the Opposition,
but by the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary
Association and others. I have asked the Secretary of State this
before, and I will repeat the question again for the benefit of
the House: will he bring forward provisions guaranteeing
equivalence of standards for all imported products coming into
the UK?
While we will vote for the Bill, it feels like a missed
opportunity. It is clear that, while the Government talk a lot
about the great work they say they are doing on animal welfare,
the reality is they need to be more comprehensive, and they need
to go much further and much faster. This Bill may well be a
start, but it cannot be the end.
(The Cotswolds)
(Con)
I will speak to amendment 2, in my name and those of 30-odd
colleagues.
The problem with the Bill is that it goes beyond the commitment
made by Ministers to recognise animal sentience in British law in
the same way that it is recognised in European Union law. My
amendment is designed to ensure that the safeguards of the EU law
are duplicated in British law. Currently, those safeguards are
not in the Bill, as was the original ask of the animal welfare
lobby.
It seems to me that we should have a bit of equivalence here. If
this committee is set up by statute, its remit should also be
defined by statute. I therefore ask the Government seriously to
consider accepting my amendment as a sensible, fairly minor, but
nevertheless important amendment to the remit of the committee,
which recognises local customs,
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”.
That seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do. With these
few words, I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to see
whether she cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept my
amendment.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 5, which would ensure an
annual report including,
“the number of sentient animals killed or injured”,
as a result of pollution, a description of water companies’
actions to protect animals and an assessment of the impact of
Government policy on those two things. I will also speak briefly
in favour of new clause 6, which we do not intend to push to a
vote, which would establish an annual report into the ways the
Government have taken into account animal sentience when
establishing new trade deals.
Turning to new clause 5, Cumbria contains two national parks, the
Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, the latter being a world
heritage site. The richness of our biodiversity throughout
Cumbria is of great importance, not least in our rivers and
lakes, whose ecology is of global significance as home to
countless species. Yet Government policy threatens that diversity
and damages animal welfare. In 2020, across the United Kingdom,
water companies were permitted to dump raw sewage into our
waterways on 400,000 occasions for a total of 3.l million hours,
at enormous cost to the lives of aquatic and semi-aquatic
sentient animals. At the River Lune near Sedbergh, we saw the
longest discharge in the country lasting for 8,490 hours. At
Derwentwater, a discharge of 8,275 hours took place. Is it any
wonder that only 14 % of Britain’s rivers are classed as being in
a “good” state?
The Government’s Environment Act 2021 acknowledges the problem
and sets an ambition to reduce the pollution in our rivers caused
by the dumping of raw sewage. Of course, as we all know, the
Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Opposition
Members, their own Back Benchers and members of another place to
even do that.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Member aware that today’s papers have indicated that
while some of the beaches in the UK have the blue flag
designation that shows that the water should, in theory, be
acceptable, that designation is sometimes not acceptable
either?
Yes. Often rivers can meet an acceptable standard but in reality
not be healthy places, particularly as regards biodiversity and
wildlife. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and
makes the case as to why the increased scrutiny that the new
clause would bring about is that much more important.
The ambition of the Environment Act, which was given Royal Assent
last year, is open-ended. There are no meaningful targets or
timescales to prevent water companies from dumping raw sewage
into our rivers, harming fish and other animals. In 2020, water
companies made £2.2 billion in profits. At the same time, as I
said, they were dumping sewage in our waterways on 400,000
separate occasions. What kind of accountability is that? What
kind of justice is that? What kind of impact is that having on
our wildlife? The new clause would expose that.
Between 2018 and 2021, there were only 11 prosecutions of water
companies for dumping sewage in our lakes and rivers. United
Utilities, which serves Cumbria and the rest of the north-west,
was responsible for seven out of the 10 longest sewage leaks in
2020, but, outrageously, was not fined even once. Despite the
damage done to the ecology and animal life in rivers such as the
Leven, Crake, Brathay, Kent, Lune, Sprint, Mint and Gowan,
discharges are permitted either because Government will not stop
them or because hardly any of the offenders are ever meaningfully
prosecuted. The meres, tarns, waters and lakes of our lake
district are all fed by rivers into which raw sewage can be
legally dumped. I am particularly concerned about the ecology of
Windermere and the failure to take sufficient action to protect
the animal and plant life that is so dependent on England’s
largest and most popular lake. The new clause would hold
Government and water companies to account so that our wildlife
and our biodiversity is protected.
New clause 6 addresses the impact of trade deals on the welfare
of sentient animals. This country has concluded trade deals with
Australia and New Zealand, and any scrutiny of those deals is now
effectively meaningless because the Government have already
signed them. Yet the impact on sentient animals will be enormous.
Free trade is vital to liberty, prosperity and peace, but trade
that is not fair is not free at all. These trade deals are not
fair on animals and not fair on the British farmers who care for
our animals. In Australia, for example, huge-scale ranch farming
means the loss of many times more animals than in the UK because
of the absence of the close husbandry that we find on British
family farms. Some 40% of beef in Australia involves the use of
hormones that are not allowed in the United Kingdom. Cattle can
be transported in Australia for up to 48 hours in the heat
without food or water. These are clearly lower animal welfare
standards. By signing these deals without real scrutiny, the
Government have endorsed that cruelty and enabled it to prosper
at our farmers’ expense. Lower standards are cheaper, so these
deals give a competitive advantage to imported animal products
that have reached market with poorer animal welfare, thus
undermining British farmers who practise higher animal welfare
standards. That is why the new clause is important—because it
seeks to hold Ministers to account and to limit how much they can
get away with sacrificing the welfare of sentient animals at home
and abroad in order to achieve a politically useful deal.
Despite this, this Bill has much to commend it. However, the new
clauses would allow the Government to look the British people in
the eye and say that they were prepared to take on powerful
vested interests in order to protect animals and our wider
environment. In seeking to press new clause 5 to a vote, I urge
Members in all parts of the House not to take the side of the
most powerful against those creatures that are the most
defenceless.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 2, tabled by my hon.
Friend the Member for The Cotswolds ( ), and new clause 4,
amendments 3 to 22, and new schedule 1, which are in my name.
From the outset, and for the avoidance of all doubt, I am not,
through any of these amendments, arguing against animals being
sentient or being able to feel pain. After all, the sentience of
animals has long been recognised in UK law, as evidenced by
animal welfare legislation passed over the course of nearly 200
years. The purpose of amendment 2 and the other amendments in my
name is to help the Government to avoid the main dangers and
unforeseen consequences posed by the undefined aspects of the
creation of the new Animal Sentience Committee. Crucially, under
the unamended version of the Bill, it remains unclear who will be
on this committee and what direct powers it will have. The
unamended Bill’s draft terms of reference seem to suggest that
the committee could have a role in scrutinising the substance of
policies and not just the processes that led to those decisions
being made. The Secretary of State will have the final sign-off
on the committee’s composition, but what mechanisms will be in
place to ensure that it is made up of dispassionate and genuine
scientific animal experts and not ideologically driven animal
rights activists with political agendas?
The amendments would protect against the Bill clumsily becoming a
Trojan horse for what I would consider an extreme agenda that the
Government could live to regret in years to come. Indeed,
passionate supporters of the committee’s creation have already
talked publicly of its not excluding animal rights extremist
groups such as PETA. My amendments, especially amendments 3, 10,
11, 12, 18 and 21, new clause 4 and new schedule 1, suggest some
statutory structure for the committee, how appointments to it are
to be made, and how it might operate. The amendments would
clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which
current policy is being formulated and not with policy decisions
taken or suggesting policy changes, whether proposing new policy
or changes to existing policy.
The amendments would also help to address the question of the
Bill’s retrospective effect. The current drafting, confirmed by
the draft terms of reference, would allow the committee to report
on past policy decisions. Without my amendments, there will be no
limit to how far back the committee can look, which would, in
practice, allow it to draw attention to policies that have
already been decided and implemented, or are being implemented. I
fear that in doing so, it could start to drive a policy agenda of
its own. Far from ensuring that in the process of policy making
all due regard is had to animal welfare, it could raise policy
issues that are not under current consideration or have already
been decided, or decisions made before Ministers were expected to
take account of animal sentience. The current draft terms provide
little clarity, and there is little if anything binding on
Ministers, whether current or future. To rely on terms of
reference to provide detail in these areas is not desirable for a
statutory body, as they are non-binding and can be changed at
will without any parliamentary oversight.
8.00pm
The terms of reference state that, once established, it will be
for the committee to formally ratify its objectives and
responsibilities. As a committee established by statute, the
committee’s objectives and responsibilities should be found in
the establishing Act of Parliament. It should not be for the
committee to ratify its own objectives and responsibilities. My
amendments and new schedule 1 would give some clarity and
certainty on that point.
There is also currently no requirement for Departments to
co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. We are merely
told that DEFRA “expects” Departments to do so. A Department that
fails to co-operate will simply be reported as having not
co-operated. What use would such a report serve in advancing
animal welfare? New schedule 1 would address that situation.
The amendments also seek to clarify that it remains for Ministers
to undertake the balancing exercise between animal welfare and
other public interest considerations. That would limit the
likelihood of ministerial decisions being challenged in the
courts. New schedule 1, which is given effect by my amendments,
simply suggests some statutory structure for the committee, how
appointments to the committee are to be made and how it might
operate. It is worth noting that the contents of the schedule,
with some relatively minor changes, are substantially those
proposed by Professor Mike Radford, reader in animal welfare law
and UK constitutional law at the University of Aberdeen, as part
of his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee. It follows similar models for other statutory
committees. While its drafting may not be perfect, the Government
will I hope think carefully about clarifying the powers of the
committee and ensuring that, as a statutory committee, it has a
statutory framework that safeguards the committee from being
misused in the future or being able to transform its role and
function into something other than what Ministers intend.
Incorporated in new schedule 1, alongside amendments 6, 7 and 9,
is a desire to fix some of the concerns expressed repeatedly as
the Bill has made progress, including the lack of clarity about
how committee members will be appointed. Despite being a
statutory body, the proposed Animal Sentience Committee is
entirely in the control of DEFRA, being dependent financially on
DEFRA, having its secretariat in DEFRA and with the Secretary of
State having control of appointment and dismissal. Under this
Government, I have every confidence in the integrity of the
appointments process, but it would be all too easy for it to be
manipulated to support the particular agenda of any future
Government of the day. If the purpose of the Bill is to ensure
animal welfare is properly considered in policy making and
implementation across Government, the committee would ideally be
independent of any particular Department. New schedule 1 would at
least help to ensure that greater independence for the
committee.
New schedule 1, as well as amendment 7, would also set certain
criteria for appointments to the committee to ensure the
necessary expertise and exclude persons who may have other
agendas—those seeking to offer not dispassionate advice, but
partisan and ideological musings. At the moment, the Bill simply
allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or whoever
holds that job in the future to appoint whoever they like. The
terms of reference make it clear that appointments are not
regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments, only that the Secretary of State will
“generally adhere to its guidelines on best practice. The
Secretary of State will seek to appoint experts with appropriate
experience relating to policy decision-making and/or the welfare
of animals.”
There is little in the terms of reference that is binding, either
on Ministers or the committee. It is expressed almost exclusively
in terms of “may”, “could” or is “expected to”. That is
concerning for a committee established by statute that could play
an important role in the process of any Government formulating
policy. With new schedule 1 and amendments 6 and 7, the potential
for highly politically motivated committee members would be
straightforwardly taken away.
To conclude, my concern about the committee comes not from its
likely composition and activity under the current Government, but
from how it may be used by a future Government hostile to rural
interests. They must recognise the long-term risks legislation
such as this could have and how it could be weaponised against
the interests of our hard-working farming community, those who
undertake countryside management, including pest control to
protect livestock, as well as the British public in the long
term. That is what my amendments seek to protect against and I
commend them to the House.
I very much hope that the Government will adopt my amendments and
that of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds ( ). If they do adopt
at least his amendment, I will not seek to press mine to
Divisions, but we do have to make some significant progress to
put in the protections that many of us, certainly on the
Government Benches, are concerned about.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on new clause 1
and an issue that is very close to my own heart, as hon. Friends
will know, as well as those of many of our constituents up and
down the country. Indeed, it was a privilege to secure a
Westminster Hall debate last year on covid-19’s impact on animal
welfare. That debate took place almost a year ago to the day and
I am pleased that we are now in a very different place when it
comes to legislating to protect the most vulnerable.
As has already been said by the shadow Secretary of State, my
hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (), this Bill has been a long
time coming. We have only now reached this point thanks to the
hard work of Members in this place and the other place, who have
campaigned ferociously on these issues for many years. They
include my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Sutton and Devonport (), as well as the former Member
for Redcar, , who, were she still in this
place, would be speaking passionately on this issue today.
I welcome the general thrust of this Bill to ban live exports and
introduce animal sentience on to the statute book for the first
time. It is also encouraging to see that animal welfare
organisations such as the Better Deal for Animals coalition and
Compassion in World Farming, and other charities including Hope
Rescue, which is based near me in the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Ogmore (), have cautiously welcomed the
Bill, too.
I rise none the less to express concerns shared by several other
Members that the Bill in its current form lacks scope and
ambition. By making a specific provision that will allow our
understanding of animal sentience to evolve as scientific
research progresses, the Bill represents a brilliant opportunity
to reinforce animal welfare legislation. We cannot let this
opportunity pass us by.
As the Bill progressed through the other place, some sought to
argue that existing laws, such as the 200-year-old Cruel
Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, were sufficient to legally enshrine
animal sentience, but that simply is not true. To rely on
legislation from 200 years ago without seeing the need for
modernisation would have been a kick in the teeth for animal
lovers and activists across the country and fundamentally would
have been a wasted opportunity. Our withdrawal from the treaty of
Lisbon, which colleagues will be aware acknowledges animal
sentience in article 13, renders those arguments completely
defunct. We are now seeing the effects of how the European Union
(Withdrawal) Act 2018 failed to transfer these principles.
Contrary to those remarks in the other place, there is a gaping
hole in British law regarding the welfare of animals, and it is
our responsibility to make those wrongs right. The Bill will go a
long way to addressing that hole by again recognising the ability
of animals to feel pain, excitement, joy and comfort, but the
decision by the Government to not include a proactive animal
sentience strategy, which Labour calls for in new clause 1, was
incredibly disappointing. Compelling the Government to publish an
animal sentience strategy would ensure that the Bill did not fall
short of its aim to properly underpin animal welfare. Without it,
the Bill in its current form risks being weaker than the European
legislation it seeks to replace.
Let me be clear: animal welfare should be a priority for us all.
I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the fantastic Welsh Labour
Government are again ahead of the curve. The Welsh Government
published their own animal welfare plan in November last year,
and again it is disappointing to see the UK Government refuse to
adopt their own in the Bill. After all, let us not forget that it
was a Labour Government who introduced the Animal Welfare Act
2006. That is because we recognised that issues relating to
animal welfare are issues that we must all be concerned by. Hope
Rescue, to which I referred earlier, is one such charity that has
been leading the way on animal welfare issues for some years and
its sheer dedication to improving the lives of abandoned dogs is
to be applauded. In partnership with other groups, such as
Justice for Reggie, campaigning groups are plugging the gaps
where UK Government legislation has failed.
Animal welfare is a complex, emotive issue that spans many policy
areas. I am pleased to see this legislation reach its final
stages in this place, but I urge the Government to be more
ambitious in their approach to animal welfare more widely. I will
continue to push that point wherever possible, particularly in my
capacity as a shadow Department for Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Minister.
As the Government seek to finally tighten up the online space, my
final plea to the Minister is to work with her colleagues across
Departments on animal welfare issues specific to digital spaces,
such as the sale of pets online. Now is the time to get that
right. Only by working collaboratively can we truly tackle the
root cause of those issues once and for all.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. It has been
interesting to listen to hon. Members on both sides. I would
argue that the Government have probably got the Bill about right,
for the simple reason that Opposition Members are saying that it
does not go far enough and Conservative Members are perhaps
saying that it goes plenty far enough.
This legislation is better than the previous version because it
will not be taken to judicial review. In about 2018, the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at the Bill
as it was then and rightly decided, having taken legal advice and
advice from others, that many of the actions that could take
place could be judicial-reviewed and land up in the courts. There
could have been a situation where much of our animal welfare was
judged in the courts, rather than here in Parliament. Instead, it
creates a committee that is put in place by the Secretary of
State and then has to present a report to them. He or she will
then make a decision about which route the Government will take
on animal welfare. I believe that that is the right
situation.
I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member
for The Cotswolds ( ). We have argued
many times in this Chamber, and I even argued in the European
Parliament, that European legislation often had no flexibility
about it. On this occasion, of course, it did have flexibility
when bringing animal welfare legislation forward. As we brought
legislation over as a result of Brexit, however, we did not
include those clauses, which is why we are in this predicament. I
have real sympathy for the Minister because she is dealing with
an interesting situation: she is trying to balance the needs of
animal welfare with the perceived needs of animal rights. That is
the issue.
It is interesting that, in tonight’s debate, we have talked all
about DEFRA. Much of it is about DEFRA, but we must remember that
the Animal Sentience Committee will deal with the whole of
Government. So when someone is building a bypass or building
houses, the effect of all those issues on sentience will be
considered. I admit that I am still interested to know how the
committee will deal with all that. How will the Secretary of
State for Transport or the Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities deal with it? It will have a big job to
do.
If the committee is set up in the right way with the right people
on it, so that they can make a judgment about what is right in
practical terms for animal welfare, it can work, but it is very
much about how it is set up, who the chair is and who the members
are. We must ensure that we have a balance of opinions so that,
with the right methods of building, we can build our roads and
our homes and we can carry on farming in our traditional
ways.
To the point that my hon. Friend has rightly made about the
cross-cutting nature of the Bill across Government Departments, I
quite like that. For example, the Department for Education might
educate people on how to look after pets properly. There are many
useful areas where the Bill could have a role.
8.15pm
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We now have charities that
take dogs into schools to ensure that people can look after a dog
or their pets properly. Most families do so, but unfortunately
there are families who do not. That is where it is absolutely
necessary and that is why I am not negative about the Bill. I do
not think we ever needed to get to this place, but, as they say,
we are where we are. That is why we have this Bill. A lot relies
on the Secretary of State to get it right. I believe that it can
be made to work across Government, but I am still intrigued as to
how all those Departments will take notice of this powerful
Animal Sentience Committee.
(North Thanet) (Con)
At the opening of my hon. Friend’s remarks, he indicated that he
thought the Bill was pretty good as it was and that he feels, as
I do, that if the Opposition are criticising it and some
Conservative Back Benchers are criticising it, it is probably
about right. Does he agree that there is not a single amendment
tabled by the Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers that would
improve the Bill one iota? We ought to leave it exactly as it
is.
I would probably make an exception for amendment 2, but my hon.
Friend makes a good point that amending legislation sometimes
does not work in exactly the way we want it to work. I do not
often give much praise to the Government, but on this occasion
they have probably worked hard on the Bill to get it where it is.
It is in a much better place than it was.
I will also talk briefly about new clause 5, which is an
interesting amendment about water companies and pollution. The
key to the water companies and pollution in our rivers is that we
are about to have a new chair of Ofwat. The Secretary of State is
looking at candidates and the EFRA Committee is about to look at
whoever he or she might be. The new chair has a very big job to
do, because—let us be blunt—the water companies have paid their
shareholders and directors too much and have not put enough into
infrastructure.
At one time, a previous Secretary of State was keen to bring
forward legislation to ensure that more pressure was put on the
water companies to deliver, because it is not just about putting
up bills to get more infrastructure to stop pollution; it is
about ensuring that water companies invest in building the
infrastructure. I would not go as far as the Opposition parties
want and nationalise the water companies, but I would apply some
thumbscrews to them—only metaphorically—so that they really make
a difference on the investment that they make. Hon. Members on
both sides of the House know well that water companies should not
be discharging into rivers when there is an overflow from
treatment plants, many of which have not had the investment that
they should have done over the years.
In fairness to the water companies—I do not like being fair to
them—we should remember that, after going through education,
health and all the other sectors, when they were nationalised
they had not necessarily had the amount of investment that they
had needed over the years. Since they were privatised, therefore,
there has been a lot of investment by those companies, but it has
not been enough, which is why we now have an opportunity to get
it right. I am not sure, however, that the Bill is the right
place for such a provision. I think we should be beefing up Ofwat
and taking on the water companies directly.
The Opposition are saying that we are not creating greater
biodiversity, but I do not accept that. I believe that we are and
that all our policies are destined to do that, but we have to get
the balance right. We see Putin and his dreadful regime
inflicting this horrendous situation in Ukraine, murdering
innocent people. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe and, in
many respects, of the world. Therefore, as we move towards
greater biodiversity, we must also ensure that we have good food
production, with enough food being produced. We have to get that
balance right.
I may have journeyed slightly away from the Animal Welfare
(Sentience) Bill, but we have to be concerned about getting
enough food. Food and energy security—these basics of life—are so
important to us now. Let us get the Bill through and ensure that
we set up the right committee, with the right chair, to ensure
that proper animal welfare is considered, that there are
practical ways of dealing with this issue across Government, so
that it does not end up in the courts, and that the committee
makes sensible decisions that are passed to Parliament, through
the Secretary of State, to make sure that the Bill works in
practice.
I support amendment 2 and I will support the Bill, but I think we
have probably made very heavy work of getting here.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (), is quite right that we have
made heavy work of getting here. We have probably at times shared
the view that we would not get here, so I welcome the fact that
we have done so. I am not sure why some Government Back Benchers
are so upset about the Bill, because it is pretty weak, although
the test will be who is on the animal sentience committee once it
is up and running, and what decisions they make and are allowed
to make, so we reserve judgment on that.
I will speak briefly in support of new clause 1. It was rejected
by the Government in Committee, although I am not sure why. It
would require the preparation of an animal sentience strategy and
annual statements on progress towards that. That would lead to a
more proactive approach to sentience from Ministers. One of the
amendments I tabled in Committee would have removed the word
“adverse.” The new animal sentience committee’s job is to look at
the “adverse effects” of policy. The hon. Member for The
Cotswolds ( ) said that it would
be able to look at kids learning in school about how to be nice
to pets, but that is not the purpose of this committee. Its
purpose is to look at negative things, but I think it would help
if it could also look at the positive side of things.
Having an animal sentience strategy in place would force the
Government to set out how they would respond to relevant reports,
assessments and research, and it would be more proactive.
Improving animal welfare should not just be about protecting
where we are; it ought to be a constant, iterative process,
because where we are simply is not good enough, whether because
the laws are not strong enough or because enforcement does not
happen.
(Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree with
me that although the Bill is a step forward, it is unusual to
have a committee of this type without its having a strategy? As
Government Members have pointed out, the committee needs to be
making sensible decisions and recommendations. How can it do that
without a strategy? I am sure the public would expect it to have
a strategy, because the public expect us to be focused on animal
welfare.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, particularly as we have a
Government who cannot be trusted to keep their promises, as we
have seen recently on imports of hunting trophies, fur and foie
gras, for example. We need a mechanism that keeps the Government
on track and creates that forward momentum, and new clause 1
would provide that.
It is clear from the Government rowing back on their promises to
legislate on those imports that the Government are scared of some
of their more unreconstructed Back Benchers—actually, some of the
current Cabinet are pretty unreconstructed too, if the press are
to be believed. On Second Reading it was noticeable how many
Conservative Back Benchers stood up to criticise the Bill. The
lack of enthusiasm for it—even the fear of it—was palpable, and
we have read about efforts behind the scenes to neuter it, and I
think that is what amendment 7 is about.
The hon. Member for Buckingham () wrote a rather amusing article
for ConservativeHome recently, saying that he had rumbled my hon.
Friend the Member for Cambridge () and me and sussed us out—I
paraphrase. After close scrutiny of our comments in Committee, he
had worked out that we had a hidden agenda: we were against fox
hunting. That was remarkably clever of him; it was like when
Scooby Doo suddenly unmasks the villains at the end. If there is
anyone with a hidden agenda, it is he and the hon. Member for The
Cotswolds, and I think he ought to be clear as to what amendments
6 and 7 are about.
Why would we want to exclude anyone with past or present
commitment to animal welfare issues from serving on the animal
sentience committee? Amendment 7 says that anyone who is an
“employee, former employee, or is a consultant or former
consultant to, a charity”—
that could be the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals or Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which are pretty benign
organisations—
“or campaigning organisation concerned with animal welfare or
animal rights, or is or has been in receipt of any payments or
funding from such a charity or organisation, whether directly or
indirectly”
should not be allowed to serve on the animal sentience committee.
I do not understand why we would want to exclude people who have
shown commitment, interest, knowledge or expertise in animal
welfare from the animal sentience committee, unless the aim was
to try to ensure that it was as weak on welfare and soft on
sentience as possible.
According to the hon. Lady’s analysis, would that also mean that
any member of the Countryside Alliance would have to be
excluded?
I was actually just coming to that point. I was going to say that
if the hon. Member for Buckingham thinks that nobody who has
aligned themselves to a particular cause can be impartial, then
that also ought to cover his friends in the Countryside Alliance
and the rest of the hunting and shooting lobby. When he refers to
extremists, I would say, certainly having been on the receiving
end of it, that there are extremists on that side too. For
example, Chris Packham has been subjected to a huge amount of
abuse just for speaking out about the persecution of hen
harriers, so there are clearly unpalatable elements on that side
as well.
Amendment 7 would mean that someone such as the eminent zoologist
Michael Balls CBE—father of Ed—who served as an adviser to the
Government on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and
was a founding member of the Animal Procedures Committee, which
advised the Home Secretary on all matters related to animal
experimentation, would not be allowed to serve on the animal
sentience committee, despite that expertise, because he had been
a trustee of FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in
Medical Experiments. He also, alongside the Prime Minister’s own
father, came to Parliament to campaign against a huge new puppy
farm in Yorkshire, where beagles were being bred specifically for
purposes of animal experimentation. He is now an emeritus
professor and might no longer wish to serve on Government
committees, but surely someone with that sort of background would
be absolutely perfect for this committee. That is not to say that
we cannot also have a balance, with people who have other views.
I think it is nonsense to suggest that such experts, who are
drawn to campaign on animal welfare precisely because of their
in-depth understanding of the science behind animal sentience—it
is because of their expertise that they are concerned about
animal sentience and animal welfare—should not be allowed to
serve.
Finally, turning to amendment 2, I think the same thing is
actually going on. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds was very
brief in speaking to his amendment, but he happens to be chair of
the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation.
It is somewhat ironic that some of those who were so vocally
supportive of leaving the EU, apparently to take advantage of new
freedoms, are now arguing that they want to carry over the Lisbon
treaty wording, chapter and verse. I think one of the reasons why
this provision was in the Lisbon treaty was to protect things
such as bull fighting, which I would hope we all think should not
be protected in the name of culture and tradition.
I do not have a huge problem with the amendment being made to the
Bill, because I have argued from the start, going back to the
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill debates, that the Lisbon treaty
provision should be carried over. However, having heard what the
hon. Member said on Second Reading, I think what he is really
trying to do, by the back door, is to turn back the clock on the
hunting ban or to create legal uncertainty around its enforcement
by saying—this was the old argument we had when the Labour
Government banned hunting—that it is all part of our tradition
and of rural culture. The fact is that, for most people, as
polling shows, it is a tradition they want confined to the
history books, along with bear baiting, cock fighting, sending
children up chimneys and so on. The hon. Member has to accept
that times have changed, and that there is no place for fox
hunting in a civilised world.
8.30pm
(Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I rise in support of this Bill, and I declare a strong personal
and professional interest in animal health, welfare and sentience
as a veterinary surgeon. I welcome the Bill, and I think it is so
important that we recognise sentience in legislation, and I
welcome the inclusion of cephalopod molluscs and decapod
crustaceans.
As I said on Second Reading, I still think we need to be clearer
on the specifics of the Bill, albeit that it is a brief and
general Bill. I am disappointed, coming back from Committee, that
the recommendations to put a definition of sentience into the
Bill were cast aside. I draw attention to the definition put
forward by the Global Animal Law Project, as adopted also by the
British Veterinary Association:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have
feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of
conscious awareness.”
I do understand the reservations about putting this into primary
legislation, but as I have said before, I think this could be
tackled by putting it into secondary legislation. I am aware that
the science will evolve and definitions may evolve, and that
could be tackled in secondary legislation.
I welcome the formation of the future Animal Sentience Committee.
It must have the right breadth of expertise and talent, but I
want it to have some teeth and power. As has been mentioned, it
has the ability to roam across Departments, and I welcome that.
Clause 2 talks about how, in relation to reports from the
committee, the Government will have
“all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an
adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd
() that it is a shame the
Bill still talks purely about the adverse effects. If we could
put in the positive effects, that would go along with the United
Kingdom being a beacon of standards on animal health and welfare.
We could still consider putting that forward.
I firmly believe that animal welfare needs to be joined up across
Government, and I think this Bill actually starts to do that. We
need to look at Government policy across different Departments,
and the Bill can reinforce that. However, there are some things
that I firmly believe that we, as a Parliament and as a
Government, need to act on quickly. I again urge Ministers to
keep doing that, and I will quickly whip through some of the
things that I think we really need to crack on with.
On pet theft, we are bringing it into law, but I want it very
much expanded from dogs to include cats, but also horses and farm
animals, which are being stolen as we speak. We still need to
close the loophole in the Government buying standards for
domestic food procurement. The loophole allows public sector
bodies to buy things at lower animal welfare standards on the
ground of cost, and I think that loophole needs closing now.
International trade has been mentioned, and we need to show the
rest of the world that we are a beacon on animal health and
welfare. Again, putting sentience into legislation confirms that,
but I firmly believe we have missed an opportunity by not placing
core standards into the trade deals with Australia and New
Zealand. We should just draw a line, and say there are certain
red line products that we find unacceptable in this country and
that we will not accept them. We should say firmly that we will
not undermine our fantastic British farmers, who farm to the
highest animal health and welfare standards. In my constituency
of Penrith and The Border, the Cumbrian farmers are right up
there among the best of our British farmers, and we must not
undermine those farmers in these trade deals. The Bill will help
with that, and we need to put pressure on the Department for
International Trade in future trade deals, as well as with the
current trade deals that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and the International Trade Committees are scrutinising.
Does my hon. Friend recall that when we left the European Union,
one of the advantages that we were told would arise from that was
that we would be able to maintain our own high animal welfare
standards, and not import goods that were produced to a lower
standard?
Dr Hudson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is important that
we have the highest standards. I note there is an animal welfare
chapter in the Australian trade deal, which I welcome, but in
that chapter there are non-regression clauses, and all those do
is say that neither partner will get worse. I think we can do
better than that. I believe we must uphold our own animal welfare
standards, and drive up animal health and welfare standards
around the world.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has been
looking at the movement of animals. The Government have looked at
some our recommendations, but the standard response, again, is
that they are “consulting” or “will consult.” Let us stop
consulting on a lot of these matters, and just crack on with it.
On puppy smuggling, let us raise the age of the dogs coming in to
a minimum of six months. Let us ban heavily pregnant dogs and
cats from being moved into the country. Let us ban the import of
cropped-eared dogs.
The hon. Gentleman is a vociferous campaigner on animal welfare
and he makes some excellent points. On that final point, does he
share my concern that at Crufts this weekend, the “best in breed”
was a British bulldog? There is concern about the breeding of
those brachycephalic dogs and the impact it has on them. Does he
share my concern that the Government need to do more to protect
them, as well as concerns about puppy smuggling and puppy
breeding of such dogs in the future?
Dr Hudson
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is a proud champion for
animal welfare on the Labour Benches. We must look at that issue
closely. Brachycephalic dogs, and dogs that have had horrific
mutilations—I touched on the point about cropped ears—are being
popularised in culture, with celebrities having those dogs,
unwittingly endorsing such procedures. We must be careful about
publicly endorsing dogs and animals that have had some of those
procedures, as well as some of the breeding procedures that make
those animals struggle in later life. Owners take on some of
these dogs in good faith, and have no idea of some of the
unintended consequences of such breeding patterns.
I mentioned ear cropping in dogs. The RSPCA has reported that in
the past year, the incidence and reports of such dogs has gone up
by about 86%. We do not need to wait for a law to come in or for
primary legislation; we can crack on with secondary legislation
and ban the import of dogs that have had their ears cropped, and
potentially of cats that have had their claws removed. Instead of
consulting, with secondary legislation we can crack on with some
of the important health checks. If animals are being moved into
this country, we should be doing checks on those dogs for things
such as brucella canis. We should be reinstituting the rabies
titer checks. We can reverse the change that the European Union
made when it removed the need for mandatory tick treatment for
small animals coming into this country. We can reverse that in
secondary legislation to protect the health and welfare of those
dogs and animals being brought into the country and, importantly,
to protect the health and welfare of animals in this country.
This is about biosecurity, and health and welfare needs to be
thought about in the round.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has had some
thoughts and comments for the Government about sorting out the
digital identification of horses. Again, I welcome that the
Government are consulting on that, but we need to crack on. If we
can identify those animals, we will stamp out the illegal
movement of animals to the European Union for slaughter.
We have a system up and running with which we can electronically
identify the horses. We have to roll that out here and get it
recognised by the European Union. There is a good animal welfare
reason, as well as a good movement reason for it, and I urge
DEFRA Ministers to move—dare I say it?—a little faster.
Dr Hudson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I urge Ministers to
move quickly on this. We must identify horses so that we know why
they are moving and can stamp out the illegal movement of
hundreds, potentially thousands, of those animals that are moved
for slaughter. That is important. Much as I am keen on making
decisions from an evidence base, there comes a time when we do
not need to keep consulting. The evidence is out there. Let us
act; let us do it now.
I have raised this point with Ministers many times, as have
Government and Opposition Members: if we are bringing in animal
sentience legislation, let us have joined-up animal health and
welfare legislation in practice now. For instance, as we speak,
pig farms in the United Kingdom are still in crisis with more
than 40,000 pigs having been culled on farms and not gone into
the food supply chain. That is horrific. It is incredibly
upsetting for the farmers, the vets, the slaughter workers and
everyone concerned. It is an awful thing to do. Again, I firmly
push the Government on that. I know that the Minister has been
convening summits and working well with the sector, but we need
action to put pressure on the food processors as well as work
with the Home Office to sort out the visa situation to mitigate
the crisis.
Many of those are workforce issues that have been exacerbated by
Brexit and covid, but they are now having implications for our
food security, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for
Tiverton and Honiton (). They may also become an
animal health and welfare problem. Let me give an example from
the veterinary sector from a professional viewpoint. Since
Brexit, the number of EU vets registering in the United Kingdom
has reduced by a factor of about two thirds, and about 90% to 95%
of vets working in the meat hygiene sector come from the European
Union, so that reduction is producing a real crisis. We are short
of not just workers but vets in the slaughter sector. In
parallel, in the veterinary sector there is a huge increase in
the time and demands on veterinary surgeons. Throughout lockdown,
people have been taking in pets—we had the puppy boom—so the
pressure on small animal veterinarians has gone through the roof,
and, with Brexit, the pressures from export and import
certification have also gone up. We therefore have a real crisis
in the sector; it is a perfect storm that we really need to
address.
On the EFRA Committee, we have made recommendations about keeping
an eye on veterinary workforce issues and, again, that goes
cross-departmental. For instance, I have been calling for an
EU-UK veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which
would smooth the movement of animal and plant produce between the
UK and the EU. That would help with trade and help solve many of
the issues we face between GB and Northern Ireland. I ask the
Government to work across Government and with our European
colleagues, because, if we could secure such agreements, that
would take pressure off some of our workforce issues. That would
also be of huge benefit to the country’s biosecurity.
Finally, I urge the Government not to lose their nerve on some of
the welfare promises we made in our manifesto and in policy. I
sincerely hope that media reports about the Government
potentially dropping the ban on imports of farmed fur and foie
gras are false and that they will keep going with what they
promised. Some in my party have been reported in the media as
saying that it is a matter of frippery or of personal choice—they
should tell that to the animals farmed for their fur and to the
birds with a tube rammed down their throat who are force-fed to
make their livers pathologically fatty for some culinary
delicacy. I firmly believe that we should hold our nerve in the
Chamber and in the Conservative party and forge ahead with our
promises, because that is the right and proper thing to do.
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I entirely agree
with him on the iniquities of fur and foie gras. Is it not that
we deem it cruel enough to have banned its production in this
country, so all that we are squabbling about is whether we will
outsource that cruelty and allow imports? I think it was the
chair of the 1922 committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and
Sale West ( ), who talked about having to
smuggle foie gras into the country on Eurostar. Surely there is
hypocrisy at the heart of it as well.
Dr Hudson
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Those practices and
procedures are rightly banned in this country. I firmly believe
that we should not import things that we believe are wrong in
this country. There has been a lot of discussion about trade
deals, hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken. Rightly,
those practices are banned in this country. That is one area
where I do actually take the Government at their word. They are
still banned, so those products will not be imported. I firmly
believe we should keep our promises. If we make a promise, we
should keep it.
8.45pm
In summary, I broadly welcome the Bill. Bringing animal sentience
into the centre of UK legislation is to be welcomed. However, I
want to see more signs of that being put into practice across
Government Departments, so that they work together to promote the
health and welfare of the animals in our care, which we
fundamentally understand as sentient beings.
It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border
(Dr Hudson). He set out comprehensively what he hopes the Bill
will achieve. He also outlined some things that need to be done,
but on which we are perhaps not there yet. I put that on the
record. I am pleased, as I always am, to see the Minister for
Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury () in her place. I know
that both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds
() will respond to our concerns.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food has responded to a
number of debates I have attended on puppy smuggling, an issue I
feel incredibly strongly about. The steps the Government are
taking tonight will be very helpful in tackling that issue. The
intention is clearly to tighten the requirements of the pet
travel scheme to tackle this very cruel trade. The hon. Gentleman
and others referred to increasing the age at which a puppy can
enter the country, as well as banning the importation of dogs
with cropped ears and heavily pregnant dogs. Those measures are
vital. However, I am aware that the Dogs Trust is calling on the
Government and the Minister to introduce visual checks to ensure
that that good work will not be in vain, and to put a stop to
puppy smuggling once and for all. I seek reassurance from the
Minister that the Bill will achieve that. I hope we can achieve
that, but if we cannot, what will be done to ensure that it can
be stopped and to ensure that the Bill contains the correct
protocol for carrying out the law?
In conversations I have had with the Minister, through debates in
Westminster Hall and in this Chamber, one of my concerns has been
about working alongside the Republic of Ireland and its
legislation. Northern Ireland, of course, has a border with the
Republic of Ireland, so it is important to get that right in
relation to puppy smuggling. In the past, the Minister has
reassured me on that point. Perhaps she could confirm that on the
record.
Northern Ireland has led the way on microchipping dogs and cats.
Indeed, in Northern Ireland we are doing many things on animal
sentience. Dogs are more than a cosmetic piece for show, whenever
you go somewhere. Dogs have always been incredibly important to
me—all my life, I have always had a dog. I see dogs mostly as
hunting dogs. I am very pleased to be a fully involved member of
the sporting community, as are many Conservative Members. In
particular, I commend the hon. Member for The Cotswolds ( ) for the hard work
he has done with the Minister to deal with some of tonight’s
issues. It is good to see that in place.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I use
this intervention to inform the House that my constituent has
brought 55 different databases to produce one horse database,
with all the biological markings of horses on it. He is
working—and I am working with him—with senior civil servants in
DEFRA to produce a similar database for dogs and cats. As a
further refinement, there are some rogues out there who remove
microchips from dogs and put in a substitute microchip. I am
working with the police to put the DNA that forces like my own
collect into the database so that we can see when microchips have
been removed and replaced.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he is right
in what he says. A lot of dogs have been stolen during the covid
period and having microchips in place was one method of trying to
find out where they had ended up. He has referred to one
methodology to make sure we can improve the system, which is what
he is committed to. I hope that tonight we can see more of that
improvement happening.
This legislation is mostly UK-based and England-based. Like the
hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (), and indeed the Minister, I am keen to see steps in
the right direction on water quality. I very much welcome the
stance we have taken in this House on fur and foie gras. Like
others, I seek the Minister’s assurance that we have a duty to
prevent the importation of fur and foie gras. Will she confirm
whether that is something that could rightly be achieved in this
Bill? If it is not, what forthcoming legislation could address
it? I, for one, agree with the comments on this of the hon.
Members for Bristol East () and for Pontypridd (), among others. I am
probably a plain eater, but the general public out there are
probably very much opposed to those two things.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the issue
of food quality, and it is important to have that in place.
(Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made a
powerful point on the standards that we adopt here in the UK. My
hon. Friend will know that our Northern Ireland farmers lead the
way on animal welfare standards. Does he agree that it is vital
that this Government ensure in any future trade deals that our
markets are not flooded with cheap, substandard products that do
not adhere to the high welfare standards that we have in this
country?
I certainly do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I know that the Minister agrees with it, and I know that what we
have tonight is a commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland can
retain its standards, and that the deals with Australia, New
Zealand and elsewhere will not have an adverse impact on the
great sector we have in Northern Ireland and indeed in the whole
UK. For us in Northern Ireland it is so important to have these
standards in place, because we export 80% of our product.
I have one more point to make, and I make it as an animal lover.
It relates to the protection of our pets and animals, which is a
passion of mine. Since I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, which was
not yesterday but back in the 1960s, I have always had a dog.
After I met my wife, we always seemed to have a cat. My mailbag
has been replicated throughout the whole constituency of
Strangford, and again I seek some reassurance that we are in the
last stages of getting this right. We are making vast steps in
the right direction, but there is a balance between animal
welfare and our obligations to the farming community. I declare
an interest, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is
the sister body of the National Farmers Union here on the
mainland. This delicate balance must be kept, even in these last
stages of amending and pushing through this legislation. Again, I
am pleased to work with and support the Government on what they
are bringing forward. Others have also made magnificent
contributions to help get the legislation to where we want it to
be.
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
We heard again, in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for
Oldham West and Royton (), that ours is a nation of
animal-lovers, and that view has been reflected in contributions
from Members on both sides of the House tonight. I have
considerable sympathy with the observation made by
many—particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd ()—that if we are to
remain a nation which fulfils that ambition, we must update our
legislation from time to time. The UK is a country known
throughout the world for what is often a very good process for
identifying effective and proportionate regulation. That is
reflected in the Bill, which is why I support it so strongly.
My constituency is unashamedly suburban in character. Given that
past debates of this kind have been characterised as pitting town
against country, it is enormously helpful for me to be here as
the representative of a constituency where there are more than 80
farms and where fishing and fishing-associated businesses are
very much present, but which also contains a significant number
of members of animal welfare and, indeed, animal rights
organisations. Throughout the Bill’s progress, I have been struck
by the messages that have emerged and have shown how strongly
people feel about the need for us to ensure that the update in
the Bill is turned into practical reality. We sometimes have
lengthy debates in the House and pass laws that appear to be
stringent, but then fail to ensure that they are reflected in the
experience of the people or, as in this context, the animals that
they are designed to protect.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon.
Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (), although like many others I am not sure whether this
Bill is the right place for his new clause, because in my
constituency the River Colne has been hugely affected by sewage
discharges. That has in turn affected fishing lakes and
businesses involved in, for instance, water sports. We need to
ensure that the measures outlined in the House during the passage
of the Environment Act 2021 find their way into rigorous
enforcement so that our constituents see cleaner, safer water,
both for livestock and for human use, as part of their day-to-day
lives.
I am a greater fan of the EU lawmaking process than, perhaps,
many other Members. My experience has been mainly on the
education side, but I think that ensuring that every stakeholder
has the opportunity to contribute so we can ensure that the laws
that emerge from their contribution reflect the widest possible
range of concerns and are as effective as possible is a very
worthwhile process. My right hon. Friend the Member for North
Thanet ( ) expressed concerns in this
regard. In the spirit of trying to create legislation that
constitutes an effective compromise and will make the difference
to animal welfare that we want to see, I wholly endorse amendment
2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds ( ), and I hope that
the Government will adopt it enthusiastically tonight.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and the
hon. Member for Bristol East () spoke of the need to ensure
that we make a real difference. Whether we are talking about dogs
or horses, animals kept as pets, animals that are part of our
food industry, animals in our farms, animals in our rivers or
animals that may be bred for sport, we must not just refer
sentimentally to the highest possible standards, but ensure that
our laws are in step with those in other countries, especially
when it comes to trade deals. The food businesses in my
constituency need to see high standards in the United Kingdom
that reflect the high standards they expect to find in the
markets with which we trade, and we need to ensure that those
markets can trade freely with us on the basis of a high degree of
parity.
My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in his comments about
my own remarks. The briefing from the Countryside Alliance on
amendment 2 indicates that this would reintroduce the terms of
the Lisbon treaty, which was designed to protect bullfighting,
and by implication would also protect foxhunting.
That is no doubt a valid concern in the context of the Lisbon
treaty, but when it comes to protecting events that are part of
our heritage, those events need to be already taking place and
legal in the country to which the rules apply. An element that
was designed to protect bullfighting in Spain, which has never
been present in the United Kingdom, would not fall to be
protected within that legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham () made some extremely clear and
effective remarks. He made a valid point about the need to ensure
that in the composition of any committee, we exclude not those
with connections to interest groups but those who have expressed
a view that would prejudge their position on a matter where they
were required to be independent. That is an essential
consideration. We make that same requirement for those who sit on
juries or deal with court cases. For example, we require
magistrates to declare any reason for excluding themselves from
sitting in judgment on a case. The same applies to local
authority councillors dealing with a planning application when
they have a direct stake in the process. My hon. Friend has
raised a valid point there, and in the light of other comments
from across the House, there is clearly an opportunity to develop
that a little further to take into account the widest possible
audience of stakeholders. The point made by my right hon. Friend
the Member for North Thanet about the Countryside Alliance was
also valid, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for
Buckingham has taken that on board.
9.00pm
I will conclude by repeating that amendment 2 represents a
sensible compromise and a step forward. It would ensure that we
had good, effective animal welfare legislation to bring about the
high welfare standards that my constituents with an interest in
animal rights and animal welfare expect to see, while also
respecting the need to ensure, in our trade deals, in the way we
conduct our business and in the way we respect the heritage of
the different communities in the United Kingdom, that we have
laws that will be acceptable to all and observed by all and that
can be enforced in practice—as we have heard from Members with
experience in the veterinary world—so that we can produce a
genuine improvement for animals in the United Kingdom, rather
than simply an opportunity to express a sentiment about being a
nation of animal lovers.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
I rise to speak to new clauses 2 and 3. Many Members will be
aware of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which was
established by the Scottish Government in 2020. The commission’s
evidence-based and expert-driven approach offers a good model for
the English Animal Sentience Committee, and I would urge those
who have expressed misgivings about how the committee will be
constructed to look to Scotland to see that it is working and
that recommendations are regularly made to Ministers who then act
on them. However, although animal welfare is devolved, some
issues still fall under reserved areas, and the SNP new clauses
focus on those issues.
Of course we support the Bill, because it will enable the setting
up of a committee similar to our own, but it could be
strengthened to recognise the rights of sentient animals
undergoing scientific testing and military experiments used by
the Ministry of Defence. Last month, this House debated a
petition calling for legislation to include laboratory animals in
the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is unacceptable that, in this
nation of professed animal lovers, laboratory animals are not
protected from unnecessary suffering under that legislation.
Instead, the current rules on animals used in research are set
out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home
Office is responsible for regulating and enforcing that law.
However, much of what goes on behind closed doors at animal
testing sites in the UK is hidden from view and shrouded in
secrecy, as the law blocks access to information about the
animals’ treatment during experiments. Section 24 of the 1986 Act
makes it a criminal offence for that information to be
disclosed.
A requirement for the Animal Sentience Committee to provide
assessments to the Government on such tests would help to ensure
that the sentience of those animals was equally recognised and
accounted for. New clause 2 therefore requires the Animal
Sentience Committee to produce a report on the use of sentient
animals in scientific experiments and military exercises by the
MOD and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Between
2009 and 2020, the MOD carried out over 60,000 experimental
procedures on mice, rabbits, primates, pigs and other animals.
Similarly, new clause 3 requires the committee to produce a
report on the use of sentient animals in tests relating to
medicine, cosmetics and weapons in Government policy. As I said
on Second Reading, although those specific issues are still
reserved to Westminster, polling of Scottish and Welsh residents
shows that a majority want to see deadlines for phasing out
animal testing. Those surveyed expressed a very strong aversion
to testing on dogs, cats and monkeys. Despite these public
concerns, the UK remains one of Europe’s top users of primates
and dogs in experiments.
We do not believe the general public are aware of the extent and
nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in
them. Statistics for 2020 reveal that more than 4,000 procedures
were carried out on dogs, almost all of them beagles, which are
chosen for experimentation because of their size, docility and
submissiveness. Most drug testing sees dogs repeatedly force-fed
or forced to inhale substances for between 28 and 90 days to
measure the effects of repeat exposure on the liver, kidneys,
lungs, heart and nervous system.
There is enough evidence to show there are better, more accurate
and more humane methods than resorting to testing on animals.
Recent developments in evolutionary biology, developmental
biology and genetics have significantly increased our
understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human
responses to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases.
Nevertheless, the Home Office says it has no current plans to
review the use of animals in science. Meanwhile, the EU is moving
away from cruel experiments on animals and towards cutting-edge
replacements. The European Parliament recently voted in favour of
developing an action plan to phase animals out of EU science and
regulation.
The hon. Member for Bristol East () made an excellent
contribution. Although I support new clause 1, which makes
worthwhile, reasonable suggestions on the details of the Animal
Sentience Committee and its responsibilities, on which Ministers
have been rather sketchy, and I urge the UK Government to take
new clause 1 into consideration, the Bill is almost entirely
concentrated on setting up an Animal Sentience Committee—largely
based on our Scottish Animal Welfare Commission set up in 2020—in
England, and therefore we will not be joining Her Majesty’s
Opposition in the Lobby.
The hon. Lady expressed considerable concern about amendments 2
and 7, and it is equally tempting to vote against those
amendments. Amendment 2 is a Trojan horse to cover up the
enthusiastic support of Conservative Back Benchers for continuing
what are euphemistically referred to as “country pursuits”
exactly as they have been practised for centuries. Amendment 7 is
a disgracefully blatant attempt to carve out those who have a
very strong interest in the protection of animals from membership
of the Animal Sentience Committee. I found it hard to read that
amendment, let alone to contemplate the Government accepting
it.
The willingness of the Scottish Government to act on the guidance
of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s advice demonstrates
their commitment to maintaining or exceeding the high EU animal
welfare standards before Brexit. However, as long as animals are
used in testing and military experiments and are denied full
recognition of their sentience, Scotland and the rest of the UK
will fail to keep pace. I urge hon. Members to vote to maintain
the UK’s proud history of supporting animal welfare by backing
new clause 3.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
As a starting point, we all agree not only that the issue of
animal welfare and sentience is extremely important in this
House, but that it has great resonance across the country. I say
very gently, because our debate has been extremely wide-ranging,
that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton () put it most succinctly: this
is a simple six-clause Bill, and all it seeks to do is direct
that a committee be set up and that a Minister come forward with
a report from across Government. If hon. Members are worried that
it will not reach all parts of the Government, I would like to
assure them that it will.
I will take the amendments in order and then address other
comments from right hon. and hon. Members. New clause 1, which
was moved by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (), would compel the Government
to make an animal sentience strategy. The action plan for animal
welfare already sets out the Government’s current and future work
on animal welfare and conversation. The Government’s plan is
clear, and there is no need to mandate it in statute. I very
gently point out that the reason we are here today is to bring
forward one of the points in the action plan; as hon. Members
have said, sentience has been a while coming, but we are all here
tonight to make sure that we deliver on the promises.
New clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 would mandate that the Animal Sentience
Committee to produce reports on specific areas. It is important
that we do not dictate the committee’s work plan. Its members are
the experts, not us, and are best placed to know where they can
add value. The very first thing that the committee in Scotland
did, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith () said, was set out its own
definition of sentience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith
and The Border (Dr Hudson) pointed out, the understanding of
sentience is always evolving, so we want to leave it to experts
from the world of science and so on—I am sure he can name them
much better than I could—to define it. We are not saying that
sentience should not be defined; we are asking those who have the
skills to do that work. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept
that that is in good faith where we are trying to go.
I would like to clarify the Government’s position on some areas
raised during the debate. I say gently to the hon. Member for
Edinburgh North and Leith that the committee is best placed to
decide which topics to focus on.
It is worth noting that the Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory does not use animals in developing offensive weapons.
To go further, let me reassure hon. Members that within that
capacity, military working animals play an essential role, often
in life-saving operations. They are looked after within the
military by military vets and are much-loved members of the
team.
I have been clear that we do not want the committee to duplicate
work that is already taking place across government. That is why
its terms of reference make it clear that it should not go over
the same ground as the specialist Animals in Science
Committee.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale () said, the Environment Act 2021 was passed last year,
on 9 November. The Animal Sentience Committee is not there to
make value judgments and weigh up policy issues; neither is it
there to monitor business activities, which is very much the
thrust of what he is asking for. My hon. Friend the Member for
Tiverton and Honiton mentioned Ofwat and said that the hon.
Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might be better placed if he
directed his comments elsewhere. In that spirit, I urge the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. Parliament’s scrutiny of
trade deals is already informed by the expert input on animal
welfare that is provided by the Trade and Agriculture
Commission.
9.15pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham () tabled amendments 3 to 9, 13,
21 and 22, and new schedule 1, all on the committee’s governance
and remit. I thank him for the constructive conversations we have
had on the issue. The governance arrangements for a committee of
the size that we propose do not warrant as much parliamentary
time as would be warranted by the involvement of the Office of
the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to which my hon. Friend
referred in amendment 7. We are not creating a new
non-departmental body like the Office for Environmental
Protection. His proposal would be more appropriate for a body
much larger than the one we propose. We have listened to his
comments and those of others and we agree that the optimal size
for the committee is around eight to 12 members, which would keep
it smaller and focused.
The draft terms of reference already provide transparency about
how the committee will be run. I say gently that DEFRA is the
best Department to host the committee because that allows it to
be part of the animal welfare centre of expertise, along with the
three other committees that are already based in the Department.
The Secretary of State will be responsible for appointments, in
line with the governance code on public appointments, under which
we can already exclude people from extremist organisations.
Applicants from any organisation—we have heard on several
occasions both sides of the argument —must declare potential
conflicts of interest, in order to be transparent and so that we
can rely on the judgments. We do not necessarily want to exclude
certain individuals from the committee because that could mean
the loss of valuable expertise. Equally, it is not proportionate
to exclude anyone who has worked for an animal welfare group.
That would, for example, exclude my hon. Friend the Member for
Penrith and The Border, because he has been a member of the
British Veterinary Association. It is extremely important to make
sure we get the right balance.
I agree with the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for
Buckingham that the committee should be driven by scientists and
led by those who know the science in this policy area. I hope he
will be pleased that we are already developing non-statutory
guidance to help Departments to follow best practice. That will
be better than holding Departments to a one-size-fits-all model
based in statute. I do not wish to require the committee to
report on all Government policy across all Departments: it would
be too much work for the committee and prevent it from carrying
out its statutory function.
The terms of reference clearly state that the committee will
be
“expected to prioritise considering current or recent
policy”.
It is not to look retrospectively back at policy or to change
existing legislation. The committee is to provide timely
accountability and would not be fulfilling its role were it to
look back, because much of current and future policy across
Government will be in its focus. The terms of reference clearly
set out that the committee’s focus will be on recent decisions
and offers a definition of “policy”, which was asked for in
amendment 18.
It is our intention and expectation that the committee will
concern itself with the welfare of live animals. It would be
difficult for the committee to identify a way in which a policy
affected the welfare of a foetus or embryo as opposed to those of
the mother. For example, where a pregnant cat was denied adequate
nutrition, that would obviously affect the health of the
kittens.
As I have said, we are committed to being led by the science when
it comes to sentience and the use of the delegated power in
clause 5 must be approved via the affirmative resolution. Both
Houses must vote on any changes to the definition of “animal”
within the Bill. These things can change. For example, following
the findings of the LSE report, the other place accepted the
addition of decapods and cephalopods to the definition of
sentient beings. For the purpose of the Bill, “animal” is defined
as
“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens, any cephalopod mollusc
and decapod crustacean”.
Anybody who tried to change that on a whim and did not go through
the proper procedure, bringing forward the affirmative resolution
and so on, would have a pretty hard time not only within this
House but without.
Amendments 14 to 17 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for
Buckingham relate to the reports produced by the committee.
Forcing the committee to make a yes/no judgment risks losing
those important nuances, because things in this area are rarely
that clear.
The Animal Sentience Committee and the Animal Welfare Committee
have very different functions. We look on the Animal Welfare
Committee to give expert advice, whereas the Animal Sentience
Committee is there to scrutinise policy decisions with an eye to
the science and to aid Ministers in the collection of evidence to
give them the tools they need to base decisions on the best
available information. Both the Animal Welfare Committee and the
Animal Sentience Committee will be affiliates of the animal
welfare centre of expertise, bringing that information together.
Having scope to co-ordinate work plans and operate a joint
referral mechanism will help to avoid duplication when we look at
this across the piece.
In reference to the reports that we requested in new clauses 2
and 3, can the Minister describe to me by what mechanism the
Scottish Government or other devolved nations could express their
concerns about the areas that we have raised here on animal
testing, cosmetic testing and the use of animal experimentation
in the Ministry of Defence? What mechanism could they use to
raise those concerns with the committee and eventually encourage
it potentially to produce reports on those issues?
I would make two points. First, the hon. Member is presupposing
that there will not be members of those devolved authorities on
the committee. If people hold the most appropriate expertise,
they may be there as a full member, or they may be co-opted in to
look at a particular area of reference. There are other
mechanisms that we always use in this place to hold the Minister
to account. The Minister is bound to report to this place within
three months of parliamentary sitting time. All the mechanisms
will be in place, as well as those behind the scenes where we
talk to devolved Ministers and so on, to make sure that things
are raised in the appropriate way.
Amendment 2, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member
for The Cotswolds ( ), would require the
committee’s recommendations to respect religious rights, cultural
traditions and regional heritage. We have heard the strength of
feeling on this matter both here and in the other place, and I
assure him that we have listened and decided to support the
amendment.
I thank my hon. Friend for her careful consideration of my
amendment. I think it is a sensible, proportionate amendment that
will allow a committee with limited resources to focus on those
really egregious areas where animal sentience is being abused,
and not run into some of the less important areas. I thank her
for accepting the amendment, and I thank all my hon. Friends who
supported and signed it.
(Huntingdon) (Con)
rose—
I will give way briefly.
Mr Djanogly
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I take this opportunity
to thank her and the Secretary of State for having met colleagues
on multiple occasions and listened. Many communities are fearful
of the implications of this and, while I have not fallen in love
with the Bill, the fact that amendment 2 will be made to it means
that there will be a balance that was otherwise lacking. I
congratulate her on listening.
I thank my hon. Friend. As many people who contributed to this
debate have said, what we are seeking here is that balance.
Turning lastly to amendment 1 in the name of the hon. Member for
Newport West (), we do not want to clog up
parliamentary time with automatic debates on committee reports.
We went over that in the Bill Committee. Hon. Members have
parliamentary questions, Westminster Hall debates and the
Backbench Business Committee, should they wish to use them.
In short, the Bill has been carefully drafted to create a
targeted, proportionate and timely accountability mechanism on
animal welfare. It is designed to support the House’s scrutiny of
Government, and I look forward to all those in the House making
good use of it.
This has been an insightful debate and it was good to hear the
passion on both sides from hon. Members who really care about
this issue. New clause 1 only asks the Government to perform good
governance, in that we want them to have a plan, to report on the
plan and to be held accountable for the plan. The right place for
that to happen is here in Parliament.
I hope the Government have listened to the concerns in the House
about support for British farmers. I absolutely believe that they
are the best in the world and that we have raised the bar on
animal welfare standards and food production alike, but farmers
often feel as though they are fighting alone, with a Government
who just do not get it and are not on their side. We have seen
that through procurement, fair funding, trade deals and more. I
ask the Government to listen to those concerns not only on the
Opposition side, but across the House, and to ensure that, when
we demand so much of British farmers, we are on their side in
everything we do.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
[Division 213
The House divided:
Ayes
179
Noes
286
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 14 March 2022 at
9.27pm](/Commons/2022-03-14/division/C9A79C84-77B0-4F48-AA7D-1034D863A65A/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
9.42pm
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of
proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted
(Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the
disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing
Order No. 83E).
New clause 3
Report on the use of sentient animals in animal experimentation
in government policy
‘(1) The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report under
section 2 on the adverse effects on the welfare of animals of
government policy on experimentation on animals.
(2) The report shall cover both animal experimentation where
alternative (non-animal based) methods of testing exist, and
where no alternative exists.
(3) The report shall cover—
(a) medical testing,
(b) cosmetics testing, and
(c) weapons testing.
(4) This report shall include recommendations for future
government action under section 2 (3) and (4).’—(.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
[Division 214
The House divided:
Ayes
218
Noes
288
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 14 March 2022 at
9.42pm](/Commons/2022-03-14/division/4535938D-AC83-4205-867E-D136E4A1C1E5/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
New clause 5 has been selected for a separate decision.
New Clause 5
Report on the impact of Government policy on river pollution on
sentient animals
“The Animal Sentience Committee shall produce a report on the
impact of government policy on river pollution on sentient
animals.
(1) The annual report must include—
(a) the number of sentient animals killed or injured as a result
of polluted rivers.
(b) a description of the actions of water companies to guarantee
the protection of sentient animals.
(c) an assessment of the effect of government policy on (a) and
(b).
(2) The first annual report on the impact of polluted rivers on
sentient animals may relate to any 12 month period that includes
the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) The annual report must be published and laid before
Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which
the report relates.”—(.)
This new clause would require the Animal Sentience Committee to
produce a report on the impact of polluted rivers on sentient
animals.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
[Division 215
The House divided:
Ayes
179
Noes
286
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 14 March 2022 at
9.56pm](/Commons/2022-03-14/division/9C77126F-58B8-4F4A-9993-1E9835727D66/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Clause 2
Reports of the Committee
Amendment made: 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Recommendations made by the Committee must respect
legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in
particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional
heritage.”—( .)
This amendment seeks to place a duty on the Committee to have
regard to the balancing factors included in the Lisbon Treaty,
Article 13 of Title II, to which the UK was a party before
Brexit.
Third Reading
10.10pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a privilege to shepherd this Bill through the House.
Members in all parts stood on the manifesto—[Interruption,]
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Members are being amazingly rude. The Minister is trying
to put Third Reading to the House. There are people who have not
been here all evening and they are making a noise. Stop it!
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure the House that I will
be speaking. We all stood on a manifesto commitment to recognise
the sentience of animals, and here today we can say that we have
delivered on that promise. The Bill creates a timely, targeted
and proportionate accountability mechanism in the committee;
provides that expert assurance that Ministers are well informed;
and gives us greater transparency about policies. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank all hon. Members who contributed
to the scrutiny of the Bill and everyone who took time to share
their views with me, as this has helped to inform the discussion.
We have, I hope, reached a clear shared understanding of how this
Bill will work and of the fact that it will work.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for
Tiverton and Honiton () and his colleagues on the
Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their
rigorous and constructive scrutiny of the Bill. I am also
grateful to those who participated in the Public Bill Committee,
which was chaired with such efficiency and good humour by my hon.
Friend the Member for Broxbourne ( ). I thank the hon. Member
for Newport West () and her colleagues on the
Opposition Front Bench for their engagement. Special thanks are
due to my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (), for Workington () and for Bracknell () for the way they have
helped steer this Bill through. Proceedings on Bills depend on
hard work behind the scenes, and I thank the parliamentary
Clerks, the animal sentience top Bill team and my private office
for their support and their sense of humour throughout. This Bill
will recognise the fact of animal sentience in UK law, and I
commend it to the House.
10.12pm
(Newport West) (Lab)
I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is strictly
necessary, but it is good to see so many Government Members so
interested in the Third Reading of this Bill. As the shadow
Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and
Royton () noted in his excellent speech
on Report, the Government could have tackled this issue head on
had they not decided to oppose the recognition of animal
sentience, and had they decided to carry over the rules and
regulations covered by this legislation alongside the other laws
that were carried over in the EU withdrawal Bill.
This Bill is an important one, and the House will know that
Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for
Cambridge (), alongside my hon. Friend
the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (), have at all times sought to
be critical friends, and to provide a wise and objective view.
The Bill recognises that animals are sentient beings and creates
an accountability mechanism that aims to ensure that UK Ministers
have due regard to their welfare needs when formulating and
implementing Government policy. An appropriate committee will be
established to assess and report on the animal welfare impacts of
policy decisions that have been taken, or which may be taken, by
the Government. The relevant Secretary of State will be required
to lay a written statement before Parliament responding to any
such report. This is a small Bill, but it is an important one. If
the committee is not set up with the correct terms of reference,
or if it is not even allowed to establish its correct make-up, it
is merely a paper tiger and a waste of time.
I am so grateful to the many animal welfare campaigners —Arthur
Thomas and Claire Bass from Humane Society International, Matt
Browne from Wildlife and Countryside Link, and James West, Sonul
Badiani-Hamment and David Bowles—and all those who have worked
with colleagues across the House to make this Bill fit for
purpose. Let me also put in a word for my noble Friend . She is a fierce champion
of the strongest animal welfare protections, and it has been a
pleasure to work with her and .
I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of all those
involved in taking the Bill through the House, and I wish it
well. I thank the staff of the House, the Clerks, the Committee
staff and the parliamentary staff in the offices of all the
Members involved. I acknowledge all those who sat on the Bill
Committee, and give special thanks to our ever-present
departmental Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside
(), and to my hon. Friends the
Members for Bristol East (), for Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport and for Easington ().
I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with Opposition
Members in recent days, but I have a word of caution for her: she
must take every opportunity to rise up and take on her Back
Benchers in the fight to improve animal welfare standards. As we
have seen throughout the Bill’s passage, there remain some who
are just not willing to get this done. If the Minister and her
colleagues show that courage, they will have the co-operation of
those on our Benches.
10.15pm
I thank the many animal welfare organisations that have been in
touch with me, and the many constituents—I am sure this has been
the experience of Members on both sides of the House—who have
also been in touch because they really care. I thank all the
House staff; I thank the Clerks for all their efforts, and for
their patience with all of us during the relatively short period
for which the Bill has been in the House and in Committee.
I wish the new Animal Sentience Committee well in its
deliberations, and I look forward to seeing those deliberations
bear fruit in the form of real, positive actions from the
Government in the years ahead. We are known throughout these
islands for having the greatest regard and love for animals. Let
us do our level best by them, and show just how much we care
through the regard that the Government show for the committee’s
actions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without
amendment.
|
