Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Thursday 13th May 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 16th June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate. Today, in this House, we are opening a new chapter in this country’s proud story of protecting and promoting animal welfare. I am proud, as I hope your Lordships are, of the UK’s reputation as a nation of animal lovers. The UK introduced the world’s first animal protection law: the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822.
We have made a lot of progress in the two centuries that have followed. We improved conditions in slaughterhouses in 1875, and passed the Protection of Animals Act in 1911. We established a world-leading system for regulating scientific experiments on animals in 1986, and in 2006 the Animal Welfare Act introduced powers to protect all kept animals in England and Wales.
There has never been any question that this Government believe animals are sentient beings. We are now recognising this formally in domestic law and introducing a proportionate accountability mechanism to help reassure people that central government policy decisions take this into account. The Government’s manifesto promised that we would bring in new laws on animal sentience. Parties represented on the Benches opposite made similar pledges. This Bill is our opportunity to honour that commitment.
The Bill proposes three things. First, it provides a recognition in law that any animal with a spine—any vertebrate—is sentient. Sentience is about animals having feelings, both positive and negative, such as pain or joy. The scientific community is continually improving our knowledge of the sentience of different species. There is clear evidence that animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to extend this recognition to any invertebrate species in future; for example, if evidence of their sentience becomes clear.
Secondly, the Bill establishes a committee—the animal sentience committee—tasked with reporting on whether individual central government policy decisions have paid all due regard to their effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The animal sentience committee will have the right to roam across all central government departmental policy decisions. This includes decisions relating to policy formulation and policy implementation. The committee’s findings will be made public and its reports will make recommendations.
Thirdly and finally, the Bill obliges the relevant Minister to respond to each report from the committee through a Written Statement to Parliament. That Statement should set out the Minister’s response to the committee’s recommendations.
Taken together, the Bill’s provisions create a targeted and proportionate mechanism for holding the Government to account on animal welfare. The animal sentience committee’s reports and the ministerial responses to them will support Parliament’s scrutiny of how central government policy decisions pay all due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
The introduction of the Bill fulfils a key manifesto commitment, as I have said, and it will further the UK’s position as a global leader on animal welfare. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to remake laws and go further to promote animal welfare. Importantly, there are no policy exemptions in this Bill. It covers vertebrate animals in all settings and in all central government policy areas. If you accept, as this Government do, that animal sentience is a matter of fact, then you must properly consider animal welfare in relevant decisions that you make. By enshrining sentience in domestic law in this way, there will be further reassurance that government policy decisions have been made, taking into account the fact that animals have feelings.
It is important to understand what the Bill is and what it is not. It is intended to embed consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process. It does not change existing laws, nor does it dictate to Ministers which decisions they should ultimately make. It is for Ministers to make those calls, taking all relevant considerations into account, and for Parliament to hold them to account. The Bill is designed to support Parliament in doing so.
The committee will have the freedom to choose which policies it wants to explore and how it wishes to engage with the Government. The committee will be able to engage with government departments during the formulation of new policies. In doing so, it will be able to share its views on the ways in which animal welfare is relevant to a particular policy. This will help departments ensure that they have duly considered the relevance of animal welfare before key policy decisions are made, and avoid a formal report from the committee in which the committee comes to the view that the Government have given due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The committee can also consider how well policy decisions have considered positive improvements that could be made to animal welfare, rather than just considering whether adverse effects have been minimised.
We hope and expect that Ministers and their departments will engage constructively with the committee. My department will be able to support the committee in building productive relationships across government, helping Ministers to take welfare issues into account alongside other considerations. None the less, the committee will retain the ability, when needed, to express its opinion on the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings and the extent to which this has been taken into account. Ministers will be under an obligation in all circumstances to respond to Parliament within three months on any report of the animal welfare committee.
If there is one message that I hope the Bill gets across, it is that we have listened. We have heard the calls from this House, from the other place and from across the country, pushing for animal sentience to be enshrined in UK law. We have reflected carefully and brought to this House a robust Bill which aims to deliver clear and proportionate outcomes. The Bill provides recognition in law that animals are sentient and provides a targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism to ensure that this is taken into account in decision-making, alongside other considerations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chair of the Royal Veterinary College and as a person owned by two sentient horses. I know that they have feelings; I would define them in the following way. They experience comfort and joy when I wait on them hand and foot and bring them haylage, and frustration when I get things wrong in a dressage competition. I welcome the legislation that has now arrived, and there is much to welcome in it. It covers all government policy areas, as the Minister said, and means that all government departments will have to consider animal welfare and sentience issues when forming policy. The Bill also applies to wildlife. The animal sentience committee created by the Bill has potential but needs to be toughened if it is to fulfil the potential for increased recognition and application of animal sentience principles across government as a whole.
What strengthening should we be looking for? Strangely, the Bill does not lay a direct duty on Ministers but on the committee, so the committee needs not a discretionary power to review government policy but a mandated duty to review all policies that fall within defined criteria of having the potential for a significant adverse effect on the welfare of animals. The Bill should also require all government departments to inform the committee when such policies are being drawn up, and positively and proactively to seek the views of the committee. What guidance will be given to other government departments to encourage them to take this responsibility seriously? Will all the guidance associated with the Bill be published during its passage in your Lordships’ House?
The committee also needs more clarity about its powers. It needs independent powers and adequate resources to fund a secretariat and to have the ability to call witnesses, commission research and have access to documents. Can the Minister tell us his plan for resources, both funding and staff? Can I also ask the Minister for clarity on the rumours that the committee might be tucked in as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee? The ASC needs a separate status. The AWC provides reactive scientific advice to Defra alone, and the new committee will proactively review government policy decisions across all departments—a very different role. The ASC must work transparently, publishing all its advice to government and having a direct role with the strong public interest in this issue. It should also demonstrate accountability by having a statutory duty to report direct to Parliament annually and the right to a formal response from the Government in Parliament. On the overall working of the committee, such strengthening would mean that the arrangements could be seen as being in the first division globally, but it would be useful to know what ideas the Minister has drawn from the best global examples of such mechanisms. I include in the best global examples the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the arrangements in the Netherlands and those in New Zealand.
Importantly, the Bill must include a duty on government to create and maintain an animal sentience strategy. If it does not, all the responsibility is offshored to the ASC and guidance needs to be given, by means of that strategy, on the policy issues that the ASC would primarily concentrate on, though not to the exclusion of others at the ASC’s discretion.
Lastly, the definition of “animal” should be expanded in the Bill. It currently applies to all vertebrates other than man. Ministers have indicated that the definition could be widened to include invertebrates if new evidence of sentience came forward. It appears that there is already sufficient evidence of sentience among cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, as is the case in the Scottish arrangements. When will the independent review of the subject be published, and can it be expedited so that we can include these animal groups in the Bill as it goes through both Houses? If the Minister is in any doubt about this latter point of inclusion of wider groups, I urge him to view the award-winning documentary “My Octopus Teacher”, which explores the rather bizarre and strange but nevertheless emotional relationship between a man and an octopus. I hope that he enjoys it but has a box of tissues to hand.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests with the RSPCA as set out in the register. Given that, naturally, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is in the vanguard of a whole suite of animal welfare measures to come. Many of us have sought in vain to expedite them over many years, so I am delighted by this first taster.
That said, I have some reservation about the Bill and agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Why is animal sentience not defined in the Bill? Maybe there is a good reason for this, but it is not clear to me, and if you are going to have something that is legal, it must be clearly defined. May I ask about that?
Secondly, I naturally welcome the setting up of the committee. But again, I think the terms of reference could usefully be widened. I note that it is there to look at “adverse” circumstances that might impact on animals. Why could it not be extended to beneficial ones, which would give it a more constructive remit?
I am also concerned that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint, and appoint the terms of reference for, the people on the committee. I am sure that the present Government are most anxious that these should be people of excellent experience and integrity. I remind my noble friend that not only do Ministers come and go, but so do Governments. I would like to know that this is more tightly constrained so that we still have a very effective committee in future. In the meantime, could the Government give us some indication of the kind of people they wish to see: their breadth of interests, and their ability to act independently without fear or favour and to tell the Government the truth they may not always want to hear? The capacity of that committee in terms of membership is absolutely vital, because if it does not exercise the powers it is given it is absolutely useless.
I come to the question also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of the definition of “animal”. I believe very strongly that there is already sufficient evidence to indicate that non-vertebrates should be included in the Bill. It is not good enough that it should be there in reserve, as it were, for a Minister to take up later. I am indebted to Crustacean Compassion for a great deal of detailed evidence on the research that has already been taken out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, noted, a report was commissioned by Defra and I wonder what has happened to it. I hope it will be published very soon and I will be extraordinarily surprised if it does not back up the research we already have. I hope then that the Bill could be amended during its passage through Parliament to allow this to happen.
I have been shocked by some of the treatment of animals such as lobsters, crabs, and squid, in the way they have been stored and very often killed. There was one horrible example of a supermarket tightly wrapping a live crab in single-use plastic—a double abomination so far as I am concerned—and lobsters are still plunged alive into boiling water. I understand that there are perfectly good stunning machines which could do this job humanely. Indeed, I want the committee to look at that to see what it could suggest for improved methods of storage of animals intended for slaughter and their actual killing.
I hope my noble friend will not tell me that we still need a lot more research. If he does, then I remind him that in the Environment Bill currently going through this House there are several principles, including the precautionary principle—which suggests that you do not need absolute certainty before you act if there is a reasonable chance that something is wrong. This is one reason I call for the Bill to be amended to include invertebrates. Indeed, several European countries already care for invertebrates. This is also true in countries across the world—in New Zealand and some of the Australian states, for example. My noble friend made much of our proud history of animal welfare. That is fine, but we are behind these countries on this and I ask him: why?
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in conservation and wildlife organisations, as set out in the register.
It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow not only my noble friend Lady Fookes but the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, two indomitable proponents of animal welfare. Let me also welcome my noble friend Lord Benyon to the Front Bench, leading his first Bill in this House. He is by no means a debutant, having been a very eminent Defra Minister in the other place. I feel very confident that the Bill is in safe hands and look forward to working with him constructively on it. His excellent opening remarks mean that I do not have to delay this Chamber for long and there is no need to repeat what he so eloquently outlined earlier.
The Bill has been a little delayed in appearing before Parliament, but it is here now, and I believe the Government have the balance about right. As we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Fookes, this is another welcome measure that Her Majesty’s Government are introducing to the animal welfare sphere. I understand from the action plan that there is a lot more to come, which is really great news.
The notion of animal sentience is not new, and the Bill is not a radical measure. However, the creation of a committee is a sensible option to ensure that the right balance can be achieved. Of course, as we have already heard and I have some sympathy with, there will be questions around the membership of the committee, its independence and the resources given, but I do not think that needs to be a major issue.
There is also a legitimate point about whether the definition of “animal” in the Bill is wide enough. I believe there is divided opinion on whether invertebrates can be classed as sentient. Most research has focused on mammals and birds. I was relieved to hear that homo sapiens is not included because it could have caused me problems retrospectively if, in my previous career as a Whip, I had caused pain in any way to people with or without backbones. But that is best left where it is.
I was initially rather sceptical about the position of decapod crustaceans, including lobsters, crabs and crayfish, and cephalopods, including octopus, squid and cuttlefish. However, more recently I have come to the opinion that these should be included. The Government have commissioned an independent review into their sentience and, as the two noble Baronesses preceding me asked, is my noble friend the Minister able to indicate where that review has got to, and when we are likely to hear from it and hear a government response? It is certainly worthy of consideration, especially as experiments, particularly with octopus species, have shown they feel pain. This has led to a situation where cephalopods are protected from use in science and experiments, but at the same time not recognised as sentient. These are all matters for consideration in Committee. In the meantime, I look forward to this Bill receiving a well-deserved Second Reading.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his introduction and description in broad terms of how the Bill is going to work. I would like to ask for confirmation, if the Minister can give that, on two aspects: one general in relation to the working of the Bill, and the second in relation to a specific practice.
These questions arise from the importance of policy issues which have to be considered in the round with welfare of animals, on which the Minister touched. The remit of the committee is fixed by statute. It is a clearly limited remit dealing with adverse effects on the welfare of animals and recommendations in particular circumstances. The committee therefore has no power to take into account wider policy considerations, such as would have complemented or do complement Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which the United Kingdom played a major role in. Those exceptions include, but are not limited to, religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
My question to the Minister on the wider operation of the Bill is: is it envisaged that, in the course of a report’s preparation by the committee, the Government will take into account those matters in formulating their response and placing it with Parliament? That is the general issue: how, when and in what manner will the Government take into account what one might describe as the wider picture, in addition to animal welfare, in the operation of the Act?
My second point is very specific. Bearing in mind that, as has been pointed out, Ministers and Secretaries of State come and go and that the Secretary of State has sole control over the appointment of people on the committee—we do not yet know who they will be or what their views may be—I ask the Minister for a specific confirmation, in line with many assurances that have been given in recent years. Can he confirm—this will deflate a degree of anxiety—that it remains government policy, to which the Government foresee no change, that there will be no prohibition of or restriction on Jewish religious slaughter—shechita? I am not in any sense suggesting that there is anything contrary to the welfare of animals—there is a great deal of evidence about how humane that method of killing is, but that is not the point—I am simply asking for confirmation today that the present policy will continue and that the Government see no reason why it would change in the future.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this much-awaited Bill, the first in this Session in a package around animal welfare—an important collection of legislation. There is much to welcome, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is vital that we get it right. Mahatma Gandhi acutely observed:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
This is also a topic that the general public take much interest in.
I declare my interests: I am the director of a company that owns some farmland, and I served on the Rural Economy Committee recently and on the Farm Animal Welfare Council some time ago. On a personal level, I have and have had a number of family pets and would describe myself as a passionate animal lover.
Much has already been said about what sentience is or is not, both today and in past debates in this House. For me, the definition of animals’ sentience should include both the emotional and physical and enable them to be treated humanely. This has long been encapsulated by the five freedoms originally developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress.
In government and trade terms, the important thing is that the Bill separates sentient beings from inanimate objects and ensures that adequate provisions are made to respect and treat sentient beings appropriately. Our knowledge of the sentience of different animals, birds and living creatures continues to grow, so it is important that the Bill allows future extensions of the definition to be incorporated without having to pass more primary legislation. I await with interest the Government’s review into the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, and I welcome the ability of the secondary legislation powers in the Bill to look at this in detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already mentioned the spellbinding and very moving documentary “My Octopus Teacher”—I also thoroughly recommend it if noble Lords have not seen it—where the scientist Craig Foster forms a bond with a young octopus in a South Africa kelp forest. It describes how the octopus provided a lesson on the fragility of life and humanity’s connection with nature. It shows without doubt that an octopus can form a relationship—and I too recommend a box of tissues for the end.
I am pleased that the Bill covers all animals, including wildlife, but, clearly, consideration has to be proportionate. Balancing welfare and health issues, such as in the case of infestations of rats or mice in one’s home, can be a difficult dilemma; similarly where rabbits or other animals are stealing food crops or vegetables or where deer need to be culled for their own benefit. However, I would always argue that every being should be treated as compassionately as possible, whatever the circumstances.
As I mentioned, I did several terms of office on the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which was rolled into what is now the Animal Welfare Committee, with an expanded role to advise the Government on not only farmed animals but companion animals and kept wild animals. I wonder how the setting up of the animal sentience committee will affect the work of the AWC: will it not sometimes replicate its work, and what happens if they do not agree?
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain the thinking behind this newly formed animal sentience committee and how it will work in a complementary manner with the AWC and co-ordinate with other such committees, such as the Animal Wellness and Welfare Committee, which cover similar remits. Of course, the effectiveness of the ASC will largely be dependent on its make-up and how it works in practice. I agree that it should comprise independent members, with an appropriate range of expertise, experience and perspectives. It also important that it includes someone not professionally involved, and lays a report before Parliament each year.
The Government have promised us more detail in guidance; will my noble friend the Minister undertake to have a draft of that guidance published so that we can consider it alongside the Committee stage of the Bill? I am sure that this guidance will clarify many issues, including the following ones. How will the committee cope with monitoring existing policies in addition to the new ones? What resources will it be given? How will it be ensured that the committee looks across all departments? Will Ministers have a duty to notify the ASC of areas of policy formation? Will its remit extend to advising the trade and agriculture commission? Does the Minister expect the ASC to comment on the merits of a decision being made or to make recommendations for improvements during the policy formation process?
Charles Darwin once said:
“The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”
I welcome the Bill and the opportunities that it affords.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, we have waited some time for this Bill. I have here my speech on the EU withdrawal Bill, in which the Government tried to dump animal sentience. Many of us tried to bring it back into the Bill. I suggested then that the reason that they were dumping this and other aspects of EU law, which they had promised to bring over in its entirety, was that they wanted to use Brexit as an excuse to dump a whole set of existing EU rules that promoted social justice and environmental protections—how prescient of me.
We all know that the EU’s animal sentience protocol changed the way that animals were treated across the continent. Some 20 years ago, Britain used its presidency of the EU to ensure that animals were treated as sentient beings and not just as agricultural goods. Future legislation had to take account of animal well-being: Ministers had to pay full regard. The Government scraped a 13-vote majority on the amendment tabled in the other place by Caroline Lucas MP because the Minister at the time, Michael Gove, told the House that the animal sentience protocol was already UK law. There was a huge backlash on social media from people correcting that statement. Of course, the Government then promised to put something in another Bill—they have tried various times and it has always been totally inadequate.
The Minister said that this was a robust Bill. It is not. He also said things like, “it is targeted and proportionate”. It is not proportionate. He also said that the Bill honours the Government’s commitments. No, it absolutely does not. It worries me that the Government make so many promises and then fail to deliver. That is very poor government.
This Bill is the Government pretending to do something about animal sentience, because they know that the general public really care. It is a PR exercise, and it will not prove adequate for the situation we face. Essentially, the Government are hiving off their responsibility on animals to a committee. Sometimes, having a committee of experts is not a bad thing, because, of course, Ministers cannot be up on every single issue, but that committee has to be listened to. On the climate change statutory instrument that some of us debated yesterday, a Minister explained all the reasons why the Government were simply ignoring the Committee on Climate Change. It had made a recommendation and the Government went against it, because they said they had their own judgment. Instead of stopping using carbon credits to make up for domestic failures to reduce CO2, which the Committee on Climate Change had suggested was the only way forward, the Government wimped out of serious action on the climate emergency and signed up to spew an extra 500 million tonnes of carbon into our damaged and delicate atmosphere. In a way, this Bill is doing the same thing. That incident proves the inherent, intentional weakness of such advisory committees. No matter how well-meaning, how well resourced or how hard-working the committee is, the Government can simply ignore it and do their own thing. Just as they did with climate change and carbon credits, they can do with animal welfare and animal sentience.
There is a lot that needs to be improved in this Bill, but it almost feels like wasted effort, because I know that the whole premise of the Bill is designed to make it completely ineffective. This is reflected in the Long Title, which seems designed to frame the scope of the Bill so tightly around the animal sentience committee that it would not be possible to table amendments that were not focused on the committee. This will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to place any serious duties on the Government beyond those in the Bill, which in practice will be little more than listing the reasons why they are ignoring the committee.
Of course, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans should be included in the definition of sentient animals. After four years of waiting, and many Members of your Lordships’ House urging that there should not be a gap—but there has been—the Government have finally published a Bill that, if one graded it, would get an F for fail. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register and my position in the Countryside Alliance.
In 1789, the great philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, said of animals that
“the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”
In truth, Parliament has answered that question for two centuries by passing a canon of animal welfare laws. We have always accepted that animals can suffer, that they are sentient—indeed, I would argue that the question of sentience is a simple matter of fact: vertebrates clearly are sentient, and that is recognised in the body of laws we have already passed.
However, there is a question about whether simply adding “sentience” to the law as an expression, as this Bill does, will advance animal welfare legislation or treating animals in the way that is intended. We need to consider a number of questions as we examine the Bill.
The first is to distinguish clearly between animal rights and animal welfare. I submit that every one of us is subscribed to the principles of animal welfare: that we should treat animals humanely, compassionately and properly. The idea that animals have rights which are in some way akin to human rights is much more problematic, and obviously so. Most of us—not all—who agree and feel strongly that animals must be treated properly and humanely, also eat animals and probably support their use in scientific research. The distinction between animal rights and animal welfare is important when it comes to considering the difference between wild and domestic animals. It is obvious, for instance, that a domestic animal under our control deserves to be watered and fed properly, and if we do not do that we break the law and rightly can be held responsible for such cruel treatment, but with a wild animal, even if it is on land that a farmer owns, that farmer can have no responsibility for feeding and watering it—it is not under his control. It is only when wild animals are brought under domestic control or the control of individuals that they deserve the protection of the law. Instantly, we see that the doctrine of animal rights is unhelpful in guiding us as to how we should treat animals.
Secondly, we need to advance the protection of animals on the basis of principle and evidence and ensure that we can as far as possible detach what is often powerful emotion from the debate. The exercise of emotion in any aspect of lawmaking can lead to bad law—parliamentarians doing things because, in the worst case, they think it is popular or they are driven by their own sentiment. We have to be more careful and forensic than that because there are competing interests to be balanced. This Chamber above all chambers needs to exercise the cool reason that is sometimes absent from the consideration of the elected Chamber, driven as it is by more populist urges—I say that having been a Member of the other place for 15 years.
Thirdly, the principle must be right that Ministers make decisions and do not subcontract them to unelected bodies, even where they are appointed by those Ministers. It is one thing for Ministers to be guided; it is another to passport decisions to bodies that cannot properly be held to account for them. It is an irony that the Bill introducing this principle—albeit constrained by a committee—is being brought forward just as the Government are seeking to constrain judicial review precisely because of their concern that it is interfering with ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility for decisions matters because Ministers are accountable to Parliament and Parliament is in turn accountable to the people, while unelected committees are not. We have surely just understood the importance of that. The dangers were perfectly illustrated by the misleading campaign against the decision initially not to import the decision on sentience from the EU.
We have had animal welfare laws in our country for 200 years, since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act was introduced. Our animal welfare standards go far beyond the minimums set by the EU. I respectfully disagree entirely with the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, somehow, animal welfare in this country was advanced by our subscription to the EU and the principle of sentience that it introduced. That is simply not the case. We need to remember that the principles of sentience are not in dispute. That we should treat animals properly is not in dispute. But what matters is that Ministers and Parliament should ultimately decide, and that we should not find ourselves subcontracting decisions to bodies that are accountable neither to us nor to the public but can be pressured by outside interests.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Horse Trust, president of the Countryside Alliance, a member of the RSPCA and a farmer. I admit that I probably spend more time in the company of animals than I do with your Lordships.
If this Bill proceeds in its present form, I have a strong premonition that future Governments will look back on it and ask, “Why on earth did we do this?” As the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has just indicated, for 200 years animal sentience has been accepted by all—or all other than complete nutters—and the result has been animal welfare legislation enacted on that basis. I have no objection at all to it being explicitly stated in legislation or to future legislation being animal-proofed, although I hope that it would work better than rural-proofing—but it is strictly unnecessary. What I am not clear about is why it is being done in the way in which it has.
Like the first Bill, which Michael Gove, the then Environment Minister, wisely withdrew, it is likely to benefit lawyers, at the taxpayers’ expense, and to be a bureaucratic nightmare with no limit to its remit, unlike the EU animal sentience provision, no provision for adequate funding for such wide scope, and a real danger of a committee composition dictated by animal rights pressure groups. Why do the Government not simply insert their animal sentience clause by a simple amendment of the Animal Welfare Act? If they want a committee to look at legislation, they already have one in the Animal Welfare Committee, whose remit could easily be expanded, as it has been in the past.
Gesture politics, which I fear is some little part of the motivation of this Bill, to enable the Government to say to the electorate, “This is what we did for animals”, is sadly not just a waste of parliamentary time when real animal welfare proposals just cannot get time but, as history has shown, often does little or nothing for the animals directly affected. I will give two short examples. The first is fairly recent: the Wild Animals in Circuses Act, which is proudly trumpeted by the present Secretary of State as being one of the party’s animal welfare achievements, actually worsened the position of the only animals involved. As I recall, there were under 20 of them, and no new licences were going to be granted in any event; they were not lions or tigers, as you might imagine, but a few zebra, an African cow and several others that I think I remember were some kind of llama. All had been born in captivity, licensed and regularly inspected, and it was agreed that all were superbly looked after and much loved by their owners, with whom they travelled in state of the art horseboxes to prearranged extensive grazing at sites. They did not perform degrading tricks; they were, effectively, pets. That Act forced their owners to leave them behind when they travelled to perform. There was no animal welfare gain to them or any other animal, and a good routine of care and affection was destroyed.
My party spent more than 200 hours of parliamentary time on the Hunting Act, which brought no benefit at all to the fox population—quite the contrary. A method of control that was selective, with a closed breeding season, and left no wounded, was replaced with snaring and night shooting with none of those features, which killed and wounded far more. So was it good electorally for Labour? I suspect that that is part of the Government’s motivation behind this Bill. If so, Labour should have won general election after general election after all that effort—and the result we know. Of 100 rural seats that Labour held under Tony Blair, only 17 remain now.
Yet under successive Governments, nothing has been done about the elephant in the room—and I am sorry to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that I do not agree. In this country, every year, 40 million farm animals are slaughtered without pre-stunning. The expert view is that many of them suffer unnecessarily. We are not world leaders here: other countries in Europe and around the world have stopped this practice and more are doing so. I pay special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who will speak later, and to those working with him, who are looking at ways of pre-stunning that are acceptable to the religious communities for whom it is important. I also pay tribute to the Muslim community, which is working with them, and I hope the Jewish community will follow. There are ways in which religious sensitivities and stopping unnecessary suffering at slaughter can be combined. So I ask the Minister for a commitment that there will be real and urgent progress on this, because that would be a real advance in animal welfare, and not just a gesture.
We rightly call ourselves a nation of animal lovers and we feel strongly about animal suffering, but the Government need to recognise that the majority of people own no animal, and those who do in the main have a cat or dog which they regard as a member of the family. For most, the experience of farm animals or wild animals is drawn largely from television, and it is too often sentimental, anthropomorphic and presented by animal rights activists. That is their template for expressing their views about what they feel is right or wrong in the treatment of animals. Yet too often, some who would say that they were the greatest of animal lovers do not recognise that, by keeping a lone rabbit in a small cage or a dog with deformed facial features because it looks more appealing, or leaving one alone in a small flat with inadequate exercise, they are themselves denying a much-loved pet its natural needs.
The Government have to be alerted to the dangers of campaigns with apparent public support that is often uninformed or misinformed, and to distinguish real animal welfare measures from the priorities of some of the vocal and well-funded animal rights groups. If there is to be a committee, as others have said, it must be independent and also be composed of qualified experts from the field of animal welfare and animal behaviour—not pressure groups or popular TV presenters—and it must make its findings on the basis of evidence and science, not emotion.
The Minister has come to this Bill at a late stage. I ask him to look very carefully at what has been said today. It is not an uncontroversial Bill, and there must be better ways of putting animal sentience on the statute book without the dangers that are clear for all to see here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness has just said, and it is a pleasure to follow her. I have to say that, in more than 35 years in both Houses, I have never seen a more badly drafted Bill—which has left me wondering what on earth its purpose is. It is a most extraordinary Bill. It purports to set up a committee, but the Government do not need primary legislation to set up a committee—we already have the Animal Welfare Committee. It purports to enshrine the concept of sentience in law, but we already have the concept of sentience—although, as my noble friend Lady Fookes points out, it fails to define what it means by sentience. To me, sentience means ability to feel pain—but some of the advocates of the Bill are talking about emotions and discussing animals in anthropomorphic terms.
The Bill has six clauses—it looks simple—but listening to the speeches of noble Lords who are perhaps less sympathetic to the Bill, as well as those who are enthusiastic about it, we have already heard about how many holes there are in this legislation and how it fails to deal with a number of important points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed to the EU legislation that governed us and was introduced in the Lisbon treaty. For the first time in my life, I am actually going to praise the EU. I spent my life arguing that we were unable to decide our own affairs and that the EU came along with legislation and we gold-plated it. Well, the EU legislation said:
“In formulating … the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions … of the EU countries relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
There are no horrors there for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The scope and nature of that legislation was clear, in a way that this Bill is not.
There is no threat here to religious rites, or to my fly-fishing either. This Bill goes much further. There is no definition of animal sentience and, in answer to the question from my noble friend Lady Fookes about why there is no definition, it is because it is very difficult to define, so the Government have not done it. However, as so many people have pointed out, we all know what animal sentience means, and we have had it for more than 200 years. As my noble friend the Minister said, in this country we have a proud record; we had legislation concerned with animal welfare before we had legislation concerned with child welfare.
There are no terms of reference for the committee in this legislation. This very week, our Constitution Committee has complained about this Government’s continuing use of Henry VIII clauses and secondary legislation, and about not providing guidance to that legislation. Yet this is another Bill which blithely says that, if there is a change in the view about animals which do not have spines, we can—by secondary legislation—extend the committee’s work to include that. There is no reference to what kind of evidence would be required or scientific input made. Why is it necessary for this to be given as a secondary power? If there is an issue, and the evidence for it, the Government would presumably amend the welfare Act in the normal way.
The scope of the Bill is extraordinary. It says:
“When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there should be a duty on each department to tell this committee if there is a policy being formulated so that it can opine. How many people is the committee going to have working for it, if every single initiative going on in government which affects animals has got to be reported to it and it has to opine on it? What does it do? It produces a report, like this House does with its Select Committees, and the Government have to respond within three months. In this House, the rule is, I think, eight weeks, but some have been waiting more than a year for a response from the Government. Sometimes, the Government’s responses indicate that the recommendations have not, perhaps, been considered as seriously as they might. I do not see what the purpose of the Bill is and how it will change anything, except to create a lot of division and anger where they are not necessary or required.
There is nothing in the Bill to say how the committee is going to be staffed and resourced; it is going to be hugely expensive. My own committee, the Economic Affairs Committee, was not very keen on HS2. I cannot imagine how considering animal welfare issues would have impacted on large projects such as that, given that, as my noble friend Lord Herbert pointed out, there is no distinction being made between wild animals and those which are subject to the care and responsibility of individuals. It seems to me that the nature of the committee and its recommendations are wide open to judicial review if Ministers do not take those recommendations on board. Nothing in the Bill gives me any comfort on that.
We have an Animal Welfare Committee. If we want to have a sub-committee to consider sentience, it should be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee. If it is to cover all government departments, whose department is responsible? In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that it would be his department, so he is going to be operating across the whole of the Government. If I were him, I would hope for a change in the reshuffle, rather than deal with all that. For once I can agree, with enthusiasm, with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who said that the Bill feels like a piece of virtue signalling and PR which has got nothing whatever to do with ensuring that our animals are properly cared for.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Forsyth, even if it is, I am afraid, going from the sublime to the ridiculous. As your Lordships know, the intention of the Bill is to form a committee to make Her Majesty’s Government aware of the impact of their actions on the animal kingdom. I fear that the Bill, as drafted, is so broad—as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out—that there is a danger that, with a little imagination, anyone wishing to act in a vexatious manner could use its good intentions to stray into unintended areas and clog up government business in ways that no one has yet thought of. As the Bill is presently drafted, the committee may be able to review matters retrospectively, which I would suggest is another recipe for disaster.
So far as I can see, there is no restriction on anyone initiating a request for a report by the committee. While it will be up to a Minister whether or not to accept a report, there is huge scope for deliberately trying to place Ministers in awkward or embarrassing situations. I suggest that the Minister looks at amending the Bill to give the committee a well-defined remit, so that it can focus on the laudable aims for which it was set up and not get distracted. I further suggest that the process for initiating an investigation is clearly set out. I am concerned that, if the Bill is not more precise, Her Majesty’s Government might find that their ability to carry out their business was severely hampered. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s view on whether a decision by a Minister, or government department, not to accept a report from the committee could be subject to a judicial review.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is unsatisfactory on at least four grounds: it is unnecessary; it duplicates existing protections; it is retrospective; and it is filled with uncertainty.
There is already in existence the Animal Welfare Committee, which is an expert committee of Defra. Its job is:
“To provide independent, authoritative, impartial and timely advice, to Defra … on the welfare of farmed animals, including farmed animals on agricultural land, at market, in transit and at the place of killing … on any other matters that might be considered necessary to improve standards of animal welfare”.
It also gives advice to Defra
“on the welfare of companion animals and wild animals kept by people”,
and
“independent scientific support and advice … on the protection of animals at the time of killing”.
The Animal Welfare Committee had its remit extended to the welfare of all animals in 2019, without the need for a statute. Quite how this committee and the one proposed in the Bill will work together is unclear. We do not know what the composition of the committee will be, or whether it will be independent as well as containing sufficient expertise. It needs to be free of lobbyists. How will it or the Government consult or interact with the public?
It is not proven that a new law would improve animal welfare, but the risks in it are considerable. It was suggested that withdrawal from Europe necessitated new legislation, but let it not be argued that this country will somehow be lagging behind. Farm animal abuses are widespread in the European Union, with pigtail docking, long-distance transport and slaughterhouse practices all areas of immediate concern. Intensive farms in Europe are particularly problematic, as revealed by the European Court of Auditors, with economic interests often trumping welfare rules. The European animal welfare law in the Lisbon treaty, although it now seems pretty ineffective in protecting animals in Europe, was on paper more balanced than the remit of the committee in the Bill. Article 13 of the treaty says that animal welfare should be balanced against customs relating to
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
whereas there is no such balance in the Bill.
The public interest in the use of animals is also absent. We need to use animals in medical research. Animal testing was vital in our successful development of vaccines against Covid-19. Studies in mice, ferrets and primates showed that the vaccines were likely to work, and other animal tests showed that the finished products were safe. Animals were also used in the basic biological research that allowed this approach in the first place. It would be tragic if the animal rights lobby got in the way of this vital progress in research, by putting animal welfare ahead of human life. Yet the committee proposed by the Bill might be so hijacked, or there might be an unwarranted attack on country sports. This is because the committee might choose to report on a policy which, in its view, has had an adverse effect on animal welfare in the past.
Despite the requirement in European law on balance, the European Court of Justice upheld last year a Belgian ban on Jewish and Muslim practices of slaughter without stunning. The argument that stunning is less injurious than non-stunning does not hold water. We should not apply double standards. The Food Standards Agency survey of 2017 estimated that hundreds of millions of animals were killed without effective stunning; gassing, in particular, causes great distress to animals killed that way. The European Food Safety Authority reported that 180 million chickens and other poultry were killed in the most recent count using insufficient electric charge. Time does not permit for the recounting of other horrors—the breaking of rabbits’ necks or the fish starved and suffocated. We even mistreat our pets, breeding them to a lifetime of ill health and depriving them of their natural habitats. If the committee were to do any good, it should concern itself with making sure that slaughter methods are carried out as they should be and that existing welfare standards are enforced.
Fish are not included in the Bill, but there is certainly a case for including crustaceans, which have been shown to react to pain and yet are killed by being broken to pieces alive or boiled alive—a fate too horrific for me ever to want to touch one. My point is that we should not see ourselves as a nation uniquely kind to animals. Nor should we apply double standards—on which note I refer to the fact that kosher killing is carried out with the utmost attention to care and science. I follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton in noting that, in the past, the Government have committed not to ban traditional Jewish slaughter methods. Will the Minister now repeat that commitment?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the debate on the Bill, which I hope will bring about further improvements in animal welfare standards that are much needed.
I spent 15 years on the animal welfare parliamentary intergroup in Brussels, for 10 of which I was vice-president. Over the years, we saw much greater awareness by the majority of countries that ill treatment of and cruelty towards both domestic pets and farm animals, for example, would no longer be tolerated by members of the public. It was clear that good animal husbandry produced the quality products that most people desired. I must say that, here in the UK, contrary to what has been said by some noble Lords, we do in fact set some of the highest standards throughout the world. I must also comment on what was said by some noble Lords about the EU that, while the EU has pretty strict laws in place, it certainly does not enforce them. So many countries across the European Union do not comply with even the minimum standards that have been laid down for many years.
In any event, this is not just about domestic animals; we must also look at the cruelty that is takes place in zoos and circuses and at wildlife trafficking, because this has become far more prevalent. I was very pleased to host an exhibition in the European Parliament for Born Free a few years ago, where the phenomenal Virginia McKenna launched the agenda to raise the issue of endangered species. The fact that we now have so much support from great influential figures, such as Prince William, is starting to make a difference.
I, like other noble Lords, have seen probably some of the worst footage of animal cruelty, such as horses being transported across Europe and beaten with steel bars in the slaughterhouses in Italy—with those really great EU standards, of course—or, also in Europe, practices such as bullfighting, the Pamplona run and the Toro Jubilo, where fireworks are tied to the horns of bulls. They are set on fire and, basically, the bulls panic and run all over the place; it is absolutely appalling. There are also the hunting dogs hanged from trees and left to starve when they have finished with their hunting for the season. And these are all just on this sophisticated continent.
On the issue of slaughter, some European countries have insisted on stunning for both halal and kosher slaughter. If other European countries can do that, I see no reason at all why it should not take place in the United Kingdom. It is something to work towards. But if we look further afield and at what is happening in other countries, perhaps where we have influence when we are talking about trade deals, we can see bear bile, dogs being skinned and cooked alive, as well as tiger farms in China—purely for medicinal use—and bears kept in cages, dancing for tourists along with elephants across Asia. So it goes on.
However, if I am anything, I am an optimist. On a positive note, many young people are now campaigning on these issues, so there is hope. But it is no use bringing in new legislation unless we are prepared to enforce it. The terms of reference for the committee must allow it to make decisions that will be acted on and rules that can be enforced. As a new Member in this House, I take noble Lords’ point that we need to make sure that there is clarity on how the committee is formulated and that the Government do not become bogged down in different departments where there is a contradiction over what should happen. That will not help anyone. If things can be put into the right context, they will improve with this Bill, which I fully support. I hope and believe that there will be then be progress for the future.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and hope that it gets its Second Reading this afternoon. I welcome, too, the Minister’s clear outline of the purposes of the Bill; I have no doubt that the Bill is in safe hands in the Minister’s custody, given his long and distinguished service as a Defra Minister in the other place. It is good to see him here in this House.
There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in all four countries of the United Kingdom will welcome the Government bringing forward legislation to safeguard animal welfare by recognising animal sentience in law. A recent petition calling for an animal sentience law easily received over 100,000 signatures and was debated last year in the House of Commons.
Noble Lords will recall the debate on Article 13 of the European Union treaty and the fact that, following Brexit, these provisions no longer apply directly. I am pleased, like other noble Lords, that we are now taking steps to fill the gap and make legislative provision for animal sentience. However, it is important, in respecting the devolved settlements, of course, to have consistency across the United Kingdom and that the provisions we are looking at today are also looked at carefully by the devolved Administration in each of the countries that have devolved powers.
In Northern Ireland, the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 includes a number of provisions to prevent harm to, and promote the welfare of, animals, but legislation there does not include explicit reference to animal sentience. The Welsh Government have made it clear that they fully agree that animals are sentient beings with the capacity for positive and negative experiences, such as distress or pleasure. However, while recent legislation was introduced in Wales in relation to wild animals in circuses, there has been no overarching legislation in this area. In Scotland, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recently made a statement on animal sentience, which described how animal sentience and animal welfare are defined and interpreted in Scotland. So, while I welcome this legislation this afternoon, it is clear that the devolved Administrations have not yet moved in this area and explicitly referenced animal sentience in their provisions. The Prime Minister’s office stated, on 11 May, in background briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech, that the Government would
“work closely with the devolved administrations to discuss these policies.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on how those discussions are proceeding with each of the devolved Governments to ensure a consistent approach.
I want to touch briefly on a number of clauses in the Bill. I am pleased that the legislation will apply to wildlife and across all government policy areas and departments. But I share the concerns of a number of animal welfare charities that Clause 5 is too narrowly defined and that the current definition of an animal as “any vertebrate” needs to be expanded. That is unnecessarily narrow. I accept there is provision, as has been mentioned, for delegated legislation to expand the definition. But I am not sure, first, why there is any need to delay and, secondly, why it should be a matter for such legislation rather than being included in the primary legislation.
Central to this Bill is the creation of the animal sentience committee. It will be given much of the responsibility for ensuring that the duty to animals is effectively discharged, and it needs to be properly resourced and empowered to be able to help and, if necessary, effectively challenge Ministers on fulfilling their duties. There needs to be more detail about how the committee will work and its powers, and that will be examined in Committee. One area that has been highlighted already is that the Bill creates a discretionary duty for the committee to review whether a government policy has had appropriate regard for the welfare of animals. I agree that the committee should be given a clear, mandatory duty to review policies both prospectively and retrospectively. A number of groups have suggested that there needs to be a mechanism to require Ministers to inform the committee when a policy within its scope has been developed, to keep it advised. I know concerns have been raised about where this might lead and about the burden of work, but I think that is a wise and sensible move, with common sense and proportionality. Of course the committee needs to be transparent, open and fully accountable to Parliament, but its independence and autonomy are important if it is to do the work that needs to be done. Of course, people will support it in that function.
I warmly welcome the progress on this issue, and I look forward to further stages when the Bill can be examined in detail and, I hope, improved and strengthened.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a neighbour and, I flatter myself, a friend of the Minister. I have observed him in his natural habitat, and I know him to be a countryman of deep passion and knowledge, whose excitement when he happens on a rare beetle or some such is utterly infectious. None the less, I listened in vain in his opening statement for any rationale.
The first question we should ask of any legislation is: to what problem is this Bill a solution? When I say “we”, I particularly mean we in this House. I may be misunderstanding this—I have only been here a short while—but anyone who has done A-level politics will tell you that this is a revising Chamber. It is precisely here to ensure that legislation is proportionate to an identified problem—not to tabloid headlines; to an off-the-cuff pledge made at the Dispatch Box in another place to get a Minister out of a temporary problem; or indeed to a social media campaign based on a misapprehension. To what problem is this Bill a solution?
The Minister, in his opening remarks, listed the extensive animal welfare legislation we have, going back to mid-Victorian times. My noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs trumped him and pushed that back to the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act from 200 years ago. That plethora of extensive and powerful animal welfare legislation has in common that it is sensitive: it distinguishes between different situations and categories; it distinguishes between wild fauna and pets; it distinguishes between livestock and vermin; it distinguishes between endangered species and pests.
I think all of us agree—if any noble Lords disagree, I have yet to hear from them—on sentience being a reality. We do not need a Bill to tell us something that is uncontentious. I was very struck by some experiments in 2019 on tiny, darting, blue fish called cleaner wrasse, which exist in reefs. They passed the most basic cognition test by recognising themselves in a mirror. You place a blob on the forehead of one of these fish—Labroides dimidiatus they are called—and they respond.
This is a level that human toddlers get to at around 18 months. I experimented on my own with this one day. They suddenly go from laughing at the baby with the dot in the glass to realising it is them. That moment, at least as far as I can tell, goes hand in hand with lots of other developmental movement. They suddenly become self-aware. And they become, by the way, able to make moral choices. For the first time, you are conscious that they sometimes know they are being naughty, which until that moment they have been unaware of. The Abrahamic religions make exactly that link: the moment of the fall in the Judaeo-Christian tradition comes from self-knowledge. It comes when Adam and Eve eat the fruit:
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”
That is the moment they become capable of making moral choices.
I do not think any of us is going to argue that animals make moral choices—sentient and conscious or not. When, to pluck a recent example, a good friend of mine in the other place had a dog that chased some deer, it was not the dog that was put on trial. I think we would all agree that it would be bizarre for the dog to be put on trial, because a dog is not a reasoning creature. When a dog is punished, it is not in the hope of contrition; it is not because we are hoping to persuade the dog that it has made wrong moral choices. What we mean by “training”, when we train an animal, is that we induce different desires, not that we inculcate an ethical sense. As the great philosopher and the first economist Adam Smith put it:
“'Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair … exchange of one bone for another with another dog.”
It is possible to acknowledge sentience and consciousness without making an animal a legal person with rights. That is precisely why I do not want sensitive moral issues of this kind contracted out to a committee. We may have all sorts of criteria in our animal protection. They may be to do with how we grade the animal; they may be to do with the purposes to which it is being put. Lord Macaulay observed:
“The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”
Well, fair enough. But we have banned bear-baiting in this country on those grounds—I would be surprised if any of your Lordships wanted to bring it back—but we make a different argument about, say, horseracing. It may well be that horseracing causes distress to the horse. It is probably a fair bet that a foal’s idea of a good life, if it could express it, would not involve having a bit placed in its mouth and being ridden around by a whip-wielding ape. But we, none the less, are able to draw that distinction, and that is why we need to have these issues debated properly and sensitively, coming up from the people and not being handed down by organs of the administrative state.
I suspect that, as the father of animal rights, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, puts it, our circles of morality will continue to expand. It may well be in our lifetime that all sorts of things we now regard as quite normal are looked back on very differently. It may be that in the future we will ban horseracing, zoos, the treatment of pets or the passion of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—fly-fishing. It may be that we will wonder why it was ever acceptable to drag a fish into a chamber of poisonous vapours with a hook lodged in its throat. I do not know, but I do know that those decisions should not be contracted out to a standing apparat. If we are not prepared, here and in another place, to take responsibility for decisions of this kind, what the blithering flip are we here for?
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest with several not-for-profit organisations working on animal welfare, as set out in the register. I welcome the Bill: it gives a voice to animals, which have no ability to speak. In 50 years’ time, historians will look back in shock that we have 70 billion animals in factory farms to feed 7.8 billion humans. Animals have no voice, but consumers are speaking loud and clear. Last year, consumers globally spent over $20 billion on plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. In the UK, demand for these products has more than doubled in the past five years. I wonder whether noble Lords have tasted an Impossible Burger or sausages by Beyond Meat. They are delicious plant-based alternatives to meat. The global meat-free sector alone will be in excess of $85 billion by 2030, and grew 25% last year alone.
The food sector is a lifeline of our economy, providing jobs for one in seven people, but it is also causing damage. Even before the pandemic, poor diet was responsible for one in seven UK deaths. Transforming our food system is a once-in-a-lifetime health, environmental and economic opportunity. The food tech revolution is the next global agricultural revolution, with enormous benefits for biodiversity, land use and climate change. We can make our country the global hub for food tech. More than $3 billion was invested last year in alternative protein companies, and about 17% of that was in the UK and Europe. We must, of course, support our livestock farmers in the UK, many of whom farm sustainably and treat their animals very well, but we also want our entrepreneurs to be at the forefront of this new and exciting market.
The Canadian Government have announced a plant protein supercluster. The Singapore Government have approved cell-cultured meat. The Israeli Government are providing non-dilutive funding to food tech start-ups. The US Senate just approved significant spending on food tech R&D.
This Bill is the moment for us to tell our entrepreneurs, loud and clear, that just as we are leading global R&D in clean technology and life sciences, we will support them in leading the world in food technology. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, asks what the purpose of the Bill is. We all know what the purpose of the Bill is: it is to advance the agenda of people who believe in the existence of animal rights and to embed them at the heart of government, bossing everybody about. It is a bad Bill, not simply for that reason, but more importantly, as I will explore in a moment, because it changes the moral basis on which we have habitually treated animals well in this country. I will come back to that in a moment, because I am going to leave to others—some who have already spoken—comments on the practical difficulties of putting this Bill into effect and the problems it is likely to give rise to. I always thought that it was the responsibility of this Parliament to hold Ministers to account, but we are now to have a committee roaming around Whitehall doing the job for us, it seems.
The clause that strikes me as most extravagant, however, is the one that gives the Secretary of State the unfettered power to declare, should he wish, that an earthworm is a sentient being. This is a power greater than that given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, which, as I recall, was restricted to the power to naming animals. Here, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to reclassify them almost without check.
I come back to my point about the moral basis on which we treat animals well. I have always loved this quotation from Lord Keynes:
“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Of course, I do not mean to refer in any sense to my noble friend on the Front Bench in that regard, but the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, put his finger on who the academic scribbler is. I well remember, in my first year as an undergraduate, walking past Blackwell’s and seeing prominently displayed in the front window a copy of Professor Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. He had, in 1975, as a young man, undergone a sort of convulsive conversion to vegetarianism, and this was his attempt to work out some rationale for what he was doing.
There were three points, essentially. First, people are not better or superior to animals. Secondly, what we have in common is that we sit on a spectrum of sentience. This puts us on the same level as the animals. The third point, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, was a sort of crude utilitarianism which makes no distinction between humans and animals. Now, 45 years on, this book has spread throughout the world and become a text for all those who wish to promote the rights of animals. The logical consequence is that we are driven in the direction of veganism and the consumption solely of non-sentient plants.
I could not have asked for a more convenient introduction, in that sense, to what I was about to say, than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, who, with consummate commercial skill, pointed us entirely in the direction of that veganism—and not only veganism but behaviour which respects and prevents harm to any sentient creature. That goes well beyond what we eat, as other noble Lords have said.
That is all okay: if Members of the House of Lords want to drive the country, without asking, in the direction of veganism, which we are told is hugely popular, although I do not know where the evidence for that comes from, on such a basis, and on the basis of some movie I have not yet seen about an improbable friendship between a scientist and an octopus—I am sure it is a tearjerker—that is absolutely fine. The House of Lords is free to do that, but what worries me is that we have cited here in the House a whole swathe of humanitarian legislation going back 200 years protecting animals. Contrary to what Singer and those people would say about the abolition of the distinction between humans and animals, all that legislation has been based on our moral obligations as human beings, rational and endowed with conscience. It is why it is called humanitarian legislation. It is not based on some assumed rights of animals.
All that—not the legislation but the moral basis for the legislation—is now to be swept away by a Government embedding at the heart of our legislation the notion of sentience as the driver of how we should treat animals. The whole moral basis is being changed and replaced by this calculus of sentience. This is a very bad step. It reduces our obligations as people to something that will be the subject of endless judicial review and footling arguments about rules and laws, whether ganglions are the same as brains, and whatever else might come up in the course of these discussions.
I am really very concerned about the Bill. It does nothing at all good for animals, but it does a great disservice to the moral foundation of our society.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this Bill as I have always believed that animals are sentient beings and that they feel emotions and experience pains. I was brought up in east Africa in a house with a large garden. We had a dog, cats, chickens, ducks and rabbits, and we became very fond of them and got to know them. I noticed that they had emotions and felt pain, and I shall give one example. When my mother died, I was very upset and the cat we had at that time would not stop mewing and wanted to sit on my lap. I feel that the Bill is necessary, as we need to ensure that we look after their well-being and care for all animals, whether they are pets, on a farm or in the wild.
The Bill will apply to vertebrates other than homo sapiens, but the Secretary of State may by regulation include invertebrates of any description. I agree with what has been stated.
With regard to animals which produce something we consume or use, I feel that by caring for them, we will have better milk, meat, eggs, leather, wool, et cetera. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that all animals continue to have adequate recognitions and protections now that we have left the European Union. This must be ensured by appropriate domestic legislation. We were previously subject to Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stated that
“administrative provisions and customs of the Member States”
must respect the
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”
of their citizens.
I ask your Lordships to note the words “religious rites”.
I am a practising Muslim and I eat halal meat. There are nearly 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and over 3.4 million Muslims in the UK, and we make up over 5% of the British population. A number of Muslims, including me, will eat only halal meat, and their beliefs need to be respected. Animal welfare is very important in Islam. The Holy Koran and Hadith state that we must recognise animals as being sentient, and we are provided with guidance regarding how to care for, handle and farm them. In addition, we are told how they should be slaughtered for food. Islam forbids mistreatment of animals and their welfare is enshrined in Muslim beliefs. The Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—said:
“A good deed done to an animal is like a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as bad as cruelty to a human being.”
Islam permits slaughter of animals for food but dictates that such slaughter must be exercised humanely.
There has never been conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that religious slaughter is less humane than conventional methods. In halal slaughter, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain immediately being starved of oxygenated blood. For the first few seconds after the incision is made, the animal does not feel any pain. This is followed by a few seconds of deep unconsciousness as a large quantity of blood is drained from the body. Thereafter, EEG readings indicate no pain at all.
I have spoken previously in your Lordships’ House about halal slaughter, and had discussions with then Defra Minister and corresponded with David Cameron, the then Prime Minister. Will the terms of reference of the committee to be appointed under the Bill include looking at the religious practices of halal and shechita? If this is to happen, I suggest that a person or persons who have a very good knowledge of these practices should be appointed. This will enable the matter to be looked into comprehensively and thoroughly. Furthermore, I suggest that the committee holds full consultations with the communities and appropriate organisations to take account of the feelings of the people. I add that I would like to see the committee being independent.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the points I have raised, particularly those relating to religious slaughter. Leaders and members of the Muslim community have approached me to speak on the Bill today and raised the points which I have made.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is next on the speakers’ list, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, this is a significant Bill, which, in general, I support. It can have good consequences but it could also have unintended consequences. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I thank the Minister and the Bill team, as well as Mike Radford, reader in animal welfare at the University of Aberdeen, for useful and helpful discussions.
In the UK we have a deservedly proud history of protecting animal welfare, from 1822 to the present, as the noble Lords, Lord Herbert, Lord Forsyth, and several other noble Lords mentioned. All that legislation implied recognition of animal sentience without specific reference to it.
Animal sentience was incorporated into Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU by virtue of the Lisbon treaty of 2009. That article requires member state Governments to have full regard to animal welfare in formulating and implementing policy, as animals are sentient beings. Article 13 differs from the Bill in that it defines a limited number of policy areas to which it applies, whereas, as has been mentioned, the Bill applies to all government policy. Moreover, Article 13 significantly exempted
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”,
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and other noble Lords mentioned. Thus, the Bill is very wide-ranging, covering all policy without exception, and it also implicitly includes wild animals. In placing obligations on government, the Bill will complement our excellent Animal Welfare Act, which places obligations on individual keepers of animals.
There were earlier attempts to enshrine the principle of Article 13 into UK law during the Brexit process, both in the other place and in this House, and the Government introduced their own Bill in 2017. This was scrutinised by the EFRA Committee in the other place, which received legal opinion that highlighted the serious risk of endless judicial review, partly related to the ambiguity of the meaning of “sentience”.
This Bill does not define sentience. Defra has commissioned a report from LSE Enterprise on this issue—which is germane to this debate but which, regrettably, is not yet available. Definitions of sentience range from
“having the power of perception by the senses”
to
“the quality of being able to experience feelings”.
The Global Animal Law Project says:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
Clearly, most life forms have the ability to sense most harmful stimuli and, if they are mobile, to avoid them.
Undoubtedly, as scientific evidence is accumulated, it is likely that certain invertebrates will be added to the coverage of this legislation. Since octopuses and related species are already provided protection within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, it would be consistent to add cephalopods, as Clause 5(2) provides. There are also credible calls for decapod crustaceans to be included, on which the LSE Enterprise report may comment. With further research, even more animals might be argued to be sentient, which raises the question: where in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom does sentience end?
I raise this as something that will need to be considered at some time, although the Bill quite rightly leaves it to the Secretary of State and hence Parliament to make regulations and to determine which animals to include in the Act. I can foresee that as the frontier of evidence shifts, the Secretary of State may be called upon to choose between scientific evidence and broader policy considerations.
The current Bill will create an animal sentience committee to survey government policy, which may report to the Secretary of State if it feels that the commitment with regard to animal welfare is not honoured. Clause 2(1) says that it “may produce a report”, thus the extent of scrutiny is not clear. I note that the committee will be empowered to publish its report in whatever way it wishes and that the Secretary of State must lay a response to the report before Parliament, thereby ensuring political accountability. I welcome both measures, but there is much important detail about the committee currently lacking in the Bill.
If we are to have an animal sentience committee, in my opinion it is important that that committee is independent and quite separate from the current Animal Welfare Committee—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said—since it will be a statutory committee, whereas the Animal Welfare Committee is advisory. I suggest that it is also important that the sentience committee is adequately resourced for its huge task and that its membership is appropriate and balanced. I support the idea of adopting some parliamentary process to ratify the membership; for example, as well as scientific expertise in animal welfare, veterinary science and biology, it could include appropriate expertise in policy and impact assessment.
I recognise that the issue of sentience is a huge populist impetus and has become totemic, and I understand the Government’s desire to introduce this. With a measured, pragmatic and balanced approach—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, among others, mentioned—this Bill could be a force for good with respect to animal welfare. But there are concerns in my mind about unintended consequences, which other noble Lords have raised. I feel that we cannot ignore them, but I hope that they do not materialise.
Finally, there is much detail lacking about the committee’s role—on resourcing, its obligations, its composition, its powers and powers of inquiry, and, perhaps most important of all, its powers of sanction if its recommendations are ignored. When and how will more detail on these important operational questions be provided?
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who obviously has a brilliant academic record. I declare my interests as in the register.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Hannan and Lord Howard of Rising, my first reaction was to ask whether we actually need this Bill. Is there a particular problem that the Bill is essential to address? Is there a gap in our animal welfare legislation at the moment? Is there a gap in the protection given to animals? Should our legislation be upgraded and made more effective? Those questions certainly need answering.
The Minister—incidentally, I welcome the debut of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, as the lead Minister on a Bill in the House—certainly put the case very strongly; no one anywhere in government has more knowledge of the countryside and animal welfare issues than him. He pointed out that, back as far as 1822, Parliament brought in the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, which was followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835. It required another 64 years to elapse before legislation was brought in to give similar protections to children. That shows just how strongly Parliament over the years has taken the subject of animal welfare.
Built around and upon the foundations of those two Acts are the numerous welfare and cruelty Bills that have subsequently been brought in. So we have an incredibly high standard of animal welfare legislation in this country. We have high standards for farm animals, protections for pets, and very strict controls on cruelty against wild animals. We also have very tight control on animal experiments. All in all, we are a beacon across the world for top-class animal welfare legislation. There have also been many examples of the successful prosecution of the tiny minority of people in this country who abuse animals; the courts have been consistently tough. Furthermore, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, all this legislation recognises the fact that animals suffer pain—otherwise why would you have legislation? Of course animal sentience is very much at the heart of our laws.
I come back to the question of whether we need this legislation; in particular, do we need a new animal sentience committee? As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we already have the Animal Welfare Committee, formerly the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It has an excellent reputation. It backs up its work with high-class scientific advice, it is extremely cost effective and it is well established. I urge noble Lords to look again at whether we need a brand-new committee. Would it not be easier to expand the existing committee—as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—and widen its remit to cover all animals?
As the Minister pointed out, as the Bill stands at the moment, the committee will have the task of roaming across the whole of government. It will have to be well resourced, and it will have to have a lot of staff. What will its relationship to the AWC be? Will it work alongside it? Will it complement it? Which will be the more senior committee of the two? The Minister needs to look at that very hard. Perhaps this Bill could be altered slightly, to widen the scope and powers of the existing, outstanding committee. We would save a lot of time—by not setting up a brand-new committee—if we did that.
I want to look quickly at the Bill’s provenance because, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, it all stems from Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. That article refers to animals as “sentient beings” and makes it clear that, in stated areas of policy, member states must
“pay full regard to the welfare … of animals”.
However, it is restricted in scope to certain key areas. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, it also includes a requirement to balance animal welfare with
“customs … relating … to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
In other words, there is an absolutely crucial counterbalance to allow for particular traditions and aspects of religious heritage—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made this point very succinctly.
I personally support halal and kosher killing, and I would like to see CCTV in slaughterhouses. But what would happen if, for example, the committee decided to wage a campaign against these two particular types of slaughterhouse? What would happen if, traditionally, all angling was to catch fish for the pot—to eat? We all know that probably 98% of angling now is catch and release. What would happen if the committee decided to ignore this regional, cultural country pursuit, which is pursued by many tens of thousands of people, and launched a campaign against it? There is no counterbalance in the law that will set up this committee to prevent it doing that. The worry is not about what might happen with this Minister but about what might happen with future Governments, when there is no counterbalance to protect the interests of many tens, even hundreds, of thousands of people in this country.
The Minister said that, now we have left the EU, we can introduce legislation to go further than EU regulations. I was under the impression that our post-Brexit ambition was to reduce layers of bureaucracy, and make the UK more streamlined and our laws more user-friendly. In my humble opinion, we are gold-plating EU regulations. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Moore, who put it very well:
“The ground is being laid for exactly the expansion of bureaucratic … power that Brexit was supposed to counter”.
I have always subscribed to this dictum from Lord Falkland: unless it is vital to legislate, it is vital not to legislate.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill would enshrine the recognition of the sentience of vertebrate animals in domestic law. It would also establish an animal sentience committee that would report on whether government policy-making considers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain.
This is a government Bill. It was announced as part of the Queen’s Speech on 11 May 2021. It had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House on 13 May and is due to have its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House on 16 June 2021.
There is a growing consensus among scientists and policymakers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare states:
“There is scientific evidence for sentience in all vertebrates and at least some invertebrates.”
Despite a few points of contention, calls have increased for the recognition of animal sentience in UK domestic law. In December 2017, the Government ran a consultation on its draft animal welfare Bill; 80% of respondents requested that sentience be explicitly defined in UK law.
The principle of animal sentience governing animals in the UK was previously provided for at a European level, specifically in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 13 provides that member states should pay full regard to the welfare requirement of animals when formulating policies. It is not explicitly in the treaty, but the EU has stated that animals are
“capable of feeling pleasure and pain”.
Article 13 states:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.
However, following our withdrawal from the EU, these provisions are no longer applicable in the UK. Charities and campaigning organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have raised concerns about this gap. They have called for domestic legislation that includes a definition of sentience that encapsulates an animal’s capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and which implies a level of conscious awareness.
Does the Minister agree that in the future—perhaps a long time in the future—we will ultimately all become vegetarians?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased and proud to take part in this debate. I warmly welcome the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill and the Government introducing new laws to recognise that animals are sentient beings. It will protect all animals, including farm animals, tackle puppy smuggling, make keeping primates as pets illegal and ban the import of hunting trophies.
The Government promise to review the use of cages for egg-laying hens and narrow metal crates for farrowing pigs, but surely there is a demonstrable case for banning cages for laying hens given that they are crammed in, barely able to move, and banning the very narrow metal crates for farrowing pigs. However, I note with regret that some other European countries still carry out the standard practice of docking pigs’ tails.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of establishing clear labelling of meat for all our customers, particularly imported meat. But the big question many are asking is: are we to ban the sale of foie gras and end the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese with large amounts of food? I hope all these points can be addressed when my noble friend the Minister responds.
We are all animal lovers, and this Bill will establish welcome new measures and help to build even higher standards of welfare and good farming practices. It is a new beginning. As we know only too well, animals not only show immense loyalty and devotion but know pleasure and pain.
In the past few months, as I walked my dogs and experienced nature, seeing hares racing across the fields, I have come to know how much we value our wildlife. So I am very pleased that new laws are to be established to crack down on illegal hare coursing, but I would like us not just to restrict the use of glue traps but to ban them outright.
I welcome the fact that the practice of clipping dogs’ ears and cropping or docking their tails is illegal here, but the Bill will put a stop to anyone bringing such pets into the UK and to unscrupulous criminal gangs abusing pet travel rules for their gain. It will also raise the age at which puppies can come to the UK from 15 weeks to six months and prevent them being taken away from their mothers at a very young age. There are also restrictions on the importing of pregnant dogs, which I have spoken about before.
The Bill will improve the lives of farm livestock, halt the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, and improve transportation measures so that live animals do not have to endure excessively long journeys, which I particularly welcome as EU rules prevented any changes. I would also be interested to know how long journeys will be monitored, and how surveillance and record-keeping will be monitored at all abattoirs.
We cannot continue to ignore the way we treat our animals. This sentience Bill will, of course, not solve any animal welfare problems by itself, but it is a start, and we will be the first country in the world to pass animal welfare laws.
Finally, I am pleased that the Government support increasing the maximum custodial sentences for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years, so that courts will have clear guidelines when determining sentences, making the UK’s sanctions the toughest in Europe, and recognising animals as sentient beings. I look forward to further reforms to the Bill later in the year.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am content with the Bill, the gist of its purpose and the role that the proposed committee will play in the debate about animal welfare, a topic about which everyone has an opinion. I begin by declaring an interest, for I am a livestock farmer in Cumbria. I personally do little shooting and in the old days used occasionally to go out with the fell packs. I am also a patron of the Livestock Auctioneers’ Association and president of the National Sheep Association.
While I fear that there always are abuses, real farmers care about their stock and take pride in it and the way it is looked after. I also do not believe that animals have rights. Rather, we as humans have obligations towards them that should and must be legally enforced. This is a widely recognised legal phenomenon and an entirely sensible approach to these matters.
I was a Member of the European Parliament when embedding the concept of animal sentience in EU law was discussed. At that time I was very unsure whether this was the right direction of travel, but I have become satisfied that it is.
Contrary to what some seem to say, animal sentience has been understood for quite a long time. After all, Homer understood it. You have only to read the 17th- book of the Odyssey: returning in disguise after a 20-year absence, Odysseus is recognised only by his faithful old dog Argos.
In this instance as in so many others, and as is so often the case, for our national policies to be sensible they have to sail between Scylla and Charybdis—the Scylla of treating animals as mere chattels, and the Charybdis of anthropomorphism. Walt Disney has done this issue no favour; “Bambi” is a confidence trick. Equally, in this context, Beatrix Potter has quite a lot to answer for. Although it will come as no surprise to your Lordships, and although I never knew her, those of my Cumbrian friends and neighbours who did, tell me that she was a very practical, down-to-earth hill farmer whose attitude towards her own animals bore little relation to her fictional creatures.
I welcome the committee, but it is not a substitute for either government or Parliament. I assume its purpose is to help public debate on this topic, as part of a wider political process. Both Parliament and the Government have never been backward about ignoring committees, and I do not anticipate that that is going to change. The impact of this committee will depend on its tone and modus operandi. It has to base its thinking on expertise, not partisanship, its approach and composition on independence of thought and action, and its conclusions on intelligence and wisdom. These aspects must be central to its activities and will determine its seriousness, or lack of it, and hence its influence and ability to be a force for good. Whether that happens depends on what it does and the conclusions it reaches which, I hasten to add in conclusion, is not necessarily the same as agreeing with me.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend and contribute to this debate. I declare my interests, as on the register. In particular, I am a member of the rural affairs group of the Church of England and an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association. I am also a former Member of the European Parliament and had the privilege to chair the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place.
I approach this from much the same viewpoint as my noble friend Lord Inglewood. There is a voice in this debate that has not been properly heard, so far—that of the producer, farmer or carer of livestock. I pay tribute to and recognise the role of farmers in rearing livestock. They not only practise good husbandry but realise that, if they stress the animal, either just before slaughter or at any time in its production, they will simply not achieve the value for that animal that they believe they deserve. I hope that my noble friend from the Front Bench confirms that their voices will be heard in the passage of this Bill.
It is not just their responsibility to see to the welfare and good husbandry of animals in their care as, over the last 30 years, they have faced real challenges with animal health and disease. We have had a challenge almost every 10 years, with BSE, foot and mouth, and most recently a fraud, but it could so easily have been a safety or health issue, in horsegate. I hope my noble friend and the Government pay tribute to the role of farmers and producers, in this regard.
I express a personal reservation, having looked at some of the contributions to the Government’s consultation on aspects of the animal welfare reforms they seek, especially on the extra provisions we are going to impose on the movement of animals at home and for export. We are going to accept animals that have been transported over much greater distances, such as in Australia, which are not practices that we condone. I will come on to that in a moment.
On the Bill before us today, I cannot argue with anything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others. The Government have to convince us of the need for this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we have to be careful that this is not seen as “gesture politics”.
On the composition of the committee, I am struggling to understand why it cannot be formed as part of, or a sub-committee of, the Animal Welfare Committee, as other noble Lords have argued this afternoon. It is also very light on what the composition of the committee will be. Who will sit on it? Will there be a veterinary surgeon? I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, did not make that case. Will there be somebody with a background in animal husbandry, production or animal slaughter to give a verdict on some of the proposals in the reports? What resources will be made available to the committee? Who will staff it and how independent of the Government will it be? Crucially, how long will each appointment to the committee be, who will chair it and how many members will there be?
As my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, the relationship between this and other committees is crucial, in particular with the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the Animal Health and Welfare Board. From my reading of the Bill and Explanatory Notes, there is going to be some overlap. What will the status of the reports be, how transparent will their drafting be and how open will their consultations be? Will the Government be forced to accept the recommendations in those reports?
How will the Government seek to ensure that my noble friend and the department have this cross-departmental responsibility? I am slightly alarmed that we are giving them yet another cross-departmental responsibility, when they have woefully failed to implement the rural-proofing policy. My noble friend has a letter from me on his desk; I realise that he is new and I welcome him to his new position, but I hope that he replies soon. Why, for example, have we not had rural proofing across departments, as a precursor to what the Government expect to do with their cross-departmental responsibilities under this Bill? I ask what their role will be in extending this to other jurisdictions and place on record my belief that, as others have noted, this should reflect the contents of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the scope of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty.
To conclude, it would be unacceptable if we were to take this opportunity to clobber our producers with yet more animal welfare and environmental provisions, when it looks likely that we will accept meat and other produce from jurisdictions such as Australia, which have practices such as hormone-produced beef and allow their animals to be transported for slaughter over distances that we would not condone in this country.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, animal sentience is a fact, not a principle, let alone a policy. We have recognised this in law for a very long time. The entirety of animal welfare legislation assumes animal sentience and, rightly, that it is a thing of degree rather than kind. One of the effects of doing research in evolutionary biology is that you come to realise that there are no real differences of kind in the animal kingdom, only differences of degree.
One after another, the fortresses of assumption about what makes human beings special have fallen to the forces of science. Copernicus told us we were not at the centre of the solar system. Darwin told us we were just another animal. Crick told us we use the same genetic code as an amoeba. Ryan Gregory pointed out that an onion cell has six times as much DNA as a human’s. Even as recently as 1999, serious scientists were still saying that human beings would prove to have a bunch of unique genes to build the special human brain. It turns out that we have not only the same number of genes as a mouse but the same genes as a mouse; it is just that we turn them on and off in a different order. Dogs dream, parrots use language, octopuses reason, dolphins have a theory of mind and chimpanzees use tools. You cannot draw a line through the animal kingdom and say that on one side lies consciousness, let alone sentience, and on the other nothing. There is a gradation.
The Government’s 2018 consultation defined an animal as follows:
“an organism endowed with life, sensation and voluntary motion”.
That includes bacteria, incidentally, so it is not a very good definition of an animal. As it includes the word “sensation”, by definition it means that all animals, including parasitic roundworms and jellyfish, are sentient to some degree. In practice, we do draw lines and do not find slopes to be slippery. We swat mosquitoes and poison rats. I presume that, as a result of this Bill, we will not all eventually be ordered by a committee on animal sentience to become orthodox Jains, who sweep the pavement as they walk the street lest they step on an ant.
The sentient animals that concern me in relation to the Bill are the living, sensing, voluntarily moving creatures called bureaucrats. The Bill does little or nothing to change the way we treat animals, but it does create a wonderful feeding opportunity for Homo bureaucratius to do what it is best at: to build a nest and raise a lot of workers.
Over recent centuries, human society has increasingly improved its concern for animal welfare, in parallel with its growing concern for human welfare. We have stopped badger baiting, cockfighting, fox tossing and the popular medieval pastime of nailing a cat to a tree and competing to try and kill it with your head while not getting badly scratched on the face. We did not have a committee telling us to stop these things; we do not need a committee to do that. My late sister, Rose Paterson, did not need a government committee to tell her to improve horse welfare in the Grand National as chairman of Aintree Racecourse; she did it anyway. As my noble friend Lord Hannan said, we will continue to add to the list of things we disapprove of, but we do not need a committee to tell us to do so.
What this committee will inevitably do, because that is what this species of sentient being always does, is try to grow its budget by giving itself enough work to ensure that it can complain that it is underfunded. I predict that the committee will not stick to its task of commenting only on the process by which government has reached a decision. Indeed, in a helpful briefing note the Countryside Alliance says that this process of demanding a bigger budget has effectively already begun. It says:
“Given that the Committee’s remit covers the entirety of government policy, from formulation to implementation, the Committee will need huge resources. It should be looking, not just at wildlife management and farming practices and the Defra brief, but also policy areas such as planning, trade, and even procurement of medicines for the NHS. There is seemingly no limit.”
I predict that it will be a nearly impossible task to prevent this budget-maximising, empire-building, remit-expanding, mission-creeping process—which is in the nature of all committees, in the same way that it is in the nature of all wasps to build nests—and to avoid the committee ruling on whether, say, the building of a housing estate should be stopped to prevent avoidable suffering by a newt. My question to my noble friend the Minister is simple: how does he propose to achieve this nearly impossible task?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I first declare an interest in farming in that my family farms, but I am handing everything over.
I find this Bill woolly. Much is left to the discretion of the Minister and the Executive. I have heard it described as a paving Bill and an entry point; more legislation may follow. I am sure we will get lots of assurances from the Front Bench, but we should remember that no ministerial Statement or Government can bind the successor Governments and Parliaments that follow, so we have to be very careful; we need things to be in the Bill.
Several speakers have spoken about the Bill as being useful for protecting farm animals, but we already regulate farming in great detail—I am sure we will regulate more for things we have missed—so I presume this committee will look at wild animals. I very much like the points made just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, about what other things it could cross over into and mess up, when we are trying to look at the bigger pictures. If we try to make animals the pure and total focus of everything, we need to realise that we are only another animal on the planet.
One of the things that really worries me is that the composition of the committee is very open to manipulation—several speakers have mentioned this. There is nothing there about long-term balance and ensuring that it stays balanced.
Another thing that worries me is this definition of sentience. Again, I was very interested by the noble Viscount’s points about that, because there is a huge danger of anthropomorphism. Most creatures, if not all, have an autonomous nervous response to stimuli. This does not require thought, so should we really be inferring sentience from it? Or does sentience require reasoning, and in that case to what level? I do not think we go as far as the ethics, which was spoken about before.
The other thing is about pleasure and the question of whether animals enjoy working; this concerns the closing down of the circuses and things like that. I know from my personal experience that animals do enjoy doing things and working—there is no doubt about it—but some people think it is demeaning and do not like that, because they anthropomorphise what they are doing.
I just hope that this committee will understand the difficulty of balancing biodiversity. One of the biggest problems we have with a lot of things, particularly with single-issue pressure groups, is that the solution to the overpopulation of a particular animal species is to relocate it. Sometimes that just messes up somewhere else—or it may mess up the animal; it may be totally unproductive. We say, “Oh, we don’t want to hurt these animals”, which at the moment are destroying this environment that they may require for their own survival, so we relocate them over there—but that may not be any good for the animals, and they may die anyway as a result.
Another problem comes with the overprotection of certain species. I have noticed this particularly with some of the hunting species, such as badgers. There is huge overpopulation of badgers at the moment. Badgers eat hedgehogs. Why do we have a diminishing hedgehog population? No one thinks about this. They blame all sorts of things but not the badgers, one of the few creatures that can open them up and eat the things. The other thing is bumble bees. Quite a lot of species of bumble bee nest in the ground in small nests. It is just like a bar of chocolate for a badger; they love them. A bumble bee is very different from worker bees that live in hives and go out all over the place.
The trouble is that a lot of people who live in towns have perhaps done a brief course on the environment at Durham University, borrowed a pair of welly boots for a farm walk or whatever and then become experts on the environment. I do not think they really understand the breadth of things you need to understand.
Just for amusement I was thinking about anthropomorphism. I was amused by the “Lobster Quadrille” by Lewis Carroll, and I think we are going in that direction:
“‘Will you walk a little faster?’ said a whiting to a snail,
‘There’s a porpoise close behind us, and he’s treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance!
They are waiting on the shingle—will you come and join the dance?”
The way we are going, I think they are about to join our human dance.
I was amused by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I was going to suggest that maybe bear baiting has been replaced with politician and celebrity baiting. I think that is the new sport—and maybe toff baiting as well, since I seem to be counted among those by some people.
The main thing is that I agree with those who doubt the Bill’s utility. I am not sure we should waste a huge amount of time on it—but I think we will have to, to make sure it does not become dangerous.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I have heard a large number of quite excellent speeches—some funny, some learned—and I cannot possibly emulate them. I shall try not to repeat verbatim what has been said, although it can be quite difficult when you come in at a late stage on a Bill.
We are of course a nation of animal lovers, and I include myself in that. Quite rightly, people who are cruel to animals are prosecuted, be it for cats nailed to trees—we heard about that recently from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—or set on fire, which they have been, or hedgehogs used as footballs. I see
“tougher sentences for animal cruelty”
in our manifesto, and I applaud that if it gives magistrates the opportunity to sentence cruel yobs appropriately.
We have heard about farming standards. Our farming welfare standards are in the news today, because they are so high, because of the Australian free trade agreement. It is agreed that they are excellent, and we should be proud of that.
Are animals sentient beings? They probably are—I certainly think so—but they are not the same. For instance, my dog will run out into the middle of the road and stand looking at a car driving straight at it, much to my annoyance and fear. It does not have the same reactions as we have; we should realise that. Do they feel pain? Of course they feel pain. Is it different from ours? I think it probably is, but we owe it to all animals, wild and domestic, to treat them well—but that is a very subjective judgment. For instance, do animals at a slaughterhouse exhibit fear? I have been to slaughterhouses; they do. So should we ban the killing of animals for meat? Should we ban the shooting of wild birds or deer for eating? My answer is no. We should treat animals well in life and we owe them a clean and swift death if we are going to eat them.
I declare an interest as a farmer. My farming partner dislikes sending lambs and especially young cattle to market. I understand that. Indeed, he sells his calves only to other farmers, mostly for breeding. James Cromwell, who noble Peers will know as the actor who played the farmer in “Babe”, which I thought was an excellent film—I watched it probably 20 times with my children when they were younger—apparently became a vegan after the film because it was so anthropomorphic.
We already have high standards and laws on animal cruelty, so why do we need the Bill? It is very flimsy. There is nothing to it really, as one Minister told me, so why are we having it? We are told that it is very popular with people and that animal welfare was the second-most important issue in the minds of voters in the 2019 election after Brexit. Well, do they vote on these issues or on wider and more important issues facing the country? I was elected to the House of Commons five times and I think I still know how people think. Most people vote on rather more important issues.
Most people have feelings for animals, but there is a small lobby of activists who rarely vote Conservative—or, indeed, Labour—pushing an animal rights agenda. They are not mainstream. They represent only themselves. The Peta—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—website says “End Speciesism” and has a picture of a rat with:
“We also feel pain, love, joy, and fear.”
Love? Rats will eat their own young, as noble Lords will know, and I do not think that shows love. Peta also wants us to go vegan, to not have milk in our coffee—a treat—and it says that eating meat, cheese et cetera is an addiction similar to drugs. The Animal Liberation Front, of course, is notorious for its violent action. I could go on. But are rats sentient? Yes. Are squirrels, which are destroying the woods that we are all trying to encourage, sentient? Yes. Are the magpies that kill fledglings sentient? Well, yes, of course, as are the foxes that kill hens—but what about the hens and the fledglings that get killed by magpies?
I will not dwell on the fact that if we did not have farm animals for our benefit, they would not exist and our countryside would look totally different. It would be mostly arable or wasteland. So this Bill seems to me to be driven by a minority agenda pushing animal rights. What amendments does my noble friend envisage under Clause 5(2) and (3) to regulations made by SI. What good will come of this animal sentience committee? What relationship will it have with the Animal Welfare Committee? Who will be on the committee? Will he pledge not to appoint members of Wild Justice or Peta? To coin a phrase, cui bono? The Explanatory Notes blithely say:
“The Bill will require some public expenditure.”
How much?
Finally, the Bill has been described by one of my noble friend’s fellow Ministers as a paving measure. What does that mean? We have heard today ominous calls for the Bill to be strengthened. Like my noble friend Lord Bellingham, I have always believed that we should legislate as little as possible and only when it is necessary. The gentleman in Whitehall does not know best, and individuals should be allowed to get on with their lives without interference, in so far as that does not adversely impact on other people or wider society—and that includes animal cruelty. We pass laws to ensure that that does not happen. I fear that the Bill is a superfluous measure and a very un-Conservative measure, and I look to the Minister to allay my fears that this is not some thin end of the wedge softening-up of our legislation to pursue a bogus animal rights agenda.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I propose to speak in favour of electric dog-training collars and against non-stun halal and kosher slaughter, both of which could fall under the influence of the proposed new committee.
Starting with the collars, I should mention that I have worked with spaniels and pointers since the age of 11 and now have four German pointers over which we shoot rather few grouse on Rannoch moor. The years before the arrival of the electric collar bring many unhappy memories of dogs chasing deer and hares and being savagely beaten by my father and various keepers on their eventual return—only to do it all again at the next opportunity. But the modern training collar has changed all that and I cannot help noticing that those who wish to make them illegal do not seem to know much about how they work but are instead guided by a well-meaning intention to prevent dogs suffering pain.
I have looked at the sites of the four main organisations which wish to ban them—the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the RSPCA—and none of them mentions the process by which these collars do their job. They emit three levels of signal from three different buttons. The first button induces a simple beep from the dog’s collar. If that does not work, the next button produces a stronger buzzing noise. Only when that does not stop the dog doing what it is doing do you press the impulse or shock button. It is, of course, essential that the dial on the shock button is set at the lowest level necessary to stop the dog chasing whatever it is chasing, barking at a passer-by or running on to a road and endangering its own life and the traffic.
For my energetic German pointers, which are smooth-haired, the shock dial, which goes from one to nine, does not have to be set above four. For larger and more rough-haired dogs, the dial should be set at higher figure—but always only at the minimum required to have the desired effect. My experience of using these collars is that my dogs generally do not need to be given more than one shock in their lives. Thereafter, they stop whatever they are doing wrong on the beep and come straight back to me, wagging their tails. Of course, other breeds may be less sensitive, but not much.
In all this, we must not forget that most of our dogs are descended from wolves or wild dogs of some kind. The wolf or wild dog still lurks in them, however charming and lovable they may be by the fireside. We must also not forget the huge comfort which dogs bring to millions of people. So my view is that these training collars should be encouraged, especially for dogs which are going for a walk or run off the lead in the countryside. A dog killing a sheep or a deer brings much pain to its quarry, even if it is a fairly natural process, and the minimal pain felt from a training collar, perhaps only once in a dog’s life, seems to me to be a pretty good deal.
Finally on dog collars, it is worth wondering why no one seems to want to ban electric livestock fences, which can produce an electric shock some 3,000 times stronger than a dog training collar. I suppose the Government may be too afraid of the NFU to contemplate banning them.
And so, finally, to non-stun halal and kosher slaughter. I wonder whether the Government can explain why they are even vaguely thinking of banning electric dog collars through this new committee while tolerating the colossal suffering inflicted by these practices. Figures from the Foods Standards Agency tell us that in 2018 some 3.1 million sheep had their throats cut without being pre-stunned—one-quarter of all sheep killed—and 22,000 cattle suffered the same fate. Of course I understand that the Government and our elected politicians generally may be too frightened of the Muslim and Jewish vote to tackle this practice head-on and simply ban it. But, if that is so, why do they not require all meat sold in this country to say on its wrapping whether it comes from a pre-stunned animal? After all, cigarette packets are required by law to tell the purchaser that smoking damages your health, so why not the same for meat?
I understand that some schools and hospitals now serve nothing but halal and kosher meat, because it is so vociferously demanded by their relevant Muslim and Jewish patients. This is very unfair to our Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, who are forbidden to eat halal or kosher meat, and it is also unfair to the rest of us who do not want effectively to be forced to eat it or go without. So I suggest that the Government re-examine their priorities in this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on these two points. Before he leaves the Chamber, I should add that I welcome him to his new position today—but I do not envy it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I regret that my noble friend the Minister has been landed with this as his first Bill back as a Defra Minister. I exonerate him of having any of his fingerprints on this piece of legislation that we must consider.
When the Government did not roll forward Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty—which had at least some balance in it—I was interested in what they would do when they introduced their own legislation. My noble friend started his speech by saying this was a new chapter. It is not a new chapter. Virtually every noble Lord has mentioned 200 years of legislation; this is just another part of the process that has been going on for some time. You do not actually need primary legislation to set up a committee, unless it will do something constructive, has a remit and is defined, and all that has been discussed by Parliament.
As so many noble Lords have said, the credibility of the committee will depend on who sits on it, what evidence it takes and how independent it is, but we know absolutely none of the answers to those questions. We are talking about a committee that can be appointed, sacked, disbanded or enlarged; we have no idea what the heck the Government are talking about. It is absolutely key that we tighten that up in Committee.
I hope that my noble friend paid particular attention to the speech of my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton. She reminded us that there are many laws in Europe, but very few of them are implemented and no country takes them very seriously. My noble friend Lady Redfern mentioned the problems of farrowing pens, tail docking of pigs and hen cages. However, this committee the Government have set up—this wonderful thing that will cross all government departments—will take evidence and give advice to the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade. My noble friend Lady McIntosh must not worry too much; I have no doubt that the committee will say that we will not be allowed to trade with Europe because it has the wrong farrowing pens and bird cages and that the beef from Australia is poorly produced compared to here. What will be the effect of this committee on our foreign and trade policy? I hope my noble friend has thought that through.
My noble friend Lord Herbert is right that we must not confuse animal rights with animal welfare. We are all pro-animal welfare, but animal rights are a very different and much more subtle thing to get right. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the report that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, reminded the House about has been commissioned by Defra and that the Committee stage will be deferred until that report has been received and we have read it? It is pointless to take us through Committee when we are waiting for a report that will give us a definition. That abuses this House. I hope my noble friend will be very firm with his department on that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned the rural proofing committee. We had some hopes that rural proofing would be done properly. A committee was set up; its first report was fairly diabolical and gave us no confidence that the committee, which also crosses all government departments, would make any headway at all. The counterargument to everything I have just said is that I do not need to worry at all about this committee because it will go the same way as the rural proofing committee and the Government will ignore everything it suggests.
My noble friend Lord Bellingham quoted my noble friend Lord Moore. I will quote him too: the consequence of this Bill
“will surely be an ever-greater resort to the courts, with pressure groups using committee reports as their weapons of ‘lawfare’. The committee could become a Trojan horse for extremism—and the Trojan horse, let us remember, was not a sentient animal, but a collection of sentient human beings using animal disguise to effect capture”—
the sort of people my noble friend Lord Ridley was talking about.
There is potential good from this committee, but also an awful lot of gesture politics. I fear that the Government will find it too difficult and be blackmailed into implementing some extremist reports from the committee unless we know more about it and have greater control over what it does in future.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to take part in this wide-ranging debate. I thank the Minister for his briefing and his introduction to this short but extremely important Bill, which ensures that animal sentience remains enshrined in law following our exit from the EU.
The recognition of animal sentience is not in dispute, as it has long been established that animals are sentient beings. Like us, they are capable of feeling pain, hunger, distress, pleasure and a sense of well-being and safety. All policies involving animals should take this into account. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, spoke eloquently on these aspects of sentience.
There is some discussion whether the categories covered in this Bill should be extended to include not only vertebrates but invertebrates, and there is provision in the Bill for this. We have heard the case for cephalopods, or octopi and squid, and decapod crustaceans—crabs and lobsters. As we are debating this inclusion so early in the passage of the Bill, it seems sensible for this to be included in it and not left to be dealt with later under statutory instruments. Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State is open to such an amendment at this stage?
It is vital that the animal sentience committee, or ASC, can operate with sufficient resources and authority to make a real difference. Many of your Lordships have referred to this. A proper budget and secretariat will ensure that the ASC operates to public expectations. The financial support for this committee should not be an afterthought in either Defra or the Treasury’s financial planning—it should be central. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to this.
Like others, I have received several briefings from animal welfare organisations, raising concerns about not only the membership of the ASC but its funding and the weight attached to its work across all government departments. While I am concerned about these issues, I am also anxious that the work of the committee and its ultimate aims should not get bogged down in judicial review. It is important to produce a Bill that is fit for purpose but does not provide loopholes which would end up in JR.
The ASC membership should, of course, contain relevant expertise. I received one briefing from a conglomerate/confederation of 51 animal charities and lobbies; it will clearly be difficult for the Government to please everybody in the membership of this committee. What is its size likely to be? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also asked questions around this. Clearly, the larger it is, the more cumbersome it will become and the longer it will take for it to complete its work on various pieces of legislation and policy, but it must be large enough to have sufficient representation from experts across a number of fields. Business interests will need to be included; we are already seeing concern over the free trade deal with Australia around the welfare of animals raised there very differently to how animals are raised in the UK. Essential membership should include representation from experts in wild, domestic and farm animals, as well as those that live in the sea.
I turn briefly to tenure. How long will the term of office be for the chair and members of the ASC, once appointed by the Secretary of State? Given the number of interested charities and organisations involved in animal welfare, a healthy turnover of representatives may provide reassurance.
The essentials to inspire confidence in the ASC’s deliberations and outcomes will not necessarily come from the number of representatives, nor just who or which organisations are represented on the committee. Instead, confidence will come from ensuring a wide range of expertise among the membership. It will come from complete transparency around the recruitment process and in all the workings of the committee.
The ASC will need to be accountable for its work to Parliament. This is especially important as it will cover policy across all government departments outside Defra. The ASC will need autonomy and independence, reporting on a yearly basis to Parliament, giving the Secretary of State three months to respond. Part of the reporting process should involve impact assessments of the various policies on the animals concerned.
Other Peers have referred to the need for an animal welfare strategy. This appears to be an essential part of the ASC’s work, and its absence perhaps an oversight. Can the Minister give reasons why there is no mention of such a strategy?
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has raised the instances in the Bill where “may” is included. This seems to me a rather weak term which could easily be ignored. There are likely to be amendments in Committee to strength the legal provisions of the Bill. This should ensure that, as a suite of Bills under the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, the Animal Sentience Bill plays its full part in protecting animals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested that the Bill is a publicity exercise. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that this is not the case: that the Bill will have legal status and make a difference.
The animal welfare plan makes it clear that there are very different categories of animals and that, therefore, different strategies are needed for dealing with their welfare. For instance, the duty to a farmed deer would be different from the duty to a wild deer. Both are the same species and sentient, but their lifestyles are very different. Flexibility in dealing with all animals will be key. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, attempted to make this point when speaking on animal rights.
The Government will need to create clear duties and powers for the ASC to ensure that all relevant polices are considered. The avoidance of harm to animals is important, but so is the enhancement of the lives of animals. This aspect should be part of the remit of the ASC, as well as being proactive in its research and work, not just reactive. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, referred to this.
I do not subscribe to the view that the ASC should be a sub-committee of the current Animal Welfare Committee. It should be a stand-alone committee in order to have proper influence. I do, however, agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the wild animals in circuses Bill, which was a Bill to deal with just 22 specific animals, all bred in captivity.
I welcome the Bill and have learnt much from the debate this afternoon, which I have thoroughly enjoyed, especially the speech from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I declare myself a complete addict as described by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. However, I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with others during Committee on this important Bill, which I do not believe is about bossing Parliament about.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I thank all those who have spoken in the debate today. We have had a number of interesting and strong views expressed.
Since leaving the European Union, we no longer have legislation that recognises animals as sentient beings, so we strongly welcome the Bill and the opportunities that it provides. The formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that we are committed as a country to protecting the welfare of animals, but for this to be meaningful, any commitment on paper must be followed up in practice.
We have already heard that the Bill is vague in many respects, so the challenge for this House is to make sure the Bill delivers on what it is promising. As we have heard, it has been a long time coming. Other noble Lords have spoken about the delays, which go back to November 2017, when the Government rejected a proposal to carry the Lisbon treaty into post-Brexit policy. But this issue has had immense public interest, with consultation and amendments in both Houses—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his role in this. There was previously a widely-criticised draft government Bill—if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would like to see a badly drafted Bill, I recommend that he takes a look at it—and a number of false starts along the way.
That is why it is now vital that we grasp the opportunity before us to ensure that this legislation leaves the House a better Bill than when it arrived. We believe that some aspects are particularly welcome: that the Bill covers all departments and that, by implication, it covers wild animals as well as those under the control of man, as wild animals should also be protected from harm by man.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to Dr Mike Radford of the University of Aberdeen, and I wanted to mention what he said, because he expressed clearly one of our key concerns. In commenting on the Bill, he said:
“there’s the potential – but, as presently drafted, no certainty – for Ministers to be held effectively to account”.
It is that certainty that we will be looking for through debates on and amendments to the Bill. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns that we on this side of the House share: for example, my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell.
The Government say that the Bill improves on the Lisbon treaty, and it does create an animal sentience committee and requires the Government to respond to it, which creates additional accountability. But it does not place a direct duty on Ministers, entrusting instead much of the responsibility for outcomes to the committee. If this Bill is to be effective in holding Ministers to account, we need to ensure that the animal sentience committee has teeth and not just symbolic value. The UK Centre for Animal Law has called the Bill “a job part done”, raising concerns about its proposed design. We have heard of the huge lack of detail and ambiguity on its membership, resourcing, independence, and accountability.
I ask the Minister, as others have done today: who will serve on the committee? How often will it publish reports?
Sentience is the capacity to have positive or negative experiences. The Minister said earlier that the Government have “all due regard” to an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings, but can and should the committee reports also recommend policy that brings about positive impacts on animals as well as addressing negative impacts? How will the duty of the Secretary of State to issue a response provide the kind of governmental engagement with animal welfare concerns that is necessary?
We have heard that the Bill currently provides for Ministers to have to respond to a report within three months with a written statement. Do we feel that this is enough? Will this make a difference, or will it mean that a Minister can simply note what the committee has said and change nothing?
We will be seeking guarantees that the Government will consult on membership; that there will be an open, transparent recruitment process; that wide-ranging expertise will be ensured; and that the committee will have genuine independence and not be incorporated as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, as we believe this could potentially damage its ability to hold the Government to account. How will the Government ensure and protect the independence of the committee so that it can fulfil its role?
There should be provision in the Bill for proper resourcing for the scale of the task. Looking at the scale of task, there is a need for the committee to have a clear mandate and duty to look at all relevant policies.
It is paramount that the committee can look at policy right across Government. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said that the Bill currently creates only a discretionary duty for the animal sentience committee to review whether a government policy has had appropriate regard to the welfare of sentient animals. There should be a mandate with a clear duty for a review of all policies that fall within defined criteria. Will there be a duty on government departments to co-operate with and share necessary information the committee? Is there a mechanism for departments to flag relevant policy developments?
The Better Deal for Animals Coalition is calling for the Secretary of State to create a cross-Whitehall animal sentience strategy, which would include plans for what upcoming policy is then within the scope of the ASC. This additional duty would also require the Secretary of State to report annually in person to Parliament to allow full scrutiny and an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the ASC.
To truly improve animal welfare, there needs to be prospective, not just retrospective, consideration of policies. The Bill allows for the ASC to produce a report on policy that “is being” or “has been” formulated or implemented, but, if we consider policy during formulation, the committee’s recommendations can be effected and policy can be improved. Can the Minister confirm that this is being looked at as a potential in future? Will the committee be able to look at the enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation? Where it falls short, can the committee report on what action the Government should take to enhance its impact and strengthen existing weaknesses?
I will look at the scope of the Bill, particularly Clause 5, as other Members have. It defines “animal” as
“any vertebrate other than homo sapiens.”
We have heard about the independent review that Defra has commissioned into whether there is evidence that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods are sentient. As other Members have already asked, when will this report be available?
As noble Lords have said, there is already ample evidence to show that these animals are sentient, so we believe that the definition of “animal” should be expanded and included in the Bill. As we know, this expanded definition was agreed upon by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission earlier this year. Furthermore, notable animal welfare organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA, also recognise the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods and fully support their inclusion. Will the Government expand the definition to include these particular animals?
Animal welfare is a global concern, and ensuring the health and welfare of sentient animals is important as a marker of social progress. We welcome the Bill but urge the Minister to take serious note of our concerns and those expressed by others. We look forward to working with your Lordships’ House to make the much-needed improvements.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to your Lordships for insightful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on a number of points. First, this is a matter of great public interest, and the passage of the Bill through both Houses will be followed closely not just by organisations but by the wider public. I thank the noble Baroness for her tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his work on the preparation of the Bill, rightly pointing out that he has raised important points, some of which I hope to address now.
Many noble Lords raised issues about the scope of the Bill and what it will seek to do. The Government are trying to sail a path between creating something that is meaningful and effective and keeping Parliament as the deciding force on this, not the courts. A number of noble Lords have quite rightly raised the concerns, which I shared when I came to this brief, about the risk of judicial review—I will come on to that in a minute.
Noble Lords have taken me further back than the 200 years of animal rights legislation that I spoke about in my opening remarks. We have heard about Homer’s Odyssey and Copernicus, but it is undoubtedly a fact that we have been living with the concept of sentience written into European legislation, and it was in our manifesto to transpose it. There was, I concur, a rather bumpy attempt to do it, and we have now brought forward something that is much more workable and relevant.
This debate has left me with a strong sense of optimism. There is a great deal of unity in purpose and belief that, as a species, we owe a duty of care to the animal kingdom. We largely agree that animals are capable of thinking and feeling and that this fact should be recognised in law. Even if our views might vary as to the finer details of how this should be achieved, we should keep this fundamental principle at the top of our minds.
I apologise if I do not get to everyone’s points; I will write to those that I miss. I will do this in no particular order. My noble friend Lord Robathan is concerned about whether the animal sentience committee will differ from the current Animal Welfare Committee. The current committee advises Defra and the Governments of Wales and Scotland about particular animal welfare issues that have been remitted to it. Ministers are not required by law to respond to the points made in the expert advisory reports published by the Animal Welfare Committee. Its existence and role have no statutory duty, while the animal sentience committee will be a creature of statute.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the resources, as did a number of other noble Lords. The Bill establishes the committee to consider how central government policies take account of animal sentience, and this will require it to be properly resourced. I am very happy to have more of that teased out in Committee, but at this stage we fully accept that this a point on which people are legitimately concerned, and we are determined that this committee shall work. We will produce a committee that has the necessary means to do this. However, if we fix resources, we put a limit, in effect, on what it can do. It is better to work this out as it starts to go about its business and we can gain an accurate understanding of the nature of its ambition, and then our resources will reflect its needs.
My noble friend Lady Fookes is concerned about the recommendations on improvements to animal welfare and why the Bill talks only about “adverse” effects. The committee’s role will encourage policymakers to think about the positive improvements that they can make to animal welfare—not just minimising adverse effects. Its reports may include recommendations to that effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson asked about the guidance for the committee. There will be guidance, and we expect to consult on this. We do not want to direct the committee’s priorities and the work that it does because its members are the experts and we want them to decide what issues they should look at.
In addition, there are some very clever Ministers—I do not put myself among them—and officials, but very few of them are experts in this field. To the noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Ridley, who asked why this is necessary, I say that there is a long history of expert committees advising government, and we should not be afraid of that. What matters is what Ministers do with that advice. The committee will opine on issues, but of course Ministers will take a much broader view.
It is dangerous to use examples, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others have raised the issue of religious slaughter. The committee may decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with that. The same can be applied to farm animals: as my noble friend Lord Robathan said, taking an animal to slaughter is not a pleasant experience for it, to say the least. However, there is a wider issue with regard to producing meat and the benefit that that brings to our environment and people in this country.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth is concerned about fishing. I have received interesting letters concerning the future and the rights and wrongs of fishing, and I share his enthusiasm for that sport. The way we harvest wild fish to eat is highly regulated, and we want to make sure that the British public have access to good quantities of healthy, sustainably produced fish. If the committee were to make a recommendation on how our trawlers operate and how wild fish are caught, or indeed, how my noble friend fishes on a river, the Minister would have to look at the wider implications.
I say to noble Lords who are concerned about other matters that there are plenty of opportunities in this House and the other place to bring in legislation, whether on dog collars, farm animals or whatever. This Bill has no effect on the democratic ability of Governments and Members of this legislature to bring legislation forward. What it does do is provide expert advice to Ministers in order to take forward a greater understanding of the measures needed to get better legislation. There has been much criticism in this debate of the standard of legislation that has come before us in other forms. This is an attempt to ensure that we are thinking about something that Governments ought to think about.
My noble friend Lord Herbert raised the issue of sentimentality, and a number of noble Lords have talked about anthropomorphising animals. A considerable amount of blame was laid at the door of Disney. We are not trying to sentimentalise here or create something that will take the debate on animals into a place it need not and should not go. We are recognising sentience in domestic law to provide reassurance that central government policy decisions have been made with all due regard to the fact that animals can experience feelings both positive and negative, such as joy and pain.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, talked about the jurisdiction of this matter, an issue rightly raised by a number of noble Lords. This committee will look at the reserved matters that all legislation covers, and devolved matters will be left to devolved Governments. For example, an activity undertaken by the Ministry of Defence would be a reserved matter; the decision of the committee would reflect the whole United Kingdom. It cannot talk about legislation in Northern Ireland reflecting devolved matters, and I think that is an understanding devolved Governments have accepted and taken forward.
My noble friend Lord Howard raised an important point about judicial review. I want to come back to this because it is really important. The EFRA Select Committee, in its criticism of the original attempt to legislate on this matter, was right and pointed out that it did expose risks. The purpose of the report will be to set out the committee’s own views on the question of whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the way the policy under review might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. However, responsibility for policy decisions remains with Ministers, who must come to their own conclusions about how different relevant considerations should be weighed up and what weight should be given to them. The Government’s response to a report from the committee will help explain to Parliament why the Government may have legitimately reached a different conclusion to the committee.
Alternatively, if the Government intend to review the policy decision in light of the committee’s views, they can say so. If the Government’s response is found to be wanting, it might be possible for someone to establish sufficient grounds to bring a judicial review, but we believe that in this situation the grounds on which that judicial review might be brought forward would present, irrespective of the committee’s report. This is really important, and I urge all Members of this House who may be thinking about bringing forward amendments to consider that we want to keep the control of these issues in this House and not in the courts.
My noble friend Lady Deech made a point about experiments. The Government have no plans to change the regulatory system for the use of animals in science. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work, both in health and disease. She is entirely right to pay tribute to the work done on bringing forward the vaccine, which we are all benefiting from.
A number of noble Lords, including the Opposition spokesman and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, wanted to know more about who the members of the animal sentience committee will be. The standard public appointment rules will apply to appointments to the committee; we intend to run a fair and open recruitment process and achieve a diversity of talent and experience that will be the key asset of the committee. I refer noble Lords to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. I am not going to go into detail now, or at any stage in this process, about what the membership of the committee should precisely contain. However, we do think there should be a broad group of experts, undoubtedly involving academia and veterinary expertise, and a number of others. My noble friend Lady McIntosh talked about farmers and I entirely agree with what she said. I hope all those involved in the raising of animals, be it on farms or in other settings, will feel that they are represented—not necessarily on the committee, but in that their views are represented.
I will finish by addressing the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Hannan and Lord Bellingham about the rationale of the Bill. Nowhere in UK law is the concept of animal sentience—their capacity to have feelings and a level of conscious awareness—recognised. This Bill recognises that fundamental principle and provides a statutory basis for the welfare needs of sentient animals to be properly reflected in all government policy-making, in a reasonable and proportionate way—I emphasise “reasonable” and “proportionate”—and it is vital that, throughout the process of this Bill, we recognise that.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for a thoroughly interesting and useful debate, as a curtain-raiser for this legislation. I look forward to seeing it in Committee, with your Lordships’ support, and to debating some of these points in more detail. I commend this Bill to the House and beg to move.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 6th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (1 Jul 2021)
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment because my noble friend Lord Forsyth is putting the report on quantitative easing to bed at his Economic Affairs Committee, just across the Corridor, so he has asked me to move it for him. I apologise that I was not able to contribute to Second Reading, but I have read Members’ contributions to that debate, and very interesting they were, too.
This amendment would change the first line of Clause 1(1) to read:
“The Secretary of State must”,
by regulations—that is the amendment—
“establish and maintain a committee called the Animal Sentience Committee.”
That is because, in common with quite a lot of my fellow Members of the House of Lords, I have great worries about the creation of this committee at all. In the second group of amendments, we will look at the whole question of duplication. We already have an Animal Welfare Committee and it is not altogether obvious why we need another one doing much the same tasks as the old one. Surely it is the task of government, particularly a Conservative Government, to simplify legislation, not complicate it.
Therefore, by adding “by regulations”, it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to come back to Parliament and say precisely what committee he wanted. It would also be an opportunity for him to explain to Parliament how much this is all costing, which is something my noble friend Lord Robathan raised at Second Reading. Looking at this Bill, there is no evidence at all of what it will cost the taxpayer, and it is important that we know how much these things will cost. It is not ridiculous to argue that we should be told how much people will be paid for being on the committee.
Generally, there is a great worry that the committee will develop a complete mind of its own, go roaring off, interfere with many different areas of government, and become rather unaccountable. Anything that can be done to ensure that the Secretary of State comes back to Parliament should be welcomed by the Government, as we do not want this committee getting completely out of control.
A great worry about the whole of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said, is:
“to what problem is this Bill a solution?”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1918.]
There is an awful lot of truth in that, and it was echoed by a number of other contributors at Second Reading. We ought to be careful about creating new layers of bureaucracy and a committee with enormous powers to interfere with other areas of government, and end up not being accountable to Parliament at all. I beg to move.
Lord Trees (CB)
Thank you, my Lords. I should like to speak to Amendment 3 in my name and Amendment 16 in the names of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Hannan.
Amendment 3 will sit in Clause 1, which introduces the animal sentience committee, and it seems right, proper and appropriate that the clause then goes on to describe the committee’s remit. That is to some extent covered in Clause 2(2), but my amendment goes further than that clause in two important respects. First, it stresses:
“The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in relation to the process of the formulation”—
and so on. It introduces the word “process”, which is critical to understanding the function of the committee. It is not influencing the policy or commenting on it. It can comment, and it has a remit to comment, on the process by which policy is formulated and implemented with regard to considering animal welfare implications. That is important. It may be a statement of the obvious, but it is perhaps sometimes worth stating the obvious.
Amendment 3, which would extend Clause 2(2), also refers to its remit to look at policy subsequent to the establishment of the committee, which would therefore have no right to retrospective review of policies previously formulated or implemented, even if they are in process at the time. This is an issue that a number of subsequent amendments on the list repeatedly allude to. It would therefore seem sensible to include that provision right at the beginning as a limitation on the committee’s remit.
Those are the main points: the amendment sets out the committee’s remit right at the beginning of the Bill, emphasising that its role is to comment on process, and would limit its remit to policy being formulated and implemented after the committee has been established.
Perhaps I may quickly speak to Amendment 16. It would restrict policy, which the Bill does not do; the Bill refers to “any government policy”, which is a huge remit. The amendment would restrict the policy to areas that were defined in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which to some extent is the progenitor of the Bill. It seems sensible to make the scope of the committee more manageable, reasonable and pertinent by restricting that remit.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, particularly those in respect of farming. I am chair of the UK Squirrel Accord and chair of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust. I apologise that I, too, was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I was in the Chamber for a good chunk of it, including for the winding speeches, and I have, of course, read Hansard.
I will speak to Amendments 16 and 35 in my name and briefly to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees. My amendments are probing. Animal sentience, of course, is not in EU retained law as it was a treaty obligation and so was not preserved by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was therefore lost in the departure process from the European Union.
EU retained law is an interesting concept. In fact, it is a snapshot of EU law at 31 December 2020, which was then transposed into UK law. Of course, if you then want to make a change, changes are made expressly and with due process. That due process would seem to me to involve asking a number of questions. What was unsatisfactory about the previous arrangements? What are the benefits of the new arrangements that are proposed? What has been done to ensure that there are no unintended consequences? The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, in his Second Reading speech, summarised that by saying,
“to what problem is this Bill a solution?”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1918.]
I suppose I have merely tried to split that out. Thus, everything in EU retained law is anchored in the position quo ante as at 31 December last year. Things go on from there, but we knowingly make changes after that by going through a due process.
Before I go on to make some points, I thought it was probably interesting for everyone to understand the history of Article 13 a bit and how much Article 13 is a child of UK thinking. The original precursor appeared as a non-binding declaration as part of the 1991 Maastricht treaty, when, of course, there was a Conservative Government. It was proposed by the British. In 1997, with a Labour Government, it was promoted in the treaty of Amsterdam to being a binding protocol. In 2007, again under a Labour Government, it moved from being a protocol to an article in the Lisbon treaty. In each of those changes it was essentially a cross-party UK effort that put it there and placed sentience at the core of policy formation in the EU. It is a product of British thinking and part of our legacy within the EU.
This Bill is simply not consistent with Article 13 in two broad ways. Article 13 has the policy boundaries, which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just referred to. It also has the balancing factors that need to be taken into account when the issue is at question. Thus, I ask my three questions. What was unsatisfactory about the previous arrangements? What benefits are there to be found in the new arrangements? What has been done to ensure that there are no unintended consequences?
I hope to hear from the Minister in due course, but I went back and looked at the debates in Hansard for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2018. I looked at the Conservative manifesto. I have here under my left elbow the Explanatory Notes associated with this Bill and, of course, I have read and reread the Minister’s speech on 16 June at Second Reading. I am afraid that there is not really an answer to those questions. I have to say that, in the absence of that, Amendment 16 would restore the policy area boundaries, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just said, and Amendment 35 would restore the balancing factors that must be considered. I think that the case for doing that is pretty strong.
In closing, I generally have a lot of sympathy with the amendments in this group, not just the one from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but his amendment in particular is consistent with my logic and, if he comes back with it on Report, I hope to sign it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled three amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 19, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft, which seeks to exclude from the scope of the committee any policy related to the advancement of medical science.
British medical science is at the forefront of the world, as we have seen over the last year or so, as it leads on genomic sequencing, vaccine development and large-scale randomised trials for therapeutic purposes. It must be a cause for concern that the actions and inquiries of this committee could create a degree of inhibition in the advancement of medical science and the actions of medical scientists in continuing to promote medical science, because in some cases, and under the strictest controls and with the greatest degree of humanity, it is necessary for animal experimentation to be undertaken in order for drugs to be established as safe and for other processes, which are beyond my medical knowledge but I think what I am saying is well understood, to be validated and found to be safe.
The difficulty with having a committee that can go roaming around, checking all these things in advance, which this committee in practice could, is that it trespasses on a well-worn, established set of mechanisms for ensuring that those experiments, where they are absolutely necessary, are carried out with a proper purpose and in proper circumstances.
We lead in medical science with the full support of the Government, not primarily because we see it as a source of great lucre flowing into the country—the Government’s insistence that the vaccine developed under their sponsorship should be available at cost is a good instance of that—but for the benefit of humanity as a whole. The whole human race will benefit from what we do. I think most people would recognise that that is a worthy objective and certainly one that could be settled on alongside any claims that may be made on behalf of animals and their rights. I would therefore strongly recommend, suggest and hope that this amendment can be made and medical science excluded so that the current position remains as it is. That is all I am really asking.
Moving on to the two other amendments, Amendment 26 has the support of my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, while Amendment 33 is merely consequential on Amendment 26. Amendment 26 needs a little explanation. Clause 1 requires the committee and the Government to have regard to “the welfare of animals” and then adds the words “as sentient beings”. It is worth reflecting on what that adds to the claim. When you think about it carefully, it does not add anything at all; it actually subtracts. It is perfectly possible to do harm to animals and to damage their welfare in a way that does not affect them as sentient beings.
The example that most readily comes to mind is to do with background radiation. We know that parts of the country have high levels of background radiation, which can affect humans and, I assume, animals—mammals, at least—detrimentally, but you do not know that it is happening to you. You do not feel anything. You feel neither pleasure nor pain; there is no interaction with the concept of sentience. Your health may be deteriorating, but you have no sentient knowledge of it. It would simply be plainer, and would allow the committee to look at things in the round, if it did not have to be excluded, which it would be, from considering something such as the effects of background radiation on animals. It would simply not be permitted to look at that under this legislation. I thought there might be some support from those who thought that perhaps it should. The deletion of those words would restore us to a more common-sense position of looking at the welfare of animals in general.
Those are my other two amendments, but, before I finish, as this is such a large group I shall comment briefly on three others. Amendment 31, in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, seeks to ensure that the committee at least gives due account to, or respects,
“legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
That is an important point. On Second Reading, I tried to say that there is definitely an attempt here—one may support it, one may not—to shift the hierarchical balance, if you like, between humans and animals to put us more on the same level. I do not think that is too outrageous a claim to make. Of course, part of being human—not for everybody, but for many parts of humanity—is an awareness of, an adherence to and a sensibility about religious belief. With religious belief inevitably comes community adhesion and a certain amount of ritual practice. It takes things too far for the committee to be able to trample over that in the interests of animal welfare, with or without sentience being taken into account. That area should be preserved. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth has that effect. I think that Amendment 35 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have a similar effect but, as he explained, he approached this more on the basis of restoring the balance that existed in the previous legislation. I am glad to be able to support that as well.
That leads me to what is in some ways the most important amendment in the group, put forward by the noble Earl as Amendment 16. I have heard it said informally by Ministers that all the Bill seeks to do is to carry forward into current legislation the legislation that previously existed that has almost been dropped by accident as a result of the legal manner in which we left the European Union, which he explained, so all that the Government are doing is restoring that position. That, of course, is not the case, because the previous position had clear limitations. If the Government were to take Amendments 16 and 35 from the noble Earl into account, a great deal of the legislation, although not all of it, would cease to be controversial or difficult. In some ways, those amendments are the key to the whole thing. If the Minister were able to say that he would accept them, we could all have a fairly short afternoon and declare victory on all hands.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in the group. Amendments 24 and 30 both probe why “all” is required. Would not “due regard” by enough, as in other legislation? The extra word may risk the committee not reporting on whether due process has taken place but instead starting to opine or comment on the merits of policy and government decision. That is not its role, but it has the potential to create unnecessary delays and complications for legislation, as the remit of the committee is widened to such a degree that there is almost nothing on which it cannot express views.
Amendments 25 and 32 would give the committee a further remit—the power to consider both a positive and a negative impact on the welfare of animals. That is crucial when we consider policy that relates to pest control. The formulation and implementation of policy, having all due regard for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, must consider the particular circumstances of all animals, the welfare of which the committee is considering. Lawful pest control activities are undertaken to stop the spread of diseases and to protect livestock. The positive effect of those actions should be noted if the policy is to be reported on.
As I am sure the Minister knows, the animal world can be pretty brutal. If some of the gentler species are to survive, there needs to be control of predators. It is no accident that, where there is such control, there is a far broader range of species. I hope this will be recognised by the committee. How it seeks to balance the demands of the various sentient species is of great importance.
Amendment 34 would limit the remit of the committee to future policy and prevent it considering existing law. Amendments 18, 23 and 29 in my name, to which I shall speak later, cover the point of existing law. Limiting reports to future policy would be a sensible limitation, because if the committee was suddenly given the job of reviewing all existing policy, large amounts of government business might have to be stopped for review by the committee. Such a standstill could cause severe disruption and would place a huge burden on government departments and the committee. It is difficult to think how the committee could possibly cope from scratch with looking at large swathes of policy. The potential damage and the massive cost of stopping government work would be immensely onerous and impractical.
Amendment 36 probes why the Bill does not cover the devolved Administrations. There seems to be somewhat of a blind spot in that reports of the committee may not include any policy falling within devolved competence. After all, this debate on animal sentience only began with our departure from the European Union, as there would no longer be an explicit reference to law applicable in the United Kingdom on the sentience of animals. Should the Bill therefore not apply to the policy of all Governments?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Royal Veterinary College and speak to Amendment 47 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. Basically, what the Bill does is set up a committee. For the animal sentience provisions to be effective, the committee has to be effective. Both my amendments, one of which is in a later group, would ensure that committee could do a good job.
Amendment 47 would ensure that committee could call witnesses, commission research and get proper access to information across government, and make sure that all government departments co-operated. It is very straightforward, and I hope the Government will accept it.
On Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the remit of the committee and the range of policy on which it can report must remain wide if it is going to spot animal sentience challenges. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about restricting the scope of the committee. I do not often fall out with the noble Earl, but I find it slightly quaint that we are harking back to the Lisbon treaty. I was very much against Brexit, but it seems rather strange that we are clinging to the terms of the Lisbon treaty.
The range of policy on which the committee can report has to remain wide, but it needs a helping pointer from government departments to areas of policy which they are beginning to develop which could have animal sentience implications. Such a heads-up by government departments needs to be especially early in the process for the committee then to do its work to help the Government in good time and before things become too wedded within the department. The amendment therefore aims to be helpful to government departments rather than to hinder. It would have a beneficial effect in encouraging departments to think in advance about the animal sentience implications of policy right at the start of the policy process.
I also support Amendment 45, which would enable the committee to work with government on a framework for forward planning and review. It would mean that government was not offshoring all thinking on animal sentience to the committee and avoiding its responsibilities for being at the centre of that process.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to which I have added my name. However, before I do, I must ask again, as several noble Lords have done before me, whether the Bill is necessary. Do we really need sentience to be recognised explicitly in UK law at all? Animal welfare laws in the UK date back to 1822. Successive Governments have also recognised that animals are sentient beings, and have done so both prior to and since our membership of the EU. Furthermore, welfare laws in this country go far beyond the minimum standards set by the EU. It is therefore unclear why putting the fact of animal sentience into law would achieve any substantive improvement in animal welfare.
The Bill also wants the Government to have “all due regard”. It is unclear how adding “all” does anything other than create a means for potential conflicts. Will the Government be found to have had due regard but not to have had all due regard? Why “all due regard”? Does it mean that, from now on, all legislation will need to be amended to insert “all” before “due regard”? More importantly, what does “all due regard” mean? How can one prove to have had all due regard? Is not due regard sufficient? Legally, “due regard” is defined as giving fair consideration and sufficient attention to all the facts, so adding “all” can create only more confusion. It is otiose, serving no practical purpose or result.
That is why I support these amendments, as I do Amendments 25 and 34, although I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has already pointed out to explain why they are also necessary.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I support many of the amendments in this group but will speak specifically to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and Amendments 16 and 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I regret that the department and the Government have failed to make a case for the need to go further than what we had already agreed and accepted historically from our membership of the European Union. I do not think that that case has been adequately made. Also, I am struggling to understand why we need to create a whole new committee, which we are seeking to do in Clause 1: the animal sentience committee.
As probing amendments, the entire group will be helpful to enable my noble friend in summing up from the Front Bench to explain why the animal sentience committee needs to exist at all and why it could not either be absorbed into or be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee. The whole relationship of how those two committees are to coexist needs to be given some justification, and some consideration must be given as to how that will work.
The attraction of Amendment 3—coming from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who is steeped in working with animals and qualified as a veterinary surgeon—is that it is a prospect, looking ahead, and not retrospective. The explanatory statement
“makes clear that the Committee’s remit relates to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy but only that which has been formulated and implemented after the Committee’s formation”.
That leads very neatly on to Amendments 16 and 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Amendment 16 would set out what is generally understood to have been the remit to which we had all agreed; I have not heard any strong case as to why we need to go further than that which we had already accepted and practised in this country for the last number of years. Amendment 35 again underlines the effect that this would be only prospective and that the Bill and the remit of the committee would not seek, in any shape or form, to go back over and address issues that have been agreed as our policy in this country for a significant period. With those few remarks, I look forward to what my noble friend has to say in summing up on this group of amendments.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
I remind the Committee of my interests, as set out in the register. My name is down to Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in this group, but I also wish to support a number of others—in particular Amendment 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, as well as Amendment 3 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and Amendment 34 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
At the start of the Bill, I am still mystified as to what the Government want it to do, because so little of the essential detail is contained in it that the end result could equally be a damp squib or a bolting horse which this and successive Governments will come to regret having mounted. Surely it is not good enough to say that the deficiencies apparent in the Bill will be supplemented later by guidance. Proper parliamentary scrutiny is necessary—indeed, essential—not mere guidance, which can be changed at the whim of any future Secretary of State, so I strongly support Amendment 1.
The Government have got themselves into this unenviable position by declining, as others have said, to incorporate the policy that was covered by the aspects of the Lisbon treaty into our law, which would probably have been the sensible course. Their first attempt at a Bill was wisely withdrawn when it was pointed out that they were laying themselves open to multiple and expensive judicial reviews. I am a mere retired criminal barrister; others are involved in this Committee who are far better qualified than I am in relation to this aspect of the law but, if the department has been advised by its lawyers that the Bill poses no such threats, I would strongly advise an early outside expert opinion.
There is a long list of what we need to know from the Minister at this stage of this Bill. First, we need to know what animal sentience actually means in the Bill; we need a clear definition—and I support the one advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when he spoke at Second Reading, which is contained in Amendment 54.
Secondly, we need to know the remit of this committee. Do the Government really want to set up a running post-legislative scrutiny committee, or do we follow the line sensibly taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in Amendment 3, which suggests that the committee should concentrate solely on policy that comes into effect after the committee is established? If it is to roam across every government department and every policy, which would include aspects of defence, medicine and trade, quite apart from agriculture, it has the makings of a giant and very expensive quango. Does it pick up and choose for itself what it examines? How many reports would it have to produce in a year, if that were the case? Can it commission research in itself—and, if so, who is going to pay for it? This has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, but does the policy have to be delayed while all this is done? All these questions need answers before something is created which could easily run out of control. There must be a clear remit of what it can do, a proper means of setting a programme, and a proper budget to cover it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 39 and 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings. Clause 2 currently allows the animal sentience committee to prepare reports on any government policy that
“is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
The scope is wide, but some rationalisation is required. Government policy is extensive, and the committee could be overwhelmed in attempting to take a strategic and prospective approach to its work.
Amendment 15, especially proposed new subsection (4A), would create a category of government policies that the committee must report on: policies that can reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the welfare of animals, judged by the duration and severity of effects and the number of animals affected. The committee would, however, retain the freedom to report on any other policy that it felt may have impacts on the welfare of animals as sentient beings, including medicine, trade and, possibly, defence.
It is crucial, for the ASC to be successful, that it does not dilute its activity by spreading itself too thinly and investigating policies that will have no effect whatever on animals. The whole thrust of the Bill is about preventing harm and mistreatment of animals as sentient beings, but it is also important that the committee can look at policy that will make a positive improvement to the welfare of animals, not just minimise adverse effects, important though that is.
Amendment 39 would place a duty on the Minister to inform the ASC of any policy that is in preparation that comes within the remit of its work. This duty should not be onerous, as Ministers will know in advance of any policies likely to arise with an animal impact—for instance, trade deals involving shipment of live animals, or the import of meat from animals reared in a country with very different animal welfare standards from our own.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 45, which would introduce a new clause after Clause 3 and should ensure that the ASC had a strategy that it was working to. The Secretary of State should produce an annual statement to Parliament on the progress of this strategy. Parliament, and indeed the public, will want to know how many welfare impact assessments the ASC has carried out over a 12-month period and what the outcome of that work has been.
Following Second Reading, it is clear that a wide divergence of opinions on the Bill is likely to be expressed this afternoon, most coming from the Minister’s own Benches. The Conservative manifesto made it clear that the Government would be bringing forward an animal sentience Bill in the new Parliament. This is an important matter for the voting public. However, it seems that some members of the Conservative Party did not quite understand what this would involve, or perhaps thought that the Government would quietly ignore this pledge. In all events, there is clearly a degree of disappointment in the Bill. I do not envy the Minister his role this afternoon as he seeks to negotiate a passage through some quite choppy water on the Bill, but I fully support it and look forward to his comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to raise a few points. I am a little confused by comments from my noble friends and those opposite that they do not know exactly why the Bill has been brought forward. I thought the Bill had a clear purpose; I thought it was replacing the recognition of animal sentience that applied from 1999 but fell out of UK law when the Brexit transition period came to an end in January 2021. That means that, for the first time in more than two decades, there is currently no requirement for the interests of animals to be considered in the policy process. The Bill, as we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was reflected in the Conservative manifesto, and it will fill the gap and provide that requirement. I do not think that it will bind Ministers to any particular course of action, but it will ensure that their decisions—I emphasise their decisions, not the committee’s decisions—are properly informed of any relevant animal welfare aspects.
That said, I have a couple of questions that have arisen during this debate. For example, it should be clear that this will have no effect on medical science. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made a good point about predator control. Perhaps because I regard myself as a conservationist, I understand that predator control is important, but that does not mean that animal sentience should not be taken into consideration. After all, I think it was in 1904 when we made pole traps illegal. As long as the methods of control are humane, I do not think there should be any cause for concern, but I would be interested to hear my noble friend the Minister’s views on that.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Moylan talking about the potential effects of radiation and things that you cannot necessarily see. Perhaps I should have looked at the Bill while I was sitting here to see whether the Ministry of Defence is excluded. I have been reading and I know about the release of munitions underwater by the Royal Navy, which has had a potential effect on cetaceans.
Those are the sort of things that the sentience committee would have to look at. However, as I just said, this is for Ministers to decide, not this committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am speaking to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to which I have willingly and gladly added my name.
I start with a question: why has this short Bill, which elaborates on a principle with which we can all agree—that the welfare of sentient animals is important—generated so much criticism and so many amendments? To a large extent, it is obvious from what has been said so far that this is due in part to a lack of particularity in the Bill. Such matters include who and how many will be the members of the animal sentience committee, what authorisation will be required before the committee starts work on any policy, the committee’s relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, and what options are open to the Government in response to a report and recommendation of the sentience committee.
I suggest that the proposed amendments are in large part because the Bill is entirely negative, in the sense that it seeks to impose restrictions on the way people go about their work, the way they relax and enjoy themselves, and the ways in which they can give effect to their religious values. Such restrictions go to the heart of what we regard as a diverse society in a democratic state. They go to the heart of freedom of personal conduct and belief.
This is why Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, which recognises animal sentience and requires full regard to be paid to the welfare of animals, stipulates that member states must nevertheless respect
“the legislative or administrative provisions and customs”
of EU countries
“relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, elaborated on the history behind that provision. As he said, the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for Article 13, qualified in that way, so there appears to be no reason why a similar qualification is not to be found in the Bill. The provision of that minimum balance is the object of Amendment 31, which uses identical language to that in Article 13, as does Amendment 35 put forward by the noble Earl.
The need for balance in the Bill with the same or similar qualification as in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty also has a legal aspect. I am not qualified to speak about farming practices. However, recreational activity and adherence to religious practice fall within the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. Recreational activity, including the enjoyment of country sports, falls within the protection for private and family life in Article 8 of the convention. Limited exceptions to that right are set out in Article 8(2) but, so far as I can see, the only ones that might be relevant are
“the protection of health or morals”
and
“the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Even so, a restriction or limitation falling within Article 8.2 is valid only if, among other things, it is proportionate. That is simply a legalistic way of describing the need for balance. Many of the amendments put forward today are essentially concerned to achieve proportionality, including, for example, no retrospectivity in the work and recommendations of the sentience committee and provisions as to its composition.
On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right, which falls within Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is expressly and necessarily stated in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist, democratic society. Our Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains the specific provision in Section 13 that:
“If a court’s determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”
It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this, but it is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and in our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites. This would provide balance, clarity, certainty and compliance with Article 9 and Section 13 of the Act.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister will give us a full and detailed reply, because there have been so many questions and unfortunately, the Committee being operated in this way because of Covid, we will not be able to cross-examine him in quite the way we would have done when it was sitting normally.
I start from the basis that we ought to retain the current position, which we had just before we left the EU. I therefore support the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in his Amendment 16. However, Amendment 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is absolutely critical; that is, having the composition of the committee and how it operates controlled by regulations. It would be quite wrong for the Government to be able to set up a committee at their own whim and dictate, without coming to Parliament, exactly how it might be composed and operate. I hope my noble friend will be able to be very positive on that amendment.
Could my noble friend also confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was absolutely right? In speaking to his Amendment 3, the noble Lord drew attention to Clause 2, which says that the committee must comment on policy or what policy might be formulated. Does this mean that it cannot recommend policy to the Minister? If it were able to go off on its own and come forward with a report that says the Government ought to legislate in an area, it would broaden the scope of Clause 2. I hope my noble friend will confirm that it is strictly limited to policy generated by the Government.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan on Amendment 19 and the need for medical research to continue. I hope that is fairly straightforward.
I support what my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising said on vermin. Vermin need to be controlled but they should, quite rightly, be controlled in the most humane manner possible. I raised this during the Environment Bill, when my noble friend Lord Goldsmith moved away from human to natural vermin control but, if one were to pursue that policy and way of thinking, we would have no control of the outcome at all. I hope my noble friend will confirms that, as the apex predator, man has an important role in improving biodiversity.
I conclude by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on judicial review. One can pick a great many holes in the Bill as drafted, and I can see the judicial review process being used more heavily on this Bill than in most other legislation we have considered.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 19 and 31, beginning with Amendment 19. We must ensure we can still use animals in the advancement of medical research. A great deal of research still needs to be undertaken in the research and development of vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs. The results of this research must be properly recorded and submitted to the appropriate authorities, before any chemical, biological or surgical treatment is approved for regular use. As such, processes must remain in place for effective certification of all life-saving treatments.
For years, animals have been used as a crucial component in the development process. Pharmaceutical companies have successfully produced a range of medical advances as a result. Drugs, vaccines, surgical procedures, insulin, pain relievers and new traditional supplements—to name a few—have been developed. We are living in a changing world with new diseases or variations on existing illnesses, where there is a need for continuous research and development. For certain diseases, we have not yet found appropriate remedies and the work of R&D is not yet done. Suitable experimentation on animals must continue and improve to offer other potentially life-saving and life-improving products to those in need. It is therefore important that the practice of developing and testing on animals is continued. There should be no interference in this process, as it is for the benefit of humanity, on a global scale.
I add that, in the research and development of vaccines against Covid-19, studies and experiments were undertaken on certain animals to assure the vaccine as effective and safe for use worldwide. I therefore support this amendment, which seeks to ensure the continued existence of this essential aspect of the advancement of our understanding of medical science, for the benefit of the people of the entire world.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall start by speaking to Amendment 19 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Mancroft, and myself. It is designed to secure medical research and the UK’s world-leading place in it, to ensure that animal activists cannot interfere with future or past research, and to guarantee a safe environment for our researchers. More than that, Amendment 19 is designed to protect human welfare and sentience.
Now, more than ever, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our scientific researchers who have saved thousands of lives and given peace of mind to British people and people around the world, first in the development of the Covid vaccine, although I will give more examples. I live in Oxford and went straight to the top when investigating the necessity for this amendment and the damage that might be caused if it is not passed. Dame Sarah Gilbert, the developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has said that she relied on research using non-human primates, ferrets and Syrian hamsters. How could any committee dare to start pontificating about what research may or may not be carried out using animals in the face of what has so recently been achieved?
Given the age demographics of this House, it is worth highlighting the recent FDA approval for Aduhelm, the first new treatment for Alzheimer’s in more than 20 years and the first therapy to target the fundamental pathophysiology of the disease. A key researcher in this, and winner of the Breakthrough Prize and the Brain Prize, is John Hardy of University College London. It took more than 20 years of research, largely involving work on genetically modified mice, to reveal what leads to cell death and plaque formation in the human brain. According to Sir Colin Blakemore, it is inconceivable that the background knowledge for the development of treatments could have been gained without animal research.
Researchers are also using monkeys for a wide range of disorders and the Covid vaccine. Researchers use them to test the safety of vaccine compounds, and to discover how the virus works inside the body and whether it can reinfect people who have already recovered from the virus. It is vital that such research should be protected. While their use in Europe is very limited, China has recognised the opportunity that this gives Chinese researchers and huge amounts of money have been poured into primate facilities for research in China.
Sadly, some animal rights organisations have disparaged the biomedical research process during the past year. They have spread misinformation, and even seem to prefer people to die rather than study animals. The use of animals in experiments and testing is highly regulated in the UK under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which adopts the principles of the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. Let us celebrate the wonderful work done here in the UK to save lives by guaranteeing through this amendment, and by a statement from the Minister, that nothing will be considered or done to impede that research.
Turning to Amendments 31 and 35, I fully support the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton. These amendments are designed to restore to the remit of the committee to be established by the Bill the balance that used to be reflected in European law. The committee will have retrospective powers—that is, it can look back over past animal issues and reopen them. If the committee were to raise issues with Jewish methods of killing animals, the Secretary of State would have to lay a response to those views before Parliament. The Government have in the past stated their commitment to protecting that custom, but the Bill could undermine that. The proposers need the Government’s assurance in this debate that, were such a situation to arise, they would guarantee their commitments to religious communities. In saying this, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
There are arguments about the least cruel method of putting animals to death. The Jewish way, after much consideration, is regarded as effective because it causes an immediate loss of cerebral perfusion. Stunning, however, is driven by speed and commercial utility and goes wrong in many more millions of cases of animal deaths than ever take place in Jewish killing.
Despite the requirement in European law on balance, the European Court of Justice last year upheld a Belgian ban on Jewish and Muslim practices of slaughter without stunning. The argument that stunning is less injurious than non-stunning does not hold water. We should not apply double standards. The Food Standards Agency survey of 2017 estimated that hundreds of millions of animals were killed without effective stunning; gassing, in particular, causes great distress to animals killed that way. The European Food Safety Authority reported that, in the most recent count, 180 million chickens and other poultry were killed using insufficient electric charge. We do not kill our animals with great attention to their welfare, leaving aside the Jewish and Muslim methods. Rabbits’ necks are broken and fish starved and suffocated. We even mistreat our pets, breeding them to a lifetime of ill health and depriving them of their natural habitats. If the new committee in the Bill is to do any good, it should concern itself with making sure that slaughter methods as they exist are carried out as they should be and existing welfare standards are enforced.
Will the Minister accept these amendments and ensure that Jewish slaughter practices are protected? Not to do so would be seen as an unwillingness to make a home for those elements of the Jewish community —and the Muslim community—to whom this is of major importance.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 15, 39 and 45 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—I thank her for her support—and Amendment 47 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I have added my name. I will make some comments on other amendments in the group.
Amendment 15 provides the criteria for which policies are in the remit of the committee and for the committee to report on those policies while they are being formulated, while keeping the discretionary power for the committee to look at any other policies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, if we do not do that, the remit will become far too wide to be manageable. The current text of Clause 2 allows the committee to prepare reports on any government policy that is being or has been formulated or implemented. While I welcome that wide scope, we need some organisation of activity. Without it, in the face of the overwhelming range of government policy, the committee may well struggle to take a strategic and prospective approach to its work.
Our amendment would answer concerns raised by a number of noble Lords about how the committee would cope with the potential amount of work. The policies that the Government should be looking at are ones that should be reasonably expected to have a significant effect on the welfare of animals, judged by the duration and severity of effects and the number of animals affected. Beyond those mandatory reports on policies within its remit, the committee could retain the freedom to report on any other policy that it felt might have an impact on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.
Crucially, our amendment would also allow the committee’s reports to contain recommendations on how the policy could be made to have a positive effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the committee would be able to
“encourage policymakers to think about the positive improvements that they can make to animal welfare—not just minimising adverse effects”.—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1945.]
We very much welcome these remarks, but the text of the Bill needs to be brought into line with them, as Clause 2 currently specifies “adverse” effects being the subject of committee reports. Given that the Government believe, as we do, that the committee should have the freedom to consider how policies could enhance animal welfare, we hope that the Minister will recognise that our amendment would resolve this issue.
Amendment 39 is also designed to help to structure the way in which the committee would consider government policy with regard to animal sentience in a straightforward way by putting a duty on Ministers to inform the committee in a timely manner of relevant policy development. As I said at Second Reading, it is paramount that the committee can look at policies right across government. The Bill currently creates only a discretionary duty for the animal sentience committee to review whether a government policy has had appropriate regard to the welfare of sentient animals. There should be a mandate with a clear duty for a review of all policies that fall within well-defined criteria. A duty on Ministers to inform the committee would help to achieve that outcome.
Amendment 45 proposes a new clause that is essential to ensure that the Bill provides a functional replacement to the sentience duty that applied in law when the UK was a member of the European Union. We have heard a lot today from noble Lords about Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and its intertwined elements—recognition of animals as sentient beings and a duty to pay “full regard” to animal sentience in formulating and implementing policy. Although it was limited to certain areas of policy, Article 13 imposed a direct legal obligation on the EU and its member states to pay full regard to animal sentience. It was a direct responsibility on decision-makers, in the form of government Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their interest in the Bill. I feel as if I were sailing a path between Scylla and Charybdis, but I shall try to review the points raised—and I hope that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, says, I shall be able to reassure noble Lords in the process.
I start with Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and moved by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. They raise an important point, which is that the establishment of the committee should be a transparent and collaborative process. To that end, I can commit to sharing draft terms of reference for the committee before the Bill returns to the House for Report.
My noble friend raised some points about the cost, and I can say to him that the committee will be funded from within the departmental budget. As we develop a more detailed understanding of the committee’s structure and how it wishes to approach its task, we will be able to develop an estimate of its resourcing. This process is in train, and we will share an estimate with Parliament at the appropriate juncture. We will ensure that the committee has the resources necessary to fulfil its functions, as set out in the Bill, while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. However, I would be wary of defining the terms of reference and the membership of the committee too rigidly in statute. This committee is an entirely new entity with a new and specific remit, and to some extent its first steps will involve learning and refining how it wishes to operate and what expertise it requires.
I shall take together Amendments 31 and 35. I fully agree with my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Hamilton, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that policy must be made with culture, religion and both local and national heritage in mind. Ministers are, and will remain, responsible for judging the right balance between these and various other considerations. Nothing in the Bill will affect that. I am grateful for the opportunity to address any remaining uncertainty about the committee’s role and how we envisage its recommendations fitting into the decision-making process.
I can assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no attempt to force Ministers to prioritise one factor over another when taking a complex, multi-faceted policy decision. What the Bill will do is help to inform Ministers about important welfare issues that should, in the interests of good policy-making, be a part of their overall considerations. The committee is there to scrutinise the policy decision-making process and whether it has taken all due account of important animal welfare issues. It is not there to determine the substance of ministerial decisions. I hope that goes a long way to giving the noble Baroness the reassurance that she requires, but I shall come on to some of the specific points in a moment. As it prepares its reports, the committee will be fully aware of its remit, and will recognise the need for Ministers to consider other factors alongside animal welfare.
For the same reason, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Moylan, whom I thank for his Amendment 19, has anything to fear from the committee having the ability to report on policies related to advancing the understanding of medical science. I entirely agree with him and others who spoke on this matter that what is done in our scientific institutions is a “worthy objective”—I think those were his words, echoing the concerns of my noble friend Lord Sheikh, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others. The Bill will make no difference to our ability as a country to continue to improve, as we must, how we deal with diseases through testing on animals. What the committee can do is suggest changes to the regulations. As has been pointed out, this area of animal welfare in this country is one of the most highly regulated in the world. Ministers will receive that information and then be able to make a decision taking into account all the factors concerned. One of those factors may be a pandemic; it may be the need to keep hundreds of thousands of people alive. Such decisions will weigh on a Minister, and he or she will be able to take into account the findings of the committee but not necessarily be bound by them.
I again thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his Amendment 37, which would limit the animal sentience committee to producing reports only on Defra policies. I will take this together with Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, which would limit the remit of the committee to those policy areas covered by Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The Bill reflects that animals are sentient beings, so it is only right that appropriate regard to their welfare is given in any policy-making decision where it is relevant. Although Defra has responsibility for animal welfare, and I am sure that some of its policies will be the subject of committee reports, many other departments will also have the ability to impact on animals due to our various interactions with the natural world. It is therefore important that the committee has the freedom to consider any central government policy it believes could have an impact on the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. The committee will have the discretion to focus its efforts on those policy decisions it deems most important in welfare terms. In our manifesto, this Government as a whole committed to the introduction of new laws on sentience, with no suggestion of carve-outs or exemptions. As noble Lords have said, we have previously operated under Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which goes much wider than environment, food and rural affairs, so we have operated under this type of regime before.
I will address Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising briefly, as we will return to this important question in more detail as we move through the groups. I remind your Lordships that the committee has a very specific role, which is to publish reports giving its assessment on whether Ministers have properly considered animal welfare when making policy decisions. Expert scrutiny of this sort is vital to good policy-making, particularly in areas such as animal sentience where our scientific knowledge is advancing rapidly. Of course it is, and will remain, for Ministers to make and account for individual policy decisions. We simply do not have to worry that, one day, the committee will demand that we tear up a particular piece of legislation. That is not what it is there to do; it has no powers that would allow it to do so. That said, I would not want to prevent the committee identifying potential improvements in the implementation of existing policy, nor would I want to prevent it learning and sharing lessons from the recent past.
On Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, we decided not to include a fixed definition of sentience in the Bill, because “sentience” is a term heavily influenced by the latest scientific understanding and so risks becoming rapidly out of date. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years and will continue to evolve. It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for the Bill to work. We all recognise that animals are sentient. Accordingly, their welfare needs should be properly considered in government policy-making. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from five noble Lords. First, I call the noble Lord, Lord Marland.
Lord Marland (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Committee for allowing me to speak, and to the Minister. I attended all of Second Reading but did not choose to speak; I am very grateful to be allowed to now.
I do not envy my noble friend the Minister taking this Bill through the Lords. Clearly, it has united all sides in condemnation of the make-up, extent and cost of the committee and led to questions of whether it is a quango or a regulator committee. To date, he has not allayed our fears on that. I should be grateful if he would let us know when he intends to do so, as he alluded to in his remarks.
He also mentioned that funding will be out of the existing Defra budget. Is that an increased budget? That does not tell us whether the budget will be increased to fulfil this funding, and he has not conceded any information on that.
I am struck and concerned by his statement that the United Kingdom is the most highly regulated country in the world in this area. We are a nation of animal lovers and we have traditionally treated our animals extremely humanely, but this obsession with overregulation and making us the most regulated in the world must be a terrible threat to our farming community as it struggles against the continual burden of regulation put on it.
Therefore, my noble friends who have raised these questions are quite right to challenge the Minister on the make-up of the committee. At what point do we stop imposing regulation on our farming community? Many will have heard the outcry from the farming community after the Australian trade deal, complaining that Australia is less regulated than our community. It makes it impossible for our farmers to export if they are not on, as they call it, a level playing field. I further amplify the comments of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, who rightly said that this is gold-plating the European Union’s welfare arrangements. Again, at what point do we cease to gold-plate products of something that the majority of the country decided to leave: the European Union?
As I said, I do not envy the Minister for taking on the Bill. He is a farmer himself, and a countryman to boot, but I fear that, unless strong terms of reference are imposed on the committee, we will end up destroying our countryside pursuits and making life virtually impossible for our farming and fishing community in future. I hope that, as the Bill makes its passage, he will be able to assure us—rather more, I am afraid, than he has today. I am happy to meet him afterwards to discuss it, or to receive a letter from him, if he so wishes.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Committee for allowing me to speak in this break.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
On that point, I just point out to Members of the Committee that speeches after the Minister are primarily for points of elucidation.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I will write to him about the committee’s make-up and remit and repeat any points he may have missed in our conversations or in earlier proceedings about how we feel this committee should exist. Of course, we are going into a spending round and these issues will be reflected in that, but I have declared openly how the resources will be found.
I will correct my noble friend on one point. When I said “highly regulated”, I was talking about how we use animals in scientific research. That is something we can all be extremely proud of. In animal research, we have one of the most highly regulated science communities. I share his desire for less bureaucracy and less regulation for the farming community. There are changes afoot that I hope he will be extremely pleased about. We will see a simpler range of policies, which will make life easier for rural businesses. When I referred to high regulation, I did so with pride that we have an active and vibrant scientific community based on research into animals, and that it is properly regulated by probably the best regulation in the world.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest with various positions in the Countryside Alliance.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could elucidate this point: the thrust of almost all the contributions by noble Lords today has been that the Bill’s scope is too broad and that the powers of the committee that is to be set up insufficiently constrained. The architecture being established is far broader than that which exists for the Animal Welfare Committee—an issue we are about to explore—and the effect of the consideration of sentience will be far greater than the declaratory effect that sentience had in the provisions in European law. As has been raised, all this suggests that there is a greater potential for judicial review.
So far as I could see, in responding to all these points the Minister said that the remit would remain broad, sentience would not be defined and the committee’s powers would not be constrained. My simple question is therefore: does he accept the views expressed by most noble Lords this afternoon that the Bill is imperfectly drafted, that the committee’s powers are too broad and that it needs to be constrained? Is that important position accepted or not? Is the Minister dismissing all the views expressed by way of amendments today and essentially saying to us that the balance struck in the Bill is perfect?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I would never have the temerity to say that anything was perfect in this world, and legislation is a messy process. I assure my noble friend that I believe that we are sailing the right path between creating something that is unwieldy and a burden on government and something that is—I hope he will agree when it is established—proportionate. It can range around government looking at important things and will inform the way decisions are made.
My noble friend mentioned the risk of judicial review. The Bill places additional legal duties on Ministers only in so far as it requires them to submit written responses on the parliamentary record to the animal sentience committee’s reports within three months of their publication. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is additionally legally required to appoint and maintain an animal sentience committee. This means that the Bill creates only two additional grounds for judicial review: a failure by the relevant Minister to respond to the committee within three months and a failure by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to establish and maintain an animal sentience committee. I hope that gives my noble friend some reassurance.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the very interesting speech he has just made; I can see myself reading Hansard very carefully for a lot of what he said. I have just one question, on which I was hoping for some help from him. Quite early in his speech, he had some very warm words for Amendments 31 and 35, but I did not understand whether they would result in his amending the Bill or were just warm words. Could he clarify that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can assure the noble Earl that I am open to discussions on any area of the Bill where I feel we can make it better without creating hostages to fortune. I do not want to create a feeding frenzy for lawyers by putting anything in legislation that will increase opportunities for judicial review or any other legal measure. I will clearly be having many discussions with noble Lords from across the House between now and Report. I hope that what will emerge and what we will send to the other place will be a coherent piece of legislation.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Marland that the Government are beginning to alienate quite a large section of the rural community with their attitude towards it at the moment. It would be a retrograde step for my noble friend the Minister to continue in that way. I know that, being a farmer, he will be very sensitive to this. I have three questions for him.
My noble friend the Minister said those dreaded words, “We have nothing to fear”. If we have nothing to fear, let us put it in the Bill. It seems to me utterly logical that if all our concerns are taken care of, we will be much happier if some of our concerns are put in the Bill—which will help satisfy our concerns. I disagree with my noble friend; I still think we have quite a lot to fear from the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend the Minister said that proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f) were too restrictive. If that remit satisfied European law and the Lisbon treaty, could my noble friend tell us why it needs to be increased now? What are the areas of concern? Where do the Government think that their policies are wrong so that they need a committee to have a look at them?
Thirdly and finally, I am grateful that my noble friend will let us see his thoughts on the composition of the committee and how it might work, but are we to be allowed to debate those thoughts and the papers that he will produce? If we cannot debate them, it is pretty unnecessary that we should bother to see them.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend and absolutely defer to him as someone with long experience of legislation, good and bad. I am sorry if saying “Nothing to fear” caused him fear. I was seeking to remind the Committee that we are not talking about something that creates policy; rather, it can inform policymakers. There are a whole host of issues in the minds of Ministers when they formulate new legislation. The Bill allows them to take all of them into consideration and, if needs be, put to one side the concerns of the committee because, weighing them against other matters, they can take a different path.
That is really important. It is fundamental to the Bill. We are trying to reflect what the wider public are concerned about, which is an improved climate of animal welfare in decision-making. We think that what we have brought forward is proportionate. I can debate the content of the committee, its size and wider remit with noble Lords at leisure. I am sure my noble friend agrees that we do not want a committee that is too big or full of sectoral interests, or of one particular interest over another. We want a committee that has expertise and is not trying to carry out some political campaign or is weighted too much in one direction or another. It will be balanced, expert, the right size and properly resourced.
Lord Trees (CB)
I will just comment on Amendment 19 and, I hope, give some assurance. Many noble Lords have commented on the concerns that medical research will be impacted by this Bill, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, speaks to that. I share that concern, but would like to assuage some of it as a vet, a veterinary scientist and a former holder of a licence from the Home Office to conduct research involving animals for medical and veterinary purposes.
I can assure the Committee that medical research is not threatened by the Bill. The function of the animal sentience committee is to ensure that due regard has been paid to animal welfare. The unambiguous answer is in the affirmative. Parliament passed the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act in 1986, which requires all individuals undertaking veterinary research and their premises to be licensed and the projects, most importantly, to be individually scrutinised and licensed. That scrutiny essentially involves an assessment of the benefit-cost ratio of animal welfare harmed in the conduct of that research versus animal welfare benefits as a consequence of it. That due scrutiny is conducted and would satisfy any particular challenge from an animal sentience committee.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarity and entirely endorse what he says.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for responding to my remarks on Amendment 1, which I am about to withdraw. He has honoured the pledge he made on Second Reading to tell us about the resources being made available for this new committee. I must confess, I think I am getting more naive the older I get; I was rather hoping we would have some serious figures on how much money was involved, but maybe we will have to wait a bit longer for that. In the meantime, I am very grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we will have a five-minute adjournment of the Committee.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“(1A) The Committee is to subsume the Animal Welfare Committee of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I first apologise for not being here for the earlier debate because I had to chair the Economic Affairs Committee. I thank my noble friend Lord Hamilton for moving my Amendment 1. I did not hear a lot of the arguments but judging by the length of time taken, I suspect that many of the things that I might say would repeat earlier points. I shall try to focus specifically on the two amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 2 and 11.
Amendment 2 is just a probing amendment. I have been operating under the illusion that the Government were absolutely committed to reducing the number of quangos, the amount of bureaucracy and cost to the taxpayer. We have a perfectly good Animal Welfare Committee and it seemed to me that this issue could be covered by it. The amendment suggests that instead of two separate committees, there should be only one, which would be able to carry out the function described in the Bill.
I appreciate that the Animal Welfare Committee has a specific function and reports to a specific department. However, one of the things that worries me about the Bill and the creation of the new committee is that it does not seem to be the responsibility of any one department and will be able to look at every aspect of every government department’s policy. I therefore imagine that the committee will require a large number of people supporting it, given the volume of information that would be required. It is also not clear what happens if there is a conflict between the Animal Welfare Committee and the new committee established by the Bill.
The amendment is therefore just a probing amendment to give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to explain how this will work, how the relationship between the two committees would operate and what the expenditure and other consequences would be. Will the new committee have a separate secretariat and support or will there be support common between both committees? Which Minister will be responsible for the new committee?
On Amendment 11, I suspect that the issue may have been touched on in the earlier debate, given the many amendments that have been published. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that he has done something quite remarkable. He has managed to unite the people who would like the Bill doing less with those who would like it to do more, because it does not set out clearly the functions of the new committee, its composition, budget and the terms of reference. I am an extinct volcano who left government in 1997. However, in my day, if one had come to the L Committee with a Bill like this, it would not have got past the front door because it would have been required to set out in specific terms the resources required by the new committee, its composition, its budget, its terms of reference and its responsibility to Ministers. The Bill does not do so.
This extraordinary Bill, for which as I say I do not blame my noble friend—I think he has just arrived and been handed this particular hospital pass—gives no information about this whatever. Hence Amendment 11 resorts to the rather unsatisfactory proposition, as I accept it is, that before the committee can be established, the Secretary of State has to obtain the approval of each House of Parliament.
I have a helpful suggestion to make to my noble friend—although I had rather expected him to do this now and that, having participated in the Second Reading debate and heard the arguments that were put there, he would have a string of government amendments that addressed the questions put at Second Reading. However, those amendments are not there. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to give my noble friend an opportunity to give us an assurance that he will come back with amendments that will make clear the composition of the committee—the budget, terms of reference, and so on—as government amendments, rather than leaving this Bill as it is. It is a bit like buying a jigsaw with 1,000 pieces and opening up the box to find that 995 of them are in the Minister’s pockets. It really is necessary for him to put these pieces back into the Bill, which is what the two amendments seek to do—to have some clarity about what the committee will do, how it relates to the Animal Welfare Committee, which Minister is responsible for it, what its terms of reference are and what its composition is.
I guess that in the last debate, the Minister gave all kinds of assurances—and I heard my noble friend Lord Caithness ask why we should not put it in the Bill. That is what these two amendments are pressing my noble friend the Minister to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I usually disagree very strongly with almost everything he says. However, something he said rang a bell with me, which was that the drafting of Bills is so much worse now than when he was a Minister. I totally agree that we are getting some very poorly drafted Bills, and perhaps he could give some advice to the Government on how to improve that situation.
In the earlier group, the Minister said that he felt as if he was navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. I am on the side of Scylla, the safest option, so perhaps he will hear all my comments with that in mind. I have tabled nine amendments to the Bill to ensure that the animal sentience committee will be a properly functioning entity that can support a meaningful improvement in recognising the sentience of animals, and what that should mean for government policy. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has signed all nine of my amendments. She is well known for her love of animals, and I therefore see her support as an indication that I am doing something right on behalf of animals.
My first amendment, Amendment 6, starts the process of improving the committee by explicitly stating its purpose. It seems a basic drafting failure that the purpose of the committee is not laid out. It seems rather strange to have it absent from the Bill, so here I am suggesting an option. To be honest, if somebody wanted a public body to achieve a purpose, I think that they would specify that purpose in the enabling legislation.
Amendment 62 inserts a schedule for the operating of the committee. There is a lot of overlap between this schedule and amendments tabled by other noble Lords. Having a schedule seems like a tidy way to bundle all the important things together. I am sure that we can work together to make sure that we come up with something better and more agreeable by Report. I am happy to work with others to develop joint amendments that can carry this whole idea forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, and I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his desire to understand the relationship between this committee and the Animal Welfare Committee. I raised that both at Second Reading and in connection with the first group of amendments, so I hope that, now the formal Amendment 2 is on the table, my noble friend will respond vigorously to our need for more information on that.
The Minister said very clearly that there are only two responsibilities on the Government in relation to this committee. The first is to give written responses to the animal sentience committee reports and the second is to appoint and maintain the committee, yet the Bill, as currently drafted, is woefully thin on detail. The details on this are missing.
I am delighted to come forward with Amendment 13, which is a standard text for a number of bodies set up by the Government in earlier legislation. It replicates a similar text that set up the Trade Remedies Authority in the context of the Trade Act, and is intended to be entirely helpful. Bear in mind that the Government are asking this committee to have a cross-cutting role, yet the department itself is meant to have a cross-cutting role in rural proofing all policies across all departments. Take, for example, the importance and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular on the National Health Service, local hospitals and the Department of Health and Social Care, and the importance of rural policy in the general work of all local authorities, and in relation to transport and housing policy; I am not entirely convinced that we have seen the rural-proofing I would hope for from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
My question to my noble friend is: why has this policy of animal welfare sentience been taken a step further, to be preferred over the role the department has on rural-proofing? Why is it farming it out to a separate committee on animal sentience? It would be helpful to see why that is.
As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said in summing up the previous group of amendments, it would be extremely helpful to see what funding will be allocated to this committee. In particular, when are we going to learn what resources the committee will have? How many staff will it have and how will they be appointed? Will it be for the chair of the committee to appoint all the staff or will that be delegated to a chief executive? In particular, in proposed new subsection (17) in Amendment 13, I have said:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make other provision about the Animal Sentience Committee including provision about … staffing … remuneration of members and staff … delegation of functions … funding … accounts and reporting.”
My understanding is that the autumn spending review —which I think will take place this year—is going to be extremely strict and will look at all departments, controlling and curbing their current expenditure. What reassurance can my noble friend give us today that, in seeking to set up a new body in the form before us this afternoon, it will actually have the resources that, in his view, it will need to do that work?
I am slightly disappointed—in fact, more than slightly disappointed; hugely disappointed—that my noble friend has simply stated that an estimate will be provided to us at an appropriate juncture. I would argue to my noble friend that that appropriate juncture is now. We are being asked to approve in Clause 1—which we shall come on to consider separately—that it will have the appropriate resources and the appropriate staff and will be able to carry out all the work appropriate to its function. I regret to say that I remain to be convinced but I hope that I will be proved wrong in the summing up that my noble friend will give on this group of amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, which seeks in some cases to dictate which organisations and people should be on the animal sentience committee and for how long they should serve. I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 14, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
Amendment 5 seeks to benefit from a diversity of expertise on the ASC, including veterinary science, agricultural science and ethical review and provides more flexibility to the Secretary of State. It is likely that some members of the committee will have more than one area of expertise and a membership of between eight and 11 is not unwieldy. It is important that the committee is not bogged down with too many members. The more members there are, the longer the meetings are likely to last and the less likely it is to reach a satisfactory conclusion in a reasonable timeframe. The amendment also ensures the appointment of a chair for the ASC by the Secretary of State. This dedicated chair role will allow the committee to speak with an established and independent voice, boosting its effectiveness.
I am not totally convinced that limiting the length of service of members to just one term of three years is satisfactory as this would lead to a loss of expertise. The members are likely to need a short time to acclimatise themselves to the working of the committee, and then to have to stand down at the end of three years and not be reappointed is, I believe, unwise. Some members may wish to leave at the end of three years; others will feel that they still have something to offer to the committee and want to do a second term. That should be an option for the Secretary of State. The Bill should not seek to fetter his discretion in the reappointment of the membership of the ASC.
Consultation on the appointment of the chair will be key to maintaining the confidence of organisations involved in animal welfare, especially if they are not likely to be members of the committee. The Wildlife and Countryside Link has a membership of some 51 organisations and NGOs. All will have a view on the membership of the ASC. Consultation with them and other interested parties will be key to the success of the animal sentience committee.
I will comment briefly on one other amendment in this group. I am afraid that I do not agree with noble Lords who wish the animal sentience committee to be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee. The public must have confidence in the work of the ASC. It is therefore essential for it to be a stand-alone committee with its own reporting regime and not merely a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, which already has a fine reputation and a heavy workload. A degree of separation is needed, and the Bill provides that.
I turn to Amendment 14 in this group. In order for the ASC to be successful, it will need an adequately funded secretariat and budget. This should be sufficient for it to carry out its work and to be able to call witnesses, should it feel that is desirable. I am sure the Government intend to provide funding for the running of this committee but, as others have said, there is nothing in the Bill that gives an indication that this is the case. I think I heard the Minister say, in his answer to the previous group of amendments, that there would be funding for a secretariat. I look forward to that assurance and to the Minister accepting this amendment.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Amendment 2 addresses the likely conflict between the proposed animal sentience committee and the existing Animal Welfare Committee by subsuming one into the other. My later Amendment 43 addresses any conflicts that undoubtedly will occur between the two committees if they remain—if my noble friend’s amendment is rejected.
The other amendments in this group seek to add flesh to the bones of the Government’s committee, about which there is no information in the Bill—as I think every other noble Lord speaking to this group has mentioned. Whether or not one agrees with the detail of these amendments—I have concerns about some of them—they all seek to fill the gaps in the Bill that my noble friend Lord Forsyth talked about. They have been tabled from all sides of the Committee, because the Bill as drafted is completely inadequate and is in effect a Henry VIII Bill—one with no content creating a creature, the animal sentience committee, with a skeleton remit and limitless ability to range across government.
I cannot support my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 13 because it sets up a new quango—there are already far too many of those—or Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the same reason. While I have some sympathy with the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, some of the detail does not stand up to scrutiny. She volunteers a pretty extensive list of expertise that members of the committee should have, including “animal welfare science”—but, of course, animal welfare is not a science. In practice, it is really a discipline. Why such a committee would benefit from expertise in “animal welfare advocacy” is unclear, but it seems to me an invitation to invite animal rights promoters on to the committee—something I strongly oppose, for reasons I shall explain when we reach my Amendment 12.
Much of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady McIntosh and Lady Jones, propose is more simply resolved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Amendments 11 and 40. If Parliament has the power to set the
“composition … budget, and … terms of reference”
and the Secretary of State has the power to approve or veto the committee’s programme of work, the issues raised by the noble Baronesses will be adequately resolved. For that reason, I will support Amendments 11 and 40. I very much hope my noble friend the Minister accepts them.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 40 and I support Amendments 2 and 11 in this group. I was a little alarmed to hear the Secretary of State say that he will allow the committee to choose what policies it examines. He also said that the money would come from the Defra budget, but surely the Secretary of State must retain some control over the work programme, or the runaway horse would certainly start to gather speed approaching something of a precipice. It is well known that the Defra coffers are scarcely overflowing and are unlikely to be topped up greatly in the immediate future. An unlimited work programme, or one that targeted matters perhaps not seen as generally important, would lead to money running out pretty quickly and fail to satisfy anyone, so I would like the Minister to reassure us that the Secretary of State will exercise proper control over both the committee’s work programme and the funds necessary to meet it.
Lord Trees (CB)
I will speak to Amendments 2 and 11, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I support one and oppose the other.
Amendment 2 would merge the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. I oppose this because the animal sentience committee is a raison d’être of the Bill. It was a major plank in the Conservative Party’s manifesto in 2019 and a major plank in their action plan for animal welfare, published just in May 2021, which said that an expert committee would be set up to hold the Government
“accountable for animal welfare in policy making”.
It is a scrutinising committee that holds the Government to account and in that respect it is very different from the advisory functions of the Animal Welfare Committee, which are much respected, and it itself has much to do. Therefore there are strong arguments for retaining the identity of these two committees.
Secondly, on the point brought out in Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, it will be advantageous that the relevant Minister can consult the Animal Welfare Committee for further advice or information should they be challenged by the animal sentience committee.
I support absolutely Amendment 11, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It succinctly lays out a bit more detail but gives discretion to the Secretary of State and, most importantly, requires a degree of parliamentary oversight of essential elements of the committee, particularly its composition. There is a threat that some of its members might not positively contribute, and it is very important that there would be parliamentary scrutiny of those essential elements, particularly composition, budget and resources, to see that they are adequate.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall be brief. By and large, the Government have got this reasonably okay. I can understand the sentiments of some of my noble friends and those on the other side. However, I have to say that Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has a great deal of merit. I was a bit sorry to hear him, in his typically self-deprecating way, describing himself as an extinct volcano. He is possibly a dormant volcano, and something we should always watch—you never know when the smoke may rise—but at the moment he is still there. I regard myself more as a drumlin, as distinct from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean —that is, a small, egg-shaped glacial deposit. That is my place in life. We need to know more about the set-up of the committee and so forth. As I said, Amendment 11, which puts this so that it is in front of both Houses of Parliament, is a good solution.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth may be slightly surprised, given my interest in animal welfare, to find out that I share his criticisms of the Bill’s format. Indeed, I thought there was a Cabinet committee charged with ensuring that Bills came forth fully formed; I am therefore surprised that this one got through the gate of that Cabinet committee. It verges on being a skeleton Bill—or, if not a skeleton, it is seriously underweight, which has caused a lot of the difficulties and misgivings on all sides of the Committee.
I am concerned, too, not just that the way the first clause is set out gives unlimited power to the present Secretary of State over the membership of the committee and the terms on which they will serve, but that if that stands in the Bill, it will stand for ever. We cannot tell how that might be interpreted by future Secretaries of State, which I find very uncomfortable.
This is one reason why I have supported the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. First, her proposed new subsection (2) tries to set out that the function of the committee should be set out in the Bill. Secondly, she has proposed a schedule to point out who the members of the committee might be, how long they might serve and the committee’s general powers. I am quite sure that other Members of this Committee will find fault with whatever I have put down, but it is at least a worthwhile attempt to sort out what the Government really intend the committee to do and how it is to be constituted. I am anxious to see that people of varied expertise are chosen. I have no truck with what I call animal extremists and no wish to see them on a committee of this type. I want to see a well-established committee of experts who can offer sensible advice to the Secretaries of State of the day—because this will cover more than Defra, or I imagine it should if it is to relate to animals in general.
I very much hope that we can have considerably more thinking on the Bill on the Government’s part. I would prefer to see regulations brought in giving the details of the committee and how it will work, which could at least then be considered by Parliament, even if it cannot amend them. I ask the Government to look more closely at what they are asking us to accept.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I should like to comment on Amendments 11 and 14. I agree in principle with what has been stated about these two amendments, which are concerned with clarifying the operational capabilities of the animal sentience committee.
I love animals and care deeply about their well-being. I have pets and I was brought up in home where we had chickens, ducks, rabbits, dogs and cats. I formed a bond with these animals and know that they had emotions and felt pain. In my language we say, “An animal is not able to speak but it does have feelings”. Of course, this makes it even more important for us to care for them, which is the reason I support the Bill. However, certain improvements need to be made to address this fact. We must ensure that the animal sentience committee is able to undertake its work as adequately as possible to fulfil its range of responsibilities.
I am a businessman and have been the chairman and chief executive of a successful public company. In business, if a company wants to undertake a project, it must thoroughly work out the details. Thereafter, adequate resources must be provided, including funding, the provision of appropriate staff and the sourcing of suitable accommodation.
Similarly, we must set out quite clearly what we are trying to achieve, and we must set out our objectives throughout. If the intention is to establish and maintain an effective committee, the terms of reference among other things need to be set out in clear terms. Amendments 11 and 14 address these requirements by setting out provisions, making adequate resources available for staffing composition as well as defining the relationship and appropriate consultation between the Secretary of State and the committee. I support all that is set out in the amendments but would like them to be streamlined and consolidated in one properly worded clause.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which expand on what we discussed on an earlier amendment. They set out the very minimum that one should expect the Secretary of State to be able to do, particularly Amendment 11. I was interested by what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said when she contrasted the rural proofing committee and the proposed committee. Can my noble friend explain to us what the difference will be and how the two committees will be looked at by Defra? A lot of us have pushed hard to give the rural proofing committee more opportunities to work proactively across government departments in much the same way as my noble friend would like this committee to do, but this committee needs an Act of Parliament whereas the rural proofing committee was set up without any reference to Parliament. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain the difference.
On financing, will my noble friend also take time to tell us what programmes in Defra will be cut or not pursued in order to fund the animal sentience committee? Defra finances are under some strain, and it would be nice if we knew where the cuts were going to be. Perhaps the rural proofing committee will get less funds in order that this one can succeed.
On an associated amendment after Clause 6, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and supported by my noble friend Lady Fookes, neither of them mentioned paragraph 1(5) of their proposed new schedule, which states:
“The Secretary of State may not appoint a person as a member of the Committee if the person is … a member of the House of Lords.”
I can think of two or three people sitting not very far away from me who would be excellent members of the animal sentience committee. I wonder whether my noble friend agrees that to exclude people sitting in any of the Parliaments, here or in the devolved assemblies, is the right way to proceed.
Perhaps this is the right opportunity to pick up a point made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, when he mentioned the report due from the LSE. That is crucial to this Bill and how we understand it. What progress has been made on that report? I took advice on putting forward a delaying Motion on this Committee that we do not consider the Bill further until we see that report because it is so relevant to this Bill. If my noble friend cannot help us further, I might consider doing that on Report, because we really need to see the report and its relevance to our discussion on the proposed committee.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall speak first to Amendments 5 and 14, which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The noble Baroness laid out Amendment 5 quite clearly. It would ensure that the committee benefited from a diversity of expertise, including, for example, veterinary science, agricultural science and ethical review.
It is essential that such a wide range of informed viewpoints informs the work of the animal sentience committee, and this diversity needs to be guaranteed in the Bill. Under the current text, future Secretaries of State will have full discretion to appoint committee members. Our concern is that that could enable a very narrow committee which could be dominated by one industry or sector. I note that other noble Lords have tabled amendments that also consider the expertise of the committee’s membership, so there is clearly much interest in getting it right—noble Lords have talked about it this afternoon. The committee needs to be able to draw on a real diversity of knowledge so that it can give properly balanced consideration to animal sentience issues across the whole scope of government policy.
Our amendment also lays out further detail on the make-up of the committee and stipulates the appointment of a chair. It is very important to have a chair who is both independent and respected within government and further afield. If you have that, the committee will be listened to with real respect in all the different areas that it will look at. As the noble Baroness said, this will help make it much more effective in its work.
Amendment 14 is designed to ensure that the animal sentience committee is adequately resourced; several noble Lords have talked about resourcing. By that, we mean staffing, accommodation and any other necessary resources to fulfil the tasks the Bill places on it. A small secretariat and other facilities are essential to committee functioning, and should not place an undue burden on public funds. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that the Bill is very thin in this area, and I agree. Much of her Amendment 13 covers similar ground. We need to look at this very carefully.
I jotted down some examples of previous annual costs for a committee in Defra. There is quite of range of costs that committees can incur to government. The former Farm Animal Welfare Committee operated on a similar basis as is proposed for the animal sentience committee. It required less than £300,000 a year in funding. Clearly, this committee will have a much broader remit, but to put that in context, a 2016 Cabinet Office review found that 141 bodies advising government typically each had an annual budget of between £100,000 and £1 million. That is a hugely broad range. Considering that a number of noble Lords have expressed concern that resourcing needs to be properly done, I should be interested to know what work has been done on the resourcing that may be required and whether the Minister can yet clarify what he believes will be adequate for the committee to carry out its work effectively. It is vital that appropriate resourcing is made available. I also support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in hoping that this is without cuts to any other department.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes, have tabled Amendments 6 and 62, which would also secure a welcome diversity of expertise and an independent chair, as well as ensuring that the committee received early notice of any policy that could have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is right to ask for more detail in this area.
As we have heard, Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, suggests merging the Bill’s animal sentience committee with the existing Animal Welfare Committee. We would support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said about this. We do not believe it is a practical suggestion, as the Animal Welfare Committee and animal sentience committee will have very different roles.
The Animal Welfare Committee provides scientific advice when asked to by Defra and works only with that department, primarily on farm animal and welfare issues. It is fundamentally different from what is proposed for the animal sentience committee, which will proactively review government policy decisions across all departments. It will also have the power to choose which policies to review and a scope that covers companion animals, farm animals and wild animals. Merging these two, very different committees into one would be an error and reduce the effectiveness of both, so we cannot support this amendment. However, we need clarity on how the relationship between the committees will work.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for recognising some merit in my Amendment 5, but I clarify for noble Lords that animal welfare science is a reality. You can study for a degree in animal welfare science at a number of universities—for example, Glasgow and Winchester—and the Royal Veterinary College has an animal welfare science and ethics group which specifically researches in the fields of animal welfare, animal behaviour, veterinary ethics and law. I hope that clarifies that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments and hope to provide some reassurance and clarity. I start with Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who, as my noble friend Lord Randall reminded us, referred to himself as an “extinct volcano”. Volcanologists will probably warn of an eruption if I do not achieve some degree of reassurance.
The first reassurance I will give my noble friend is that, when I arrived as a Minister in Defra in 2010, we had inherited 92 arm’s-length bodies, which we reduced to 33. It was a brutal process, but we got it about right. It shows a desire for simplicity, and direct accountability to Parliament is something I hold dear.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth has concerns about the animal sentience committee’s relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, which have also been articulated by other noble Lords. I emphasise that the two committees have important roles and different remits. The Animal Welfare Committee provides substantive policy advice on request to Defra, as well as to the Scottish and Welsh Governments. By contrast, the animal sentience committee will review and scrutinise the Government’s policy-making and, in doing so, facilitate Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government. It would be rare for the two committees to address precisely the same questions in the normal course of their work, nor do we want to prevent them delivering their distinct roles.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the committee possibly becoming a runaway horse. In that unlikely event, it would be reined in. There will be performance reviews of the committee and, if it is ineffective, action will be taken to change its membership.
Amendment 11, also in the name of my noble friend, would have the structure and make-up of the animal sentience committee established by regulations or otherwise subject to parliamentary approval. My noble friend raises an important point, which is that the establishment of the committee should be a transparent and collaborative process. I have already committed to sharing draft terms of reference for the committee before this Bill returns to the House on Report. I would, however, be wary of defining the terms of reference and the membership of the committee too rigidly in statute.
This committee is an entirely new entity with a new and specific remit and, to some extent, its first steps will involve learning and refining how it wishes to operate and what expertise it requires. Normal practice with such committees, in line with Cabinet Office guidance, is that they are funded from within a departmental budget. We are clear that the committee should be made up of members who collectively have the appropriate expertise to enable the committee to perform its role. The code on public appointments provides a robust framework for appointments to the committee.
However important the Bill and the committee it establishes, the fact is that parliamentary time is limited and must be used to best effect. Discussing the substance of the reports, where noble Lords and honourable Members in the other place wish to do so, will be far more illuminating than debates on, say, the precise nature of the committee’s composition.
The animal sentience committee will be a committee of experts that publishes reports. It will not make policy decisions, nor will it be a delivery body. It therefore lacks the sorts of responsibilities described in the Public Bodies Handbook that might warrant use of parliamentary time to oversee the committee’s membership and internal processes. Although I would not wish to place the terms of reference in statute, I reiterate my commitment to share them in draft for your Lordships’ consideration, ahead of Report.
Looking around this Room, I see people who have great experience of legislating down the years from within the Government, the Executive, and the legislature and it is entirely right that people in my position are pushed as far as they can be to give details. But to those of us who have been in government, I say that we also want the flexibility to make sure that what we are creating here works. Sometimes, if we are too rigid in our legislation we make that more difficult to the point whereby it could become ineffective and a point of continuing debate. I want to give flexibility to the new committee and future Ministers to create something that is not only effective but can be held to account for what they do.
I turn to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s last amendment in the group, Amendment 40, concerning the work programme and resourcing of the committee. It will be comprised of experts. It is they who will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be, although they can of course consult others. I can reassure my noble friend that the annual work plan of the committee will be made publicly available. This will ensure that its priorities and approach are fully transparent. It is right that the committee should have the freedom to set its own agenda. Committee members are the experts on sentience and will be able to offer informed views that Ministers can consider alongside other important social, environmental, cultural or economic issues.
Both my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Amendment 14, have rightly highlighted the need to furnish the committee with the appropriate resources to perform its function. I can confirm that we shall do so. There will be a dedicated secretariat.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and her Amendments 6 and 62, with which I will consider the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Amendment 5, all concerning the membership and operation of the animal sentience committee. The committee has a specific, well-defined function set out in the Bill. It is there to provide assurance that the Government are having all due regard to the effects of policy decisions on animal welfare. The ultimate objective of the committee is to raise the bar on how animal welfare implications are considered as policy across government, and how that is made and implemented. This task demands that the committee’s members have a breadth of expertise and experience.
The committee will, of course, not exist in isolation. I hope it reassures a number of noble Lords that the committee will be able to consult other able external specialists as required. If, for example, the committee felt that it wanted to reach out to a government advisory body such as the Animal Health and Welfare Board, it would be free to do so. We want to ensure that there are high-quality applicants for vacancies on the committee, and we want to find the very best people for the role. We also want to future-proof the committee as far as possible. As our scientific understanding of sentience develops, so too could the appropriate balance of expertise. That is crucial. If we restrict the membership of the committee to just a few types of people, that may not be appropriate in the future.
I turn to some of the other suggestions made by the noble Baroness. I can assure her that the Secretary of State will appoint no MPs to the committee. I clearly take the point of my noble friend Lord Caithness that there are Members of this House who have or might have in future the kind of expertise we are looking for, but I want to keep politics out of it. We politicians are not always known for our strict impartiality. We will have to find other means to contribute to the animal welfare cause. However, as we all know, there are Members of this House who are not affiliated to any political party.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received three requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Bellingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I will call them in that order.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have intervened in the Committee stage of a Bill so I hope noble Lords will forgive the solecisms and infelicities that follow. I am afraid that listening to the response to the first two blocks of amendments has left me convinced that this is a badly drafted and badly conceived Bill, so much so that I think it will be taught eventually at politics A-level as an example of what happens when you have pointless virtue-signalling legislation.
Let us recall why we are here. A tranche of EU law was being moved over. This was not part of it, so it was not included in the read across on to our own statute book. A press release then went out saying, “Ah, this means that the Conservatives have voted against animal sentience. They have said that animals are not sentient.” On the basis of this absurd press release, the Minister in another place was panicked into saying, “Oh no, no, we will legislate.” It found its way into the manifesto and here we are with this—as my noble friend Lady Fookes says—rather skeletal, emaciated, haggard, malnourished Bill that can be expanded almost at random in any direction.
I have to say that almost all the amendments in the first two blocks have been about seeking to define, circumscribe and guard against these opportunities for mission creep and unintended consequences, whether it is to do with the composition of the committee, its powers, its relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee or specific protections for religious freedoms, medical research and all the rest. If my noble friend the Minister—who I really feel for: this is his baptism in this place—means it when he says that this is only an advisory committee and is not going to be policy-making and so on, what can be the harm of accepting or replicating in the form of government amendments some of the ideas that would simply ensure that this statutory body does not exceed its remit?
I finish by echoing the point from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: we would like to see some recognition from my noble friend the Minister that we are not just expected to take all this on trust and that the legislation will be drafted in a way that does not allow for almost unlimited growth and producer capture.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his sympathy, though I wish my noble friends would stop sympathising with me. If they are confused, this is my I-am-enjoying-myself face.
I have tried to give some reassurances. I may have satisfied some noble Lords but I clearly have not satisfied him and I will have to do more to do so. I have already said that we will publish more detail before the next stage of the Bill and I am sure that he and others will take great interest in that.
I respectfully disagree with him. I think this is important to people. I hope that when it is up and running—and has tackled a few pieces of complicated government policy and nudged the tiller of those involved in the legislative process perhaps to change things in a way that reflects the impact that policy would have on animals—he will see that this is not a paper tiger, a white elephant or whatever words I am putting into his mouth, but something of value.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before I call the next person, I gently remind noble Lords that the practice in Committee and on Report when noble Lords speak after the Minister is, first, to be succinct and, secondly, to deliver their comments in the interrogative form. With that, I call the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have a request for clarification from the Minister. I listened carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Mansion House speech, when he made it very clear that the post-Brexit era must be dedicated to reducing bureaucracy and red tape. The Minister himself said that when he entered government, as I did, in 2010, the first thing he looked at was how he could rationalise the committees, quangos and arm’s-length bodies at Defra.
I am keen to see this committee get going quickly, but why can it not be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee? Why can the two not be combined? A budget has been set already. I need not remind him of the fact that my noble friend’s department will be under the most unprecedented spending pressure over the next few years. If we want this initiative to get going and get going smoothly—and, above all, quickly—to satisfy what he claims is public demand, surely the way to do it is through subsuming one into the other. I would be grateful if he could give further clarification on that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I said, with what I thought was clear reasoning, which has been backed up by others, why these two committees are different. The Animal Welfare Committee advises Defra and is not a statutory body. The animal sentience committee will work across government to reflect whether sentience of animals has been considered in legislation. They have two very different functions, so we cannot subsume the two. I am with my noble friend on his desire, and that of the Chancellor, to make sure that we are living within our means. The Defra that I returned to three weeks or so ago is a very different organisation from the one that I was in during the coalition Government, when we transacted large amounts of policy that was created elsewhere. Now policy is created in this country, in this Parliament, by a Government who are elected, so it is a very different place, which I hope will be reflected in the spending review.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I would call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but we have a problem with her—but a person put his name forward late, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I listened with care to what my noble friend said, and I apologise to him if I did not pick up the comment he made, but did he make any comment about the LSE report? It is so relevant to the work of this committee. Has he received it and are we going to see it? What is its relevance to the Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Earl refers to the LSE report on decapods and cephalopods, I assume.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I refer to the one that was commissioned from the LSE, to which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred at Second Reading.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think we are coming to that in a later group of amendments. It has been completed but not peer reviewed and I have not seen it, but it will be available to noble Lords before the next stage of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We will make one more attempt to call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. No, it is not working. I call the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Fookes, although slightly surprised that she was surprised that I would be surprised that she was agreeing with me. We agree on many things, and I share her concern for animal welfare. I was reflecting that the fact that the Bill excludes people means that the Minister will not be covered by it. I am beginning to feel that this Committee is a bit of a cruel and unusual practice for a new Minister. I am not absolutely convinced that he would be reading out his departmental briefs if he had known what was going to happen during the course of this afternoon. My advice to him is to take on board the pretty much unanimous desire in this Committee—there are people coming from every direction—to see a little more meat on the bones of this legislation.
I am grateful to find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the second amendment, about the composition of the committee. I was slightly surprised—I think he let the cat out of the bag—when my noble friend the Minister said that if the committee members did not perform, they would be replaced. I thought he was arguing that this would be an independent committee. Is it independent or not? It is certainly not independent if members are going to be replaced by Ministers. In his case, I would be very happy for him to replace people, but this piece of legislation will apply to all Ministers and all future Governments. He is here today but, while I hope he will not be gone tomorrow, Ministers come and go and policies change.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I advise the Committee that if Amendment 4 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7 or 9.
Amendment 4
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“(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 of the instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, tempted as I am to make all the same arguments about why we need details of how the committee is to be composed and its terms of reference, and the regulations under this clause having to be made by statutory instrument, we have probably done these arguments to death. I hope my noble friend will take them on board.
I am conscious of the hour—it is 5.50 pm—and I thought it was pretty optimistic that the Government thought they could conclude this Committee today. I am always happy to help the Government and assist the Whips in their efforts, so I do not propose to add anything further to what I have said in support of the principles contained in Amendment 4. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group with my name on them. The first is Amendment 8, which is also supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and which goes to the question of the composition of the committee. I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth just said, but I would like to develop a slightly different point on the basis of this. One can say that there is almost universal agreement across the Committee that this topic should be addressed in the Bill. The question would be what it should say, if there were questions of difference. However, I do not think there is support on the Committee for the idea that the Government should simply have a clear run and be able to make it all up when it suited them.
The proposal here is that at least 50% of the members of the committee should have recent commercial experience of animal husbandry, livestock farming, the management of abattoirs and the management of game and fishing stocks. It may be thought that this is a sort of ignoble attempt to stack the committee in one direction rather than another, but it is not at all. I want to make a rather different point.
We will have an opportunity in the penultimate grouping, whenever we get to it, to discuss the science and indeed the metaphysics of sentience. However, I want to make this point now, anticipating that. One can approach sentience as a neurological phenomenon: that is, the central nervous system of the animal, the brain and the other features work together to create something which can be tracked by way of the movements of electrical signals, changing chemical compositions and things like that. All that can be tracked to some extent by science. However, it is also the case that sentience as we talk about it is a lived experience; it is the experience of pain and the undergoing of suffering. We as humans, ourselves undergoing pain and knowing that suffering, can sympathise with it when we see it in animals, vertebrates and mammals—different classes of animal.
For us to understand and for a committee to benefit from a real understanding of sentience, it is terribly important that people who have a direct experience of working with the animals that are in the scope of the Bill should be fully represented on the committee. Otherwise, we risk the possibility that it simply ends up as a sort of neurological exercise, and the direct and lived experience of sentience is ignored by the committee as it is packed with all these scientists. That was the point I wanted to make about that. It is not a question of stacking the committee but of trying to understand what sentience is and how we translate it into policy.
While the Minister wants to move away from this topic, and I understand that, he must realise by now that, given the almost total absence of any definition of what the committee is doing or any constraint on its activities, the question of who is sitting on it is about 90% of the meat of the Bill. Therefore, it is not possible for him to carry on brushing this away.
My second amendment, Amendment 9, concerns the term limit. Again, there seems to be almost universal acceptance that the Bill should impose some term limits on the membership of the committee, and there seems to be a sort of consensus that three years is a good idea for a term. If there is a matter of difference, it is simply on the question of whether it should be non-renewable, which is what my amendment says, or whether it should be perhaps renewable for one single further term, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. I am sure that some consensus on that point can be achieved by the Committee, even if the Government themselves do not want to do so. That was simply the second point; it is a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Government respond to the widespread views on this topic in the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend. There is some coalition of thought behind his Amendment 8 and my Amendment 10. I have known my noble friend the Minister for a substantial number of years and we served together on the Front Bench in opposition. He is not normally this shy in coming forward and sharing details with us; he is normally only too keen to pay tribute to the excellent department in which he finds himself. I am delighted to see him back in his place.
The purpose of Amendment 10 is to tease a little out from my noble friend. I know he is reluctant to, but he could share a little soupçon of who he imagines will be on the committee. I hark back to what my noble friend Lord Marland said in connection with the first group of amendments, and the pressures and challenges facing farmers. I echo that and pay tribute to their devotion to livestock and animal rearing and their sense of animal husbandry. They feel they are facing an onslaught from the department and this Government, the likes of which we have never seen before under a Conservative Government. I hope my noble friend gives some reassurance to the Committee that he imagines the animal sentience committee will at least have a veterinary surgeon, an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management, and a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses.
I pay tribute again to my noble friend Lord Moylan, who managed to extract the animal welfare policy paper, which seems almost to be shrouded in mystery. If the Government really wanted us to share the enthusiasm they no doubt feel for this Bill—which at the moment is fairly weak on my part—surely they would shout this from the rooftops or at least pay passing reference to it in the context of the Bill before us. With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will look favourably on the plea to see the three categories I have set out, in addition to those set out by my noble friend Lord Moylan, appear in some shape or form when the committee is set up.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was going to speak in favour of Amendment 10, particularly relating to the appointment of a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses. I feel there is no need for me to do so, in view of the assurances given by my noble friend the Minister that there will be no interference in the continuation of religious slaughter practices. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving these assurances.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 8. Very briefly, the reason for this, as has been said by my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who has a similar amendment, is that we need some practical experience on the committee. Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, sets out some useful ideas for the more theoretical side of animal sentience, but it is equally important to have representatives of those who do these practical jobs in everyday life. Sentience cannot be defined by a single word or sentence; it is much more complicated than that. Therefore, one needs that practical experience besides the theory. I hope my noble friend will tell us a little more of his thoughts on that.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall be brief and wish to ask for further reassurance from the Minister. I totally understand that he does not want to be too prescriptive in the Bill as to the composition of this committee, but I was troubled by a word he used earlier—“balance”. The composition of the committee is crucial to its success. The people he puts on it surely need to be independent, expert, properly qualified and not drawn from pressure groups on either side of the animal welfare debate.
They also have to be brave, because they are highly likely to be heavily lobbied at some points in their careers on the committee. The Minister will know that the animal rights movement in this country, limited though it is in number, is very well financed and expert at using bullying online, making people’s businesses suffer and mass lobbying. In extreme cases it is proficient at criminal damage and serious violence.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I am sorry but I thought I had withdrawn from this group of amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
In that case I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. My remarks on the Bill are as a farmer, particularly as a livestock farmer. I support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but my remarks apply also to other amendments to Clause 1, covering the issue of the membership of the animal sentience committee.
It is the vagary of intention, purpose and operation of the Bill that causes worry among those who deal with animals in the course of either work or play—or any number of things in between. The farming sector in particular is concerned by this lack of detail. In this situation, the best assurance that can be provided is a balanced and knowledgeable committee that can properly and impartially adjudicate on the issues before it.
To illustrate my point, the following concerns have been highlighted but not thoroughly resolved: the lack of definition of animal sentience, respect of religious and local customs, distinction between wild and tame animals, control of predators, the agenda of the animal rights lobby, the position on the welfare of foreign animal imports—dead or alive—and consideration of public interest. I could go on. Others have spoken and will speak eloquently on all those points, but the list explains why the composition of the committee is so important. Reassurance is required.
Most importantly, it should be specified, as in Amendment 10, that there should be at least one of the following: the commercial livestock farmer, the vet and someone with knowledge of slaughterhouses. I add to that a representative from the food service and retail sector. In order to ensure a representative range of expertise and insight and to enable informed policy oversight, the committee must include those with practical animal husbandry experience in the agricultural sector. Farmers are involved in the day-to-day care of livestock and have a practical understanding of their animals. It is therefore vital that a proportionate number of members of the committee has this background and expertise in order to provide a practical insight into how livestock husbandry can support improvements.
In other amendments, there are lists of potential membership qualifications, such as scientific knowledge, expertise in animal behaviour and neurophysiology, or experience in fishing, game shooting, animal welfare, ethics, law and public administration. A committee with all these will agree on nothing, particularly if it is full of scientists and lawyers, who will even argue about what is black and what is white. Add to this a failure to define “sentience”, and we end up with the ingredients of indecision and worse. The Minister needs to add some clarity on all these issues and to tell us why there is the need for a learning period—how long will this be?
These decisions affect real people and real livelihoods; they are not academic. I therefore request that the Minister clarify the membership of the committee as a matter of urgency and to ensure that it is composed of people with practical knowledge and, most of all, common sense.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The amendments in this small group look particularly at the make-up of the committee’s membership, some of which align with our Amendments 5 and 14, which we have previously debated.
Amendment 4, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, provides that the composition of the committee and its terms of reference must be set out in regulations and approved by both Houses. It is clear that the committee’s composition and terms of reference are considered extremely important by noble Lords, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we have covered this in the previous debate, so I shall move on.
Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would provide that a committee member’s term may not be longer than three years and may not be renewed after the first term. As the noble Lord explained in the explanatory statement to his amendment, this is to ensure that the committee
“benefits from fresh knowledge and new perspectives”.
We have some sympathy with that proposal and agree with the noble Lord that the term should be no longer than three years, but we believe that there may be circumstances where it would be helpful to reappoint a member for a further term of office if that was considered appropriate.
Amendment 10, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provides that the committee’s membership must include, among others, a veterinary surgeon, a farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production and land management, and a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses. On this amendment and the other amendments we have looked at about who should be on the committee, I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that we need practical experience—that is important—but although we have talked about Defra legislation, we need to remember that the committee will be looking right across government. It will also need people who have experience in how to manage that and what needs to be looked at. I am beginning to think that we are going to have the largest committee ever created if we have all these people on it. The Minister needs to take away the debate that we have had on both this group of amendments and the previous one and think about how we can practicably move forward to ensure that the committee has the membership it needs but is also flexible enough to cover all the work that it will need to do.
Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, would require 50% of the committee to have had recent commercial experience of farming or managing game or fish stocks. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that it should not be interpreted as stacking the committee, but we need to make sure that we do not end up with a committee with a bias towards one group—the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that it was important that we make sure that we do not have an imbalance one way or another. We need recommendations that come from a diversity of viewpoints and proper knowledge bases. It is absolutely right that we look at all these membership criteria, but we need to think about where we are going, what we want the committee to achieve and what its priorities will be. We need more clarity about its focus; otherwise, we will have membership of the committee from everything under the sun. On that basis, I will hand over to the Minister to take that headache away.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness very eloquently makes the point I was going to make. I have clearly had representations from a lot of parliamentarians and different interest groups, saying that they must be represented or that this or another interest should be represented on the group and I start wondering whether the Albert Hall will be big enough to contain this committee.
Of course, I would have to be a Minister of very little brain if I did not have a view on the sort of people I think should be on the committee. The problem is that if I start listing them to the Committee now, although it would have the virtue of giving some of the clarity that certain noble Lords seek, it could also constrain the creation of a committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have said, should contain practical experience and common sense. I entirely agree with him on that.
I take the point made eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the committee should not contain representatives of pressure groups, particular groups who are obsessed with one narrow field of animal welfare. If I, or the Bill, were to constrain the membership of the committee so that a particular interest had to be represented, if that individual was off sick or had not been reappointed following the end of their term, and the committee made a decision in that particular area of expertise, noble Lords can see that this would create opportunities for legal challenge. I am not going to satisfy the Committee because I cannot give clarity on the type of people that we want to see on the committee. I will try to give the reassurance that I know what noble Lords are thinking and I hope that we can achieve a committee that has balance, practical experience and common sense.
I will try to address in more detail some of the points that have been made and I apologise if I slightly repeat myself; I will try not to. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean proposed Amendment 4, suggesting regulations that the animal sentience committee might adhere to. Although I would not wish to place the terms of reference in statute, I reiterate my commitment to share them in draft ahead of Report for your Lordships’ consideration.
This committee is an entirely new entity with a new and specific remit and to some extent, its first steps will, as I have said before, involve learning and refining. We are clear the committee should be made of members who collectively have the appropriate expertise to enable it to perform its role. I refer noble Lords to the Governance Code on Public Appointments, which provides the framework from which we will be operating. As I have said, it will be a committee of experts who publish reports. It will not make policy. It therefore lacks the sort of responsibility described in the Public Bodies Handbook that might warrant parliamentary time to oversee its membership and internal processes.
I will take together Amendments 8 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I think we have covered membership. It is not the role of the committee to consider the interests of those who work with animals or to identify an appropriate balance between their interests and animal welfare. That is for Ministers to weigh up and decide. That is why I take this opportunity to dispel any notion that a sector could find itself at a disadvantage if it is not physically represented on the committee. That would be a misunderstanding of the committee’s role and how it will interact with Ministers. It takes a wealth of knowledge and experience to understand the implications of central government policy on particular aspects of animal welfare, more than any one person or any one group of people could ever possess. There is, of course, a practical limit to the size of the committee so, naturally, we expect that that it will seek the views of other specialists who exist outside the committee to assist in its understanding of specific issues.
We are in the process of gathering views on the best range of expertise the committee can have to support it in its specific remit. We will also want to consult its chair. I would most certainly welcome contributions from your Lordships, but again I caution against creating a precise list in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a farmer, with a livestock farm in Leicestershire. I do not wish to detain the Committee long or to repeat all the arguments already made, nor do I wish to further irritate my noble friend the Minister, who is making a good fist of a fairly difficult job. I have two questions for him.
Ensuring the committee has people with real knowledge—to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, “proper knowledge”—of animals, perhaps people who rely on those animals for their livelihood, is extraordinarily important. I am not talking about owning cats or dogs; I have several cats on the farm which helpfully keep down the rats—they do a rather good job—and I also own a dog, but that does not make me an expert on animal sentience. However, those who work with animals the whole time do have a lot of knowledge of animal sentience.
Slaughterhouses and abattoirs have been mentioned. Anyone who has been to an abattoir knows how awful they are; they are extremely unpleasant. But while we remain omnivores and eat meat, they will be necessary.
My noble friend said he will not construct a membership on areas of expertise, but I ask him a different question: will he ensure that nobody without knowledge is appointed to the committee? By that I mean somebody who thinks he has a lot of knowledge, such as Chris Packham, but does not actually have any knowledge of living off the work with animals. Secondly, does he consider that animal rights movement members have “appropriate expertise” or would be “dynamic” members of the committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend takes me down a rabbit hole. I do not think I can add to what I already said. The serious point is that we want people with real expertise and knowledge, and the committee must not be too big—so there is a challenge for me, if I am the Minister, or for the Secretary of State. We have to create something that delivers a real understanding of the wide range of issues it will look at, from fishing practices on the high seas through to—as he states—abattoirs and other areas.
I have received inspiration, which I will share with my noble friend. As I have said, appointments will be decided in accordance with the code on public appointments. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. It would then be for the panel to determine whether an applicant would proceed. Members of the committee will declare any relevant interests, and the committee will make a list of these interests publicly available.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about the need for experience across the board. I was hugely impressed by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. His emphasis was on agricultural issues, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a really important point: this committee can look at any aspect of government policy. On my reading of the Bill, government departments are meant to share with this committee any new policies they are thinking of applying that could have an impact on sentient animal welfare. That is a huge, enormous task. If you are to have a committee capable of looking at all these government departments and what they are up to, you will need people with expertise.
My noble friend suddenly found some inspiration. I do not think it was very good inspiration; he should send it back. I compare, to put it delicately, the Government’s record on public appointments and the security provided—I am thinking here of non-executive directors of government departments, for example—with the sort of strictures that the Treasury and the Bank of England quite rightly put on me as chairman of a bank in deciding on the composition of a board. We were required to show what levels of expertise were met, to recruit accordingly and to have an arm’s-length process, all of which is appropriate. If it is good enough for financial services and regulated businesses, why should it not be good enough for government, government bodies and, in this case, a statutory body?
When my noble friend says he has a good idea in his head of what the Committee is thinking—his head is much better than mine—but is not going to share it with us because it might cause difficulties, he is really saying: “I would really like this legislation on the statute book, so that I can do what I like and it will be too late for all of you to complain.” That is another way of putting it, perhaps rather brutally.
I am just thinking of Michael Gove, who at one stage during the Brexit campaign said he had had enough of experts. I was quite sympathetic to that, but in this case I think we want experts and people who are independent. We need to know who these people are and how on earth this committee, with its very broad remit, will carry out its functions.
Of course I will withdraw my amendment, but I am not persuaded by my noble friend. I hope whoever provided him with his inspiration has listened to this debate, in Committee, and will go back to the drawing back and consider how this committee will meet its enormous role.
Just on that little bit of last-minute inspiration that reached him, it was suggested that the committee would look for conflicts of interest. Actually, you want people on there who have conflicts of interest, because that means experience and expertise. If we exclude people who have conflicts of interest, we might not have somebody who, for example, knows about slaughterhouse, because they may have some interest. It is not clear to me how this committee will be composed or who, in their right mind, would take on its chairmanship of such a committee, with such a broad brief and ill-defined role. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I will move Amendment 7 briefly. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said in response to other debates and I accept his request for flexibility, rather than having something set out prescriptively in statute. But I cannot think of another committee or Bill that has been set up without us having any indication, at all, of how long the periods of appointment will be and whether they will be renewable. Is he asking the committee to give the chairman complete carte blanche to make these appointments? I accept that he wishes to consult the chairman on them, and accept his confirmation that public appointments procedure will be followed. It would be surprising if he said anything different to that.
Clause 1(2) states that
“The members of the Committee are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”,
and no more than that. Can the Minister give an indication of the period of appointment and the reason why there is no consistency? Why is Clause 1 completely silent on whether it will be for three or five years, and whether it will be renewable?
Secondly, we should in mind that my noble friend Lord Caithness established earlier that there is no longer a rural affairs commission or committee. I do not think that was set up by statute, but was a creature appointed internally by the department. Perhaps my noble friend would be good enough to confirm that. But what is his estimate for the life of the animal sentience committee? Does he envisage that it will last for three or five years? If it is being set up by statute, will it then need to be disbanded by statute, if that is the wish of the Government? It might be a future Government down the line; it may not be this Government or the Minister in situ. What is his view of the life of the committee? Having been created by primary legislation, would we need another Bill to disband it in future?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not declaring an interest, in that I have a farm. It is just that farming seems to be so much about shuffling paper now, rather than anything to do with animals, that I forgot—but I apologise. Since putting down my name to speak on this amendment and listening to noble Lords, I have revised my opinion of the time limit applying to members of the committee, and wonder if the Minister agrees that a sunset clause on the whole Bill would be even more appropriate.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her amendments concerning term-lengths for members of the animal sentience committee. I can confirm that the Government are committed to adhere to the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The code contains a number of rules designed to ensure public confidence in the accountability and integrity of organisations such as the committee. These include mandating open recruitment, public declaration of members’ interests and the strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms, or serve in any one post for more than 10 years.
I take this opportunity to address a point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth on an earlier group. I entirely agree that having a conflict of interest is not a precursor to not being allowed to be on the committee. We want people who are actively involved in the issues we are talking about. That may mean that they have a business or other related issue in their lives that could be seen as a conflict. As long as there is transparency, and those matters are declared, that is a good thing. The more of the right sort of conflict, the better. That may be misinterpreted, but I think noble Lords know what I mean.
We will boost accountability by ensuring that any recruitment to the committee is conducted openly and fairly by advertising campaigns and, as the governance code requires, the Secretary of State will make the appointment based on merit. A register of members’ interests be published alongside the committee’s minutes and reports. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament through the usual channels for how the committee is appointed and run. We decided not to put detailed rules in the Bill on the appointment of the committee’s members, as we believe the governance code already provides that robust framework. Setting these details out in legislation—as I have said before, and I apologise for repeating it—may unduly constrain an approach to recruitment that best fits with the work of the committee and the normal public appointment rules.
As I previously highlighted, setting rigid terms for appointments may have unintended consequences. If, for example, a member’s term ended in the middle of producing a report to which they were critical, it would cause disruption to the committee's work. Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances. The ongoing pandemic, for example, has disrupted recruitment across government. Being able to just nudge people on for a year has been much appreciated in the work they are doing. I hope our commitment to accountability and good governance is clear and that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marland.
Lord Marland (Con) [V]
I am very grateful to noble Lords for letting me speak again, as I want to press the Minister further. Having taken on board this very strong opinion from all parties that the committee should come under scrutiny and there should be a much more detailed plan as to its make-up and how it will operate, what is the timetable for the Minister and his department to explain this to us to allay our fears? We would all love to help him, of course; he might not want that, but we would all love to help him structure this properly. Has he thought of taking time out to discuss it with us as a group to make sure that it is done properly?
Lord Benyon (Con)
An overused phrase in corporate-speak and in government is that my door is always open, but in this case it is true. I am always open to suggestions. If we can be more explicit on Report, I hope that will satisfy my noble friend and others. In saying that, I hope that it is not an invitation to be too prescriptive, because I am determined that the committee will evolve over the years to reflect issues that arise and emerging scientific evidence. Therefore, too much constraint will not receive a favourable response from me—but constructive ideas as to the sort of people who could be on the committee are definitely what we want to hear.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think there are crossed wires. I certainly do not want to extend matters; the email that I sent to the clerk was asking to withdraw from making three further points for which I had put down my name. I have no further questions for the Minister on this one.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I should remind the Committee of my declaration of interests in this area—sadly, none of which are remunerated, but I am very grateful to have the honorary positions as set out in the register. I also wanted to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his support on the earlier group, and for setting out so eloquently the reasons why it is necessary to have candidates of calibre and experience across the piece.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marland, for suggesting that perhaps we could bend the Minister’s ear in a more face-to-face and private way. I express disappointment that there is a clear lack of consistency in the detail in the Bill and, I regret to say, in the response from my noble friend the Minister. There is some merit in the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising of a sunset clause in connection with this part of the Bill. But we will have other opportunities to explore that later in the proceedings and on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mancroft
“(4) No person may be appointed a member of the Committee if they—(a) are affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;(b) are a member of an organisation promoting animal rights;(c) have been employed by an organisation promoting animal rights; or(d) are employed by an organisation promoting animal rights.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any person who is a member of, is affiliated to, was employed by, or is employed by an organisation promoting animal rights cannot be appointed a member of the Animal Sentience Committee.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to promote and advance animal welfare, which is something that we all want to do, and no one opposes. Animal welfare is based on science and evidence; it is well understood but, in casual conversation, it can be confused with animal rights, which are a very different thing and often in conflict. It is a political ideology not concerning the care and welfare of animals but rather their legal status. I am one of those who are absolutely clear that animals do not enjoy the same rights as human beings and should not be granted them. I share with others the view that you cannot have rights without responsibilities and that to impose on animals responsibilities that they cannot possibly fulfil is wrong and is in itself a form of cruelty.
The late Lord Jakobovits was strongly of the view that the enhanced status of animals in Nazi Germany allowed that regime to reduce and ultimately ignore the rights of human beings, and thus contributed to the Holocaust. It is something that my noble friend Lord Moylan touched on earlier in our debates. Those who support animal rights often deliberately seek to muddle up the rights of animals with their welfare, knowing that most people are in favour of promoting the welfare of animals. But animal rights is an extreme doctrine; those who believe in animal rights are opposed to all use of animals for food, science, medicine and sport and the ownership of pets.
Only last month, activists targeted a game farm to release some young pheasants into the wild. They presumably believed fundamentally and ideologically that pheasants should be free and that it is the pheasants’ right to roam—but what happened last month when a lock was deliberately broken to release 400 pheasant chicks was that all 400 chicks were killed by a fox. In their pen they were fed, watered and looked after. The animal rights activists thought they knew better, and their actions caused the suffering, stress and death of 400 pheasant chicks.
How could anyone who held such beliefs be in a position to report to Ministers on the welfare of animals in consequence of any government policy that condoned continued use of animals in the fields of farming, science or sport? Their beliefs would inevitably lead them to condemn all such policies, regardless of the welfare aspects. It is important to remember that animal rights is not a mainstream doctrine. It is by its very nature the territory of extremists. These are not people with whom one engages in rational debate. Violent discourse and physical violence are never far beneath the surface in the world of animal rights, as my family and I have been on the receiving end of that on more than one occasion.
The reason why so many amendments have been tabled to define the parameters of the proposed sentience committee is that many noble Lords are concerned about where the committee might venture in the future, way beyond the remit set out by this Government. Your Lordships need only to venture a short way on to social media and the platforms of the animal rights movements today to see that they are already rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects held out by this committee. These are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, people who excel at entryism, as we saw in the case of the RSPCA—a much-loved institution almost brought to its knees by extremists with an animal rights agenda, all of whom got themselves voted on to the ruling council as reasonable people. Those same people are aiming their sights at this new sentience committee.
We have spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about who might go on to this committee. My amendment talks about people who should not be allowed on it and allows my noble friend the Minister to explain how the Government are going to ensure that political extremists who do not share his higher purpose are not in the future able to wheedle their way on to the committee for their own purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that I could improve on what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, but people in the animal rights movement are extremists and do not have respect for the animal kingdom. They have an agenda, but the respect for animals themselves is not included. It would be detrimental to allow people like that on to the committee, which would then devalue its work to which the Government attach importance.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Moylan and Lord Sheikh, have all withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Has she withdrawn as well?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I am sorry, I was told you had withdrawn. I beg your pardon. Please go ahead.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
Perhaps I should make clear that I emailed to withdraw from groups 7, 8 and 10. This is my last shot, noble Lords will be glad to hear.
The animal rights movement believes, as we have just been told, that animals have rights, it is wrong to kill animals and, in some cases, it is wrong to use them in any way for the benefit of humans—whether that is for food, research or, in extreme cases, sport or even pets. The animal welfare movement, to which I suspect everyone who has spoken in this debate belongs, believes in a duty, where we can, to improve the welfare of animals and not to cause unnecessary suffering to them.
Parliamentarians, not just in this House but in the other place when the Bill comes to them—they have other animal welfare Bills in front of them—should be aware that the animal rights movement seeks to gain respectability for its views under the cover of mainstream charities. Many noble Lords may be aware of a document released at the end of May by the RSPCA, of which I am a member, entitled Act Now for Animals. It contains 40 recommendations for changes to animal-related legislation and calls itself a “green paper”. It was introduced with a foreword from Mr Chris Packham and at the back are the logos of 50 organisations, among them well respected animal welfare charities such as the Horse Trust—of which I am president—the Dogs Trust, the Donkey Sanctuary and World Horse Welfare. However, also there are the logos of a number of animal rights organisations, among which are those that oppose legal trail hunting, horse racing, shooting and even catch-and-release fishing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Amendment 12, which would ban anyone from the committee if they had involvement with animal rights groups, seems to come from the viewpoint that the Bill and the committee that it establishes will be hijacked by a radical animal rights agenda.
A commitment to animal welfare requires us to treat animals humanely, compassionately and properly. To treat animals properly, we must factor in the key facts about them, including the sentience that we know they possess. I am sure the Minister will be able to reassure noble Lords that the membership and remit of the committee will be based on expertise, including from those with animal welfare expertise and experience, but will also use scientific analysis and the right knowledge when required. We have discussed this point in great detail, and I am sure the Minister will be able to reassure us on it.
Amendment 43, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would require a Minister responding to a report by the animal sentience committee to include the views of other expert committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. We certainly agree that the committee should consider the views of other experts, be they committees or independent experts. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he is looking at that as useful in the setting up of the committee. If that is the case, how will that relationship be developed? We have discussed the relationship between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. How will the joined-up thinking come forward from other expert committees as well?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords and to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his Amendments 12 and 43. There is much I could say that would repeat what I said on earlier groups about the make-up of the committee, but I am grateful to him and others for highlighting an important consideration for Ministers as and when the Bill reaches the statute book. As my noble friend said, it is not just about who we put on the committee but about who we do not. I am clear that we want people who will take a collegiate view and who are not there to represent some narrow sectoral or even extreme point of view. The committee will look at issues such as the eating of meat and how we get meat from field to fork. The process of rearing stock and taking it to slaughter is something that we want to make sure we get absolutely right. If somebody’s opinion about that is clouded by an extreme view that the whole process is wrong, it will not be an effectively functioning committee with that individual in place, so I totally hear what has been said.
I could repeat all I said before about not wanting to constrain things by putting details about what sort of people we want to do this in the Bill. We want this to be an expert committee of professionals who really good people will want to work with. If they feel that the committee is being hijacked by extremists or, indeed, one sectoral view, it will not be working by the terms in which, I hope, it will be put on the statute book by Parliament.
I have already spoken about the very important points made about how the committee will work with other organisations, not least the Animal Welfare Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an important point. There will undoubtedly be scope for a productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the two organisations and the broad principles of this will be outlined in the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference.
Indeed, the animal sentience committee may wish to draw on the expertise of other bodies and experts where it sees fit. The Bill places no limits on this. It will then be for the committees to decide where and how it would be most productive to work together within that framework. This might not always result in outputs so reassuringly concrete as the report on reports envisaged by this amendment. The freedom to co-operate and to inform each other’s thinking, where useful, is there.
I could go into more detail. We may tease out aspects of the points raised by noble Lords in subsequent questions, but I hope my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the debate on this amendment shows the fundamental problem of what is involved when an accountable Government pass some of their responsibilities to an appointed committee. The debate on this amendment, as on the previous one, has resembled nothing so much as one of those US courtroom dramas where people argue about who should serve on a jury because they assume that the opinions will be dictated by the position of the selected juror. If we are picking people or excluding them on the basis of their professional or political affiliations, we are effectively substituting what should be a democratic decision and passing it over to people. The only difference between them and parliamentarians is that they are not really accountable to anyone.
My noble friend the Minister said, in his answer to the amendment about Members of this House serving on the committee, that politicians are not known for their strict impartiality. That is perfectly true, of course, but the idea that anyone else is strictly impartial strikes me as rather questionable. We all have our assumptions and our prejudices—indeed, experts more than anyone, if by “expert” we mean anyone who has spent their entire career in one particular field. They are the last people to be relied on to take a view in the round.
It is fine to have advice on a narrow point, but I think the concern of this Committee is that we will stray into policy-making. That is why I want to reiterate the question asked by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising about a sunset clause. I think that would reassure a lot of Members of this Committee. My noble friend the Minister did not answer it. Perhaps he thought it was offered in a frivolous spirit, but it was a policy of the coalition Government in which my noble friend served very ably as a Minister that there should be sunset clauses when new regulation is proposed. Would that not be a guarantee—a backstop, if you will—that if this committee strayed beyond giving narrow, technical advice into setting policy, there would be a way of doing something about it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I apologise if I did not answer that point; I am conscious that I did not. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked: if a committee is created by statute, how do you uncreate it? The answer is by primary legislation. Once this is established in statute, the only way is to unmake it by legislation. I do not think a sunset clause would give much confidence to the people we would want to serve on the committee if they felt that it was in any way a temporary feature.
My noble friend made another, wider point about whether advisory and expert committees have any place in government. I yield to his undoubted abilities as a parliamentarian, but as a layman on most of what I deal with—despite coming from a background which has put me in touch with many areas in my ministerial responsibilities—I rely on experts to inform me about how I take forward the day-to-day warp and weft of government, including legislation. Experts have a distinct place in our legislative process and in how we form policy, and therefore I respectfully disagree with my noble friend.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering my Amendment 12. I am not sure that there really is an answer to it. We spent an earlier part of Committee talking about who should be on the committee and I just wanted to raise the dangers of those who should not be on it. I am ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who made the point much better than I could have, as she always does. I am grateful that my noble friend the Minister has taken that point on board.
I did not speak to my Amendment 43 because your Lordships may have been slightly amazed by its appearance in this group. It got there in the same way Pontius Pilate got into the Creed—by mistake. It really should have been in an earlier group, I think group 2, where we had those sorts of debates. This does not require an answer now, but there was within it one point about the two committees which I thought needed to be aired—maybe we should do that later in these debates. What happens if the two committees—the Animal Welfare Committee and the sentience committee—give the Government conflicting advice on the same policy? Whose advice do the Minister and the Government take? Will not the Government inevitably be challenged in the courts or elsewhere for taking the wrong piece of advice? The conflict between the two committees worries me, and it has not been touched on yet. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister may think about that overnight and come back with a wonderful answer the next time we have a chance to discuss this in Committee. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
In view of the debates we have had all afternoon, I am not entirely convinced that Clause 1 should form part of the Bill. I realise that we cannot put the question at this stage, but I hope the Minister will put my mind at rest on this before we leave Committee.
In the Explanatory Notes, which are meant to add a bit of flesh to what we consider to be a skeleton Bill, we are told:
“This clause requires a new committee … to be established and maintained.”
We have not focused too much on how it will be maintained. My noble friend the Minister rather glossed over the fact that resources must not just be allocated but kept under review and, obviously, updated. He did not respond to the point I and others had raised about the onslaught: all the spending of all departments will be kept under strict review—my noble friend Lord Caithness raised this as well.
We are then told, as we have rehearsed this afternoon, that the Secretary of State will “establish and maintain it” and will
“take reasonable steps to ensure that the Committee, once established, remains extant and has the resources necessary to conduct the business specified in this Bill.”
I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that if the Bill is passed, it will take a further Bill for the animal sentience committee to reach its end of life.
We then consider the fact that
“the members of the Committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Standard public appointments rules apply to appointments made by the Secretary of State (e.g. a fair recruitment process is required).”
That begs the question of who will be the judge of whether the recruitment process is fair. I presume my noble friend will confirm that it will be for the appointing panel to set that out.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a few slightly disconnected remarks that fit in well here. It is a delight and a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and to support her in this course of inquiry.
The first is that noble Lords might be under the impression, from references made earlier in the debate and at Second Reading, that we are under the cosh of the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto. My recollection of that manifesto is compendious but, in case noble Lords did not believe that, I have looked it up in the course of the afternoon. All it says on this is:
“We will bring in new laws on animal sentience.”
That is a very fine pledge but nothing at all committing us to a committee, or indeed to laws that did not abolish animal sentience. As far as the manifesto is concerned, we are under no obligation to take forward any particular measure in the Bill; we just have to pass some legislation.
The second thing is—as I say, these are slightly disconnected points—that I have heard Ministers involved in this, although not my noble friend, say that this committee will roam across Whitehall, holding the Government to account. There is a real constitutional question here. I am very new in this House, but I was brought up to believe that it was Parliament’s job to hold Governments to account. Although I have every sympathy with my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I have a slightly different take on this topic. It is not that I am worried that this committee will go off making decisions that the Government have delegated to it, but I am really dispirited that it is going to go off to hold the Government to account on the basis of something that we have effectively delegated to it as a Parliament.
The right role and location and the proper place for this committee, if it is to exist at all, is not as a statutory body holding government to account; this committee should be a creation of Parliament reporting to us and giving us expert advice on how we should do our job holding the Government to account. I very much hope that my noble friend will take that on board and pursue it, because it would certainly allow us to get rid of Clause 1 very easily and put in place something that was much more constitutionally reputable.
I come to a third slightly disconnected point, which will be my last, more or less. The Minister has correctly stated the position—and, no doubt, I can already hear him preparing to state it correctly again a number of times before we rise this evening—that this committee will not make or change any laws and that that is entirely for Ministers and Parliament and, therefore, we need have no fear because Ministers will always have the final decision—or at least Parliament will, or some combination of the two—and they can be trusted to hold everything in balance. But of course, although that is the correct constitutional position, I suspect that my noble friend the Minister is perfectly aware that that is not the point of this Bill at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is a seasoned campaigner and activist, does not support this Bill because she thinks that it will allow the committee to make laws that we will all live under. She is perfectly well aware that this Bill in itself does nothing for animal welfare. She wants it because she wants to see a group of like-minded people—I am not saying violent activists—installed at the heart of Whitehall, going round, summoning Ministers and holding them to account. What she wants is to shift what I think is called the Overton window so that we all have to discuss animal welfare the whole time and it becomes impermissible not to discuss it every time a Bill comes up.
My noble friend may not understand that that is what drives concerns—not that we are worried that the committee will itself go and make laws and impose decisions on us, since we are perfectly well aware that it will not have the power to do that, but that Ministers will find themselves constantly on the back foot on topics like this, constantly giving ground and accepting what is still a relatively narrow agenda. That is what we are worried about. Sadly, I do not believe that my noble friend, to whom I have listened with great attention in the course of this afternoon, has so far either today or at Second Reading made the case as to why this committee, which is there to advise him and other Ministers, needs to be on a statutory footing at all. Therefore, I am very comfortable in supporting my noble friend Lady McIntosh in suggesting that this clause be removed from the Bill.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I support what my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Moylan have said, especially on the role of the committee. Having listened to the Minister speak confidently about the committee just reporting and having no other role, he underestimates the inherent growth of any form of Whitehall committee: it never reduces its power; it constantly expands it and its role, and interferes in things in which it does not necessarily have a place. The efforts that have been made to concentrate on reducing the role of the committee and placing its remit statutorily, so that it cannot expand outside of what it was set up to do, are of fundamental importance. I urge the Minister to consider the many very good points that have been made.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I join my noble friend Lady McIntosh in opposing this clause standing part, because any Conservative—and, I think, any sensible parliamentarian and the Minister—should be concerned about setting up committees, per se. We have a proliferation of committees everywhere and, here we are, creating yet another one. If this committee were doing something uniquely special that was not being done by anybody else, it might have more to say for itself, but we already have the Animal Welfare Committee. Does my noble friend not consider it possible to amalgamate the activities of both committees, so that we do not end up with two doing similar things, but with one?
As my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, there could easily be conflict between the two committees anyway. Which advice would the Government take if the advice between the two varied? This is a recipe for chaos. To constantly set up committees is not the right way to run government. As my noble friend said, they develop a life of their own, get bigger and bigger, and more officious and difficult. This is not the way to deal with problems of cruelty to animals. We all want to see people punished for being cruel to animals, and I do not think an animal sentience committee is the way forward at all. I would like to see this clause voted down and the whole idea of an animal sentience committee dismissed. We already have a committee dealing with this and should not have two, because that is a recipe for chaos.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would like to follow those last comments from the noble Lord. Earlier, we discussed the difference between the animal sentience committee, the Animal Welfare Committee and other committees. The sentience committee is not being set up as just an advisory committee, as the Animal Welfare Committee is. It is designed to have a different role and remit, and will need different expertise to the Animal Welfare Committee. It has its own important role to play in something that is strongly supported by the general public.
It is important for the Minister to hear that noble Lords are concerned by the lack of detail in Clause 1. People feel that the Bill needs improvement, and there have been many issues raised during the debate. From my perspective, more clarity and focus are needed, if it is to achieve what the Bill intends and answer many noble Lords’ concerns. We do not support voting to remove Clause 1 from the Bill, but there is work to do in the time between now and Report. I urge the Minister to work across parties to look at how we can improve the Bill and address many of the concerns that have been raised.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the opportunity to explain the approach behind Clause 1. Before I do that, perhaps I should clarify once and for all that there is no rural-proofing committee. There never has been. There is something called the rural affairs board, which is chaired by a non-executive director of Defra and brings together senior officials, and I am the Minister responsible for rural affairs. Rural-proofing does not need a Bill; it does not need legislation. It just needs a will across government to do it.
My noble friend asked why this is being prioritised before rural-proofing. It is not. Rural-proofing is something we have yet to perfect. We have yet to get to where we want to be but, with all the vigour I can put behind my voice, I suggest that there is not a competition between rural-proofing and animal welfare. Both are important and both can be taken forward in different ways. This is a piece of legislation; rural-proofing does not need one. She asked about the trade and agriculture committee. I am afraid I do not know the details of that. It is not an area for which I have direct responsibility, but I am sure we can find out.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked why there are two committees. We have worked through this one quite thoroughly and I cannot say better than the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on that.
My noble friend Lord Moylan looks down the telescope one way and sees all these bodies roaming around Whitehall interfering with the nice tidy world of executive power. There is another direction in which to look. We get better legislation if we employ experts in a modest and proportionate way to look at things in an expert way. I suggest that that is perhaps the perspective from the end I am looking down. We may never have a meeting of minds on this, but I can keep trying.
Clause 1 requires the Government to create and maintain the animal sentience committee. As has been discussed, the committee will hold the Government to account on animal welfare, creating a proportionate accountability mechanism to support the Bill’s legal recognition of animal sentience. I understand that some noble Lords have questioned the need for the committee or have suggested that it may be constituted without legislation as part of the Animal Welfare Committee. I will try to address this.
Our approach creates a dedicated committee whose role is to support Parliament’s scrutiny of the policy decision-making process. While the committee is not there to impose decisions on Ministers, it will perform a valuable role in encouraging us to make sure that we have properly considered the effects of policy on the welfare of animals. Creating the committee and placing it on a statutory footing is the best way of ensuring that the Bill’s recognition of sentience is given meaningful but proportionate effect.
The committee must act within the legal parameters the Bill sets. At the same time, we consider the obligation on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports fundamental to the transparency and meaningful scrutiny of government policy-making. Ministers do not have to accept the committee’s findings and recommendations, but they have an obligation under the Bill to respond to them promptly and openly. We feel that this approach strikes an appropriate balance. We would struggle to give the committee sufficient traction if it lacked a statutory basis. We want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’s responsibilities to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.
It is important to remember that the two committees have distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any relationship between the two would need to support these two distinct functions. I therefore ask my noble friend not to oppose the clause standing part.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I call the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I was just reflecting as I listened to the Minister. He said how important it was to have expert advice. I thought the whole raison d’être of this House was that it provided expert advice on legislation to government. Therefore, my question to the Minister is, having sat through nearly five hours of people questioning the efficacy of Clause 1 and giving him advice to come back with some further thoughts on the composition of the committee, and having heard all of that, will he undertake to bring government amendments back on Report to deal with the issues of composition which have been raised? I have to say to him: if he does not do that, there is no way—we are not able to vote that Clause 1 stand part—but there is no way that I would support it as it stands because it is an empty shell. Without repeating all the arguments that have been put by the Committee, it will lead the Government into great difficulties.
I listened very carefully to what he said. Does he really believe that it is necessary to have a statutory committee to achieve his declared purpose? I heard what he read out, but, putting it unkindly, what he was saying was: we are using legislation as a sort of poster board on which to say how much we care about animal sentience. It is perfectly within his powers as a Minister to set up a committee and give an undertaking that the committee’s reports will be debated within three months in Parliament. It would be great if Ministers did that for existing Select Committees of this House. I have one outstanding for nearly two years for the Economic Affairs Committee.
It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems for the Government. My question is: will the Minister now give us an undertaking that he will come back with amendments to Clause 1 which give it some substance, given the very strong views which have been expressed by everyone? Without exception everyone has said that this clause is inadequate because it does not define the composition of the committee.
The Minister said, quite rightly, that he needs flexibility, but when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I had to make a huge number of appointments to committees. The legislation often provided, in more general terms, the composition of the committee. It might say that you must have somebody with technical expertise in this area or that, and that the balance of the committee should be X, Y and Z. The people giving him advice in his department are perfectly capable of coming up with a form of wording that would meet the requirements expressed today by the Committee and allow for flexibility.
As to the point about what would happen if someone left the committee after three years, again, in the commercial world, people are expected to do succession planning and look at the composition of the committees. One would expect Ministers to do the same. So, can we have an undertaking that the Minister will bring forward amendments on Report to save us the trouble of having to do so and having yet another extended period of debate? I do not think the clause as it stands will wash.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It would be the height of arrogance to say that I was just going to walk into this Committee Room, sit here and leave without taking note of what noble Lords have said. We will be studying Hansard very closely on what has been discussed today and we will reflect on trying to make this Bill more workable for all sides of the House.
I recognise that creating legislation is always a complicated process and nothing, not even a small Bill like this, is devoid of differing views and perspectives. My noble friend has expressed one forcefully today. I think he would much prefer to be spending this afternoon doing something else and not having to worry about this piece of legislation. Others absolutely, vehemently want this piece of legislation to get on the statute book, so, sailing my route between Scylla and Charybdis, I can certainly guarantee that I will reflect on what he and other noble Lords have said. I hope that we can bring something forward at the next stage which will satisfy—not everybody—but some.
The noble Lord’s point about succession is absolutely right: in the corporate world, you manage the succession of your boards, think ahead and make sure that gaps are filled. I have done that for 40 years, but it does not always work: you get gaps, and you have to have the flexibility in order to continue with the work of the committee effectively as and when they occur. However, I totally take his point, which he is right to make.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister to completely disregard anything that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about me. I do not mind him calling me a “seasoned campaigner and activist”, but his daring to state what I am thinking and what I believe is totally wrong and deeply offensive. I ask the Deputy Chairman if it is possible to strike those remarks from Hansard because they are offensive and totally inaccurate. The only person who is qualified to say what I am thinking is me and perhaps occasionally my noble friend Lady Bennett. Quite honestly, to have the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, come out with a stream of rubbish about what I am thinking is offensive, and I need an apology from him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does the Minister wish to respond?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness has made her point very clearly, and it is on the record.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Just to be clear, it is not within my powers to strike anything from Hansard. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who have expressed their support: my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Howard of Rising. My noble friend Lord Moylan is very brave to take on the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I call her my noble friend—and I am sure that we can all get together and make up afterwards.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about there being no appetite on her Benches to support the deletion of the existing Clause 1. My noble friend Lord Forsyth pre-empted what I was going to say. It is customary to invite my noble friend the Minister to come forward with government amendments at this stage—I say so because I fear that the overwhelming mood of the Committee this afternoon is that we stand prepared to do our work of scrutiny extremely carefully, and I do not think that we take kindly to the fact that this will be delegated to a body the complexion, remit and resources of which we are as yet unaware. I urge my noble friend to meet us and come forward with appropriate amendments before we reach the next stage—but I withdraw my opposition to Clause 1 at this stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (15 Jul 2021)
Viscount Trenchard
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move Amendment 17, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had intended to move, but he is unable to be in his place today. I was unable to speak at Second Reading due to my incompetence in failing to put my name on the speakers’ list on time.
I was able to take the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act through your Lordships’ House in spring 2019, rightly removing the argument of self-defence from those who attempted to escape arrest by attacking and harming police dogs and horses. Finn’s law received unqualified support from all sides of the House, and I think it is highly desirable that, in this field, the Government should support legislation which is similarly supported by all parties.
Her Majesty set out the animal welfare programme in her gracious Speech with these words:
“Legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]
I fear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, this Bill will add nothing to our excellent standards and is likely to be counterproductive.
My Amendment 17 seeks to restrict the activities of the committee to policies that are in course of formulation, or at least have not been formulated. I support Amendments 18 and 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to ensure that the committee is not required to review policies that are already being lawfully implemented. I also support his Amendment 29, which ensures that on any further formulation of a policy already being applied the committee is not expected to report. All these amendments are designed to remove retrospectivity from the workings of the committee and its reports and recommendations.
Retrospective laws which upset legally compliant settled patterns of life and expectations are not good policy. They undermine the security and continuity of a way of life consistent with the values of the community and a sense of its continuity. Legislation which retrospectively changes a legal activity into an illegal one is likely to have adverse repercussions on decisions made reasonably and in good faith by citizens in the past. In the context of this Bill, that might cover farming or other business plans and investment or the purchase of property in order to carry on a particular activity or country sport.
I also support Amendment 35A in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Measures which support conservation or biodiversity may very well not support crop protection or indeed human health. How to balance these conflicting policy areas while having to have regard to animal welfare for reasons different from those for which we look after animals so well in this country is an extremely complicated subject. Indeed, most policies that the Government might develop may well have negative consequences for at least one of the excluded areas in my noble friend’s amendment.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I commented earlier in Committee on the potential problem which would be created if existing policy could be reviewed by the committee. The trouble that could be caused by reviewing existing policies is as nothing compared to the turmoil which could come from the ability to go backwards and review existing law. This would be an enormous power which very easily could, and almost probably would, get out of hand. It would require almost unlimited resources and place intolerable burdens on other departments of state.
In addition to that, unlike European countries, Britain has had animal welfare laws for 200 years. Allowing the committee to recommend repealing or amending already implemented law would be a recipe for unimaginable chaos and expense. I cannot believe that this is what this Bill intends. If the Bill is to have any sensible purpose, it must be limited to recommending on future policy and legislation which, by itself, would be a monumental task, without the potential of causing almost unlimited trouble by going back historically.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s amendment, to which I have put my name. It strikes me that the Government have not really thought this through very carefully, because if this is going to be retrospective and it will be possible for this committee to review all legislation that has already been passed, then this will provoke a need for massive new legislation stretching into the future. The Government have the option, I suppose, of ignoring recommendations from the animal sentience committee, but if they do not ignore its recommendations, then of course that means they will inevitably get involved in more legislation in the future. I am not sure that that was really the intention of the Bill in the beginning. Surely, the original point of the Bill—not that I am a great supporter of it—was that there should be some form of oversight of government legislation to ensure that the sentience of animals was being taken into account, but if it works retrospectively, then of course it has unlimited capacity for creating ever more work and expense, as has been mentioned by my noble friend. Therefore, I very much support his amendment.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 18 and 23, which carry my name, and in support of Amendments 17 and 29. These all rule out scrutiny of policies established in the past and are consistent with my Amendment 3, which we discussed on the first day in Committee, which laid out the function of the committee and confined it to considering policies subsequent to the committee’s establishment. The arguments for not having any retrospective powers have been well made by others.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
One of the worst things in this Bill, with its miasma of uncertainty, is its retrospective effect. Along with others, this amendment is designed to cure this defect. We have to stop the committee considering, let alone making suggestions to change, policies that were established in the past, that are currently being lawfully implemented and on which people base their livelihoods, food and sporting pursuits.
As it stands, the Bill would allow the committee to reopen of its own volition policies that have been in place for perhaps a century, as some of our animal welfare laws have. It could make recommendations designed to undermine the use of animals in medical research, the practice of killing animals according to Jewish law and country sports, already hedged about with qualifications and reached by consensus a long time ago. We might accept that this committee, expert or not, will consider future proposals, but we cannot let it loose on the established law.
I say this not wholly as an advocate of the positions I have mentioned but as a reminder that retrospective legislation and changes of policy are to be assumed to be a bad thing. They may undermine settled patterns of life and livelihood, taking away certainty of freedom from criminal and civil prosecution. We cannot allow this committee to propose legislation to take away the validity of decisions made in the past and in good faith by people relying on the law as it was. In the case of the traditional Jewish way of killing animals for food, it has been permissible ever since the Jewish return to England some 350 years ago and it is established policy under UK regulations to permit it, as it was under EU legislation—although not that it could be relied on, as I explained in my last speech on this when I pointed out that the European Court of Justice allowed the Belgian prohibition of Jewish non-stunning methods.
As a legal situation, at common law, there is a presumption against retrospectivity. Article 7 of the Human Rights Act prohibits arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment. At common law, there is also a presumption against interference with vested interests. A leading judgment on this was in the case of Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2003; one of the judges in that case, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, is happily still with us. The judgment explained that there is a powerful presumption against statutes changing the substantive law in relation to events in the past; this is precisely what could happen if the powers of this new committee are not curbed.
There is also a presumption against legislation affecting vested rights unless Parliament is expressly making a new start for the future. So, on the one hand, recommendations by this new committee to change existing practices would be a waste of time in that, if they were acted on, they would be contrary to the rule of law; on the other hand, the Bill would accord better with human rights and the rule of law by making it express that its actions must be confined to future policy.
I hope that this amendment will be supported by the Government; otherwise, I can see legal action looming ahead on the horizon. This also applies to Amendments 18, 21, 23 and 29, all of which I support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the conspiracy theorists among you will wonder whether the insufferable heat in this Room is a plot by me to speed up events.
Lord Benyon (Con)
However, I can assure noble Lords that that is not how I operate. I am looking forward to lengthy discussions this afternoon.
I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his Amendment 17, with which I will take Amendments 18, 23 and 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I agree that we would gain little from a committee that devotes its energies to reopening old debates. We want a committee that improves the policy decision-making and implementation process now and in future.
However, policy is not a static thing. This afternoon, we have heard descriptions of policies that go back centuries. Policy is always being reassessed, reinterpreted and, above all, implemented. It would be difficult to pin down a working definition of established policy, particularly in statute, that does not shut the committee out of a number of areas where its scrutiny would be most valuable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question to ask the Minister. The cost of the committee will be very substantial indeed, with its wide-ranging remit across all government. If these amendments are passed, can he tell us exactly what would be saved in the costs of running the committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sorry, but I did not quite hear the last part of the question. I wonder whether my noble friend could repeat it.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Yes, indeed. If these amendments are passed, they will obviously greatly restrict the remit of the committee in what I think would be a very wise manner. Can my noble friend give this Committee some indication as to what would be saved in the costs of running the committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I understand the question and apologise for missing it first time. No, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance, because the work programme and what the committee would look at will change from year to year as developing evidence about animal welfare takes it down different priority routes. The amendments would obviously quite dramatically restrict the ability of the committee to influence government policy, but I cannot put a monetary value on that. It would be part of the economic impact assessment, which would have to take place at a different stage in this process.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I want to follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about ritual slaughter. We have been reading in the newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling water to kill them. Is that one aspect of the thinking behind what the Government are doing? If that is the case, where does it leave pigs being slaughtered? They are highly intelligent animals and with a very high sense of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would just like to know where the Minister stands on this.
Lord Benyon (Con)
If my noble friend is referring to the article that I read at the weekend, it was full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, which is not what this Bill is about. At a later stage in this afternoon’s proceedings, we shall move on to talk about decapods and cephalopods. In relation to the amendments concerned, if the government Minister in the future felt obliged to include some of those species within the terms of the Bill, they could be looked at by the committee, which could advise a future Minister what they could or should be doing in terms of how different animals are treated at end of life. However, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that there are gradations in unpleasantness involved for the animal, whether it is a pig or a lobster. The point is that the Bill does not dictate how a lobster is killed at the time of cooking or how a pig is killed at the time of slaughter. This is about informing policy using experts who can guide a Minister to take the right position. But that Minister, when considering all the factors that my noble friend mentioned, can take into account other matters, such as the value of sustainably produced seafood in a diet or the importance of the rural economy or the Government’s balance of payments in terms of rearing pigs. This Bill does not affect that, and so my noble friend can be quite relaxed about his concerns.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I am heartened that both my Amendment 17 and the other amendments in the group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard, have received such unqualified support.
I totally understand my noble friend the Minister’s response that legislation does not stand still, and it is of course reasonable that, where the Government propose a new policy that requires changes to existing legislation, the committee or the Animal Welfare Committee might be tasked with looking at how the policy impacted on the welfare of animals, including having regard to their sentience, which any look at animal welfare automatically does anyway. Nevertheless, I find his answer unconvincing because I think that there is a real danger, especially since we know nothing about any requirements for the composition of the committee, that a huge amount of public time and public money would be spent looking at all past legislation that affects animal welfare. I worry that this would be counterproductive.
However, having heard my noble friend’s response, I will at least for now withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20.
Amendment 20
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, before speaking to my amendments, I should just say that there is a certain underwater quality to the sound, and it has been quite difficult to follow the previous group. I think that is because somebody called John Turner has not muted. There are quite a lot of people who have not muted on the call, and I think that is giving some feedback—oh, he has now. Thank you. Let us see if that improves things.
It is my pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments—or at least those amendments that seek to improve the committee and strengthen its functions, such as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I remind all noble Lords that this was a government promise. Something has to come out of this that is positive and that the general public, who asked for this, understand as being a reasonable policy. The Minister said that expert scrutiny is needed and that policy is not static. Can we not live 100 or 500 years in the past? Can we understand that things have to move on? As he also said, animal sentience is a fast-evolving field, and we need to make sure that we are up there, aware and legislating in the right way.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who signed my Amendments 27 and 41, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. She is unable to be here for this group but she will be here later.
My Amendment 20 is the crucial one because it would toughen up the committee. I am not very welcoming of Amendments 21 and 22, which seem designed to weaken the committee into total obscurity. Why any scrutiny body would be reduced to the position of seeking permission from those it is scrutinising to actually do the scrutinising is beyond me, but then there are those who believe in the divine right of kings and see scrutiny of the Government as a bad thing.
I am very pleased that my Amendment 20 would have the opposite effect. I would like to see a strong, broad-based animal sentience committee that conducts deep analysis of all government policy to ensure that its impact on animals has been properly considered. I would much rather that the committee looked at everything in the round than sporadically look at piecemeal bits of policy. The former seems the right way to go, especially when the Bill is premised on the fact that these animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel, perceive and experience. I have confidence that your Lordships can improve the Bill and give short shrift to the wrecking amendments that would reduce the sentience of the committee to a lump of stone. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to these amendments because I have an amendment in my name, which I will come to in a minute. First, I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when she said that she hoped the committee would look at policy in the round. That is what we all hope. However, we all fear that it will not. We need reassurance from my noble friend the Minister to convince us. We are not conspiracy theorists; we are practitioners who wish to see this operating sensibly in the United Kingdom.
The reason for my Amendment 38 is perhaps best illustrated when we look at Amendment 46, which is also in this group and is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock. I look forward to hearing what they have to say on their amendment. I cannot detract from subsection (1) of their proposed new clause. It is quite right that, if a piece of legislation sets up a committee, that committee ought to report to Parliament to be properly scrutinised. But then we come to subsection (2), which is where I get a little concerned. First, in subsection (2)(b), the noble Baronesses propose
“an overview of the implementation of animal sentience requirements across government”.
As I read and understand this, if my noble friend the Minister is right that the animal sentience committee is all about—and I quote his words—“informing policy”, it should not be looking at the implementation of policy. That is for the Government and Ministers, having looked at whatever report comes out of the committee.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, Clause 2 sets out the manner in which the animal sentience committee reports. In particular, Clause 2(2) sets out
“whether, or to what extent, 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.”
Assuming that there is an adverse effect, subsection (4) imposes a duty on the Government to have “all due regard” to this adverse effect. Amendment 44 ensures that, in making their response to the committee’s report, the Government include what steps they are going to take to remedy this adverse effect. The primary purpose of the Bill is to advance animal welfare, and the Government are setting up this animal sentience committee to provide a critique of the Government’s policies as a way of achieving this. The committee will publish reports and the Government will respond.
Amendment 44 deals with another what and when. What happens when the committee finds that the Government have not had all due regard for the welfare of animals as sentient beings? In the case of past policy, will it be repealed or amended? In the case of present policy, will it be paused? In the case of future policy, will it be suspended? What happens when a policy is found to have been answered negatively but cannot be repealed or amended? Do the Government continue with the policy in conflict with their own committee’s report? Can the Government then be subject to a judicial review? These are important questions, and it is therefore necessary that the Government in their response go to some length in trying to satisfy them so that they can continue governing.
It is equally necessary for businesses to be made aware of any changes, so that they, too, can prepare and make appropriate changes to their actions. We know what happened when Natural England suspended general licences. We cannot experience such chaos and such tragedies again. We all agree that we must do our best to prevent unintended consequences, especially ones that harm the welfare of animals and people’s livelihoods.
In short, that is what Amendment 44 seeks to do: to ensure that any actions to be taken are properly communicated and delivered in such a way as to avoid harming the welfare of animals, and in doing so to protect the associated livelihoods of those whom the action will impact. Be under no illusion: as drafted, the powers of this committee are significant. The demands on government will be even more significant and the potential consequences may be enormous. We must therefore have answers to the why, the what and the whens before this legislation becomes law; otherwise, it will be far too late.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. I was not here—because I was at a previous engagement—when the debate was held in this Room about merging the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. My noble friend the Minister made the point that the two committees did two different jobs and therefore there had be two different committees. That was really accepted rather too glibly. There is no reason why we should not keep one committee and give it two different jobs to do. It is a pity that we seem to be so dedicated to the spread of bureaucracy and quangos in this way, when the Government have made it clear that they do not really agree with that.
However, let us leave that and move on to the fact that there is obviously potential for conflict between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness. We have to do everything we can to avoid that and ensure that they work together—not in opposition to each other, which seems highly likely knowing the way that Whitehall works. I therefore sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will look hard at this amendment, because it has great value.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that the committee should look at policy in the round, I regret that I cannot support Amendment 20 in her name and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes. I also strongly support the objective of my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Hamilton of Epsom in their Amendment 2, previously debated, that the duties of the animal sentience committee could better be given to the existing Animal Welfare Committee.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on 6 July:
“It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems for the Government.”
My noble friend the Minister told the Committee that the Government
“want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’s responsibilities to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.”
That would of course have been far better.
I have the highest regard for my noble friend Lord Benyon, but I found his explanation as to why we need two committees completely unconvincing. It is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to the Government’s manifesto commitment. Those animal rights activists who support the Bill claim that the public want it. If you tell the man or woman on the street that there is an Animal Welfare Committee already and ask if he or she thinks we should have a second committee, you will get a different answer. My noble friend said:
“It is important to remember that the two committees have distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any relationship between the two would need to support these two distinct functions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; cols. GC 337-8.]
I do not think these functions are distinct in any way. Without exception, noble Lords who spoke on 6 July asked him to come back with at least some definition of the committee on Report.
I also support Amendment 16, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, which stated that the new requirements to consider animals as sentient beings in the formulation of policy should be limited to those areas covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty. UK Parliaments have recognised the sentience of animals since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and our animal welfare standards go far beyond what we were required to do under EU law. If the Government really think that they must establish a new quango of such dubious merit and opaque purpose, the four amendments in this group will at least restrict that quango’s activities to examining new policies under consideration rather than opening up the entire existing statute book to reconsideration at great expense.
Although I was unable to speak in the earlier debate, let me say that I also support Amendment 31, which would provide exceptions for religious rites and cultural traditions. Without that, a large part of Japanese cuisine —to which I am partial, having lived in that country for many years—would probably be deemed illegal.
I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 22 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Amendment 21 could have been grouped with amendments that we have debated previously, which also sought to prohibit the committee reporting on established government policy. Amendment 22 would require the committee to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before committing taxpayers’ funds.
I cannot support Amendments 27 and 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because they assume that the committee’s answer to the question is binary—that is, yes or no. The existing draft at least raises the question of the extent to which the Government are having due regard to animal welfare in the formulation of policy. Surely this is an instance where the proportionality principle should be applied.
I strongly support Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. If we must have two overlapping committees, at least the animal sentience committee should consult the Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note explaining its opinion on any report.
In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lord Mancroft seeks to find out what the Government might do in cases where the committee finds that they have not had due regard to the animal welfare consequences of any policy. Earlier, we debated the incorrect assumption of the Bill that any effect would be adverse. Obviously, any policy designed to make it easier for gamekeepers to cull predators has positive effects for the prey of those predators. I support my noble friend and look forward to the answer from my noble friend the Minister on this question.
I cannot support Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because subsection 2(b) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that she intends that the committee’s remit should extend across government, whereas I believe that it should be limited to those areas that were previously covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, as I mentioned. Furthermore, the amendment raises the question of the other activities that the committee may have undertaken during any financial year.
There seems to be no limit to the scope and remit of the Bill. Unless it is appropriately restricted, the committee will need huge resources.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes; they also carry my name.
These two amendments are linked. Amendment 27 asks the animal sentience committee to answer the question asked in Clause 2(2)
“in the affirmative, or … in the negative.”
For example, if the animal sentience committee states that the Government have had all due regard to animal welfare in the formulation and implementation of policy, Amendment 41 would remove the requirement in Clause 3(1) for the Secretary of State to lay a response before Parliament. This seems to be a common-sense reduction in the obligation of the Secretary of State while retaining the fact that the report of the animal sentience committee, whatever it concludes, remains a matter of public record. It removes the burden of work on the Secretary of State.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trees. This group of amendments is varied and I am grateful for the various briefings I have received, particularly from the Better Deal for Animals coalition. I am disappointed that some Peers taking part today are asking the Minister questions which he already provided full answers to on the first day in Committee.
Amendment 21 restricts the work of the animal sentience committee to impending policy and prevents it reviewing existing policy, even though there may be evidence that a review is necessary. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard: I am not sure why this amendment was not included in the previous group. Amendment 22 requires the ASC to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before beginning to construct the report on its work. The noble Viscount spoke to these two amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has introduced Amendments 20, 27 and 41, which deal with ensuring that a report is produced by the ASC and that it should declare whether it is to be answered through the affirmative or negative procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has supported these amendments, as do we.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has introduced Amendment 38, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. Again, this introduces more bureaucracy into the workings of the ASC by insisting that it consults the Animal Welfare Committee. While these two committees are complementary and should share information in order for both of them to be effective, I do not believe that making it a requirement that the view of the Animal Welfare Committee should be published in all the reports of the ASC is necessary. It may well be desirable and happen as a matter of course, but making it a legal requirement in the Bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic.
I also do not feel it necessary to include Amendment 44, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The animal sentience committee is there to provide additional evidence to inform policy rather than directing policy itself. The Minister will decide whether they wish to take notice of this, and it is therefore unnecessary to put it into the Bill. Whether the Minister should have a duty to take notice of the advice is another matter, but attempting to prove whether the advice has been adhered to is not currently a requirement of the Bill. There are examples of other countries’ animal welfare legislation which offer advice: the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission; New Zealand’s National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and its National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee; and the Dutch Council on Animal Affairs. All these bodies offer advice which their respective Governments may consider when forming policy; they do not direct policy themselves.
I put my name down on this group to be able to speak in favour of Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman of Ullock. For animal charities and the public to have confidence in the work of the ASC, a published annual report on its work will be necessary. Transparency, rather than bureaucracy, is essential.
We have seen through the first day of debate in Committee that there is some considerable opposition not only to setting up the animal sentience committee but to the way in which it will go about its work, and the groups of animals that it can consider. The Bill currently limits the animal groups to vertebrates, which is very wide. We will return to whether this should be widened in the last group of amendments this afternoon. On the first day in Committee, several Peers wanted to limit the group of animals to be covered by certain activities such as agriculture, transport or space, with others wanting to exclude the words “sentient beings”.
Given the level of unease around the Bill and the setting-up of the committee and its work, it is essential that a report of its deliberations and advice given to the Minister should be published annually. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has also spoken in favour of a published report. As I have indicated, transparency is very important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In this group, I support Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, to which I have added my name. This is a fairly straightforward amendment designed to enable the animal sentience committee to submit annual reports to both Houses of Parliament. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their support. The amendment would ensure transparency and oversight of the work of the committee.
Coming to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—I thank him for his introduction to his amendment—he referred to the three points in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in our Amendment 46. The first is
“a statement of the policies on which the Committee has reported”,
which I cannot imagine anyone would object to, as we need to know what the committee has been looking at. Then there is
“an overview of the implementation of animal sentience requirements”,
which is the part the noble Earl raised.
The reason for this provision is that I have often seen in pieces of animal welfare legislation, covering wildlife crime, for example, that legislation is brought forward in good faith but then not enacted. It does not get enforced and is not implemented properly. Often, that legislation does not work to deliver what it was designed to deliver. We want to have oversight of that and to ensure that other government departments co-operate with the committee in the way that is expected. That is the purpose behind it and I hope I have explained it to the noble Earl. Lastly, there is
“a statement of the other activities”.
I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, took exception to that, but we think it is important that we get proper oversight of everything that the committee is currently expected to look at.
Just before I finish on these, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced his Amendment 38. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that it could bring in unnecessary bureaucracy. However, there are clearly important questions that he has asked the Minister to consider.
I support Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes, which would provide that the committee “must” produce a report when any government policy is formulated or implemented. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we need a strong, broad-based committee that looks at everything in the round. We have talked about this before: the remit and the focus are of such importance that we all know exactly what is expected from the committee once it starts working.
I also support Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I thank the noble Lord for introducing that amendment clearly. Again, this is all about proper reporting, which will be critical.
On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. But in introducing his amendment, the noble Lord asked some important questions that need to be considered as we move forward.
Finally, Amendments 21 and 22, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Etherton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, were introduced today by the noble Viscount. We believe that these amendments are unhelpful. Amendment 21 amounts to a significant weakening of the animal sentience committee because of the way it restricts the committee’s work. By not being able to report on existing government policy, it rows back from the original vision of a body that is free to consider sentience questions right across the range of government policy. I know a number of noble Lords do not think this is necessary, but we think it is very important.
We also think it is important that the initial vision is retained in the Bill so that the animal sentience committee can make a positive contribution to policy-making. It can best do that as a public body that provides expert input to inform complex policy questions that touch on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. As we and the Minister have said, this is not about the committee making policy; it is about the committee informing, answering questions, passing comment and being there as a critical friend, if you like, for policy decision-making in this area.
If we erect arbitrary barriers to that expert advice, it will impoverish the policy process. We should not make laws that prevent Ministers accessing knowledge that could improve their decision-making. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which we know is carrying out this important work. It is an interesting example of what could be achieved if we move forward with the Bill as proposed. As the Minister said on the first day of Committee:
“In our manifesto, this Government as a whole committed to the introduction of new laws on sentience, with no suggestion of carve-outs or exemptions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 288.]
We strongly support him in that ambition.
As we heard, Amendment 22 would require permission to be received from the Defra Secretary of State before a report could be prepared. We believe this would also significantly weaken the committee and reduce it from being a body that is free to consider sentience questions across government policy to basically a Defra scrutiny committee, which would then scrutinise only with the Secretary of State’s permission. We therefore cannot support the amendment.
This has been a really interesting discussion on this group. It has been good to hear all the different contributions from noble Lords. I now look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree: this has been a really interesting discussion.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her Amendment 20, which would place a legal duty to publish reports on the animal sentience committee. This Bill makes provision to empower the committee to scrutinise Ministers’ policy formulation and implementation decisions with a view to publishing reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. When the committee publishes a report, this will trigger the accountability mechanism to ensure Ministers respond formally to Parliament. The committee will be able to issue reports on central government policy decisions, without exception. This includes past policies as well as policies in the process of being formulated.
Naturally, the committee will not be able to scrutinise every single policy-making decision. This would be an impossible undertaking for a single committee, so we will support the committee to identify and prioritise areas where it can have the most important impact. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the committee should focus on policies where it can add the most value.
As the experts, it is ultimately for the committee to decide how best to use its time. We therefore do not want to prescribe what it must do any further in statute, beyond the powers given to the committee in the Bill. We want to give the committee flexibility to work in a way that best suits its priorities. For example, the committee may decide to issue advice and input as a policy is being formulated. We will support the committee in identifying opportunities for this. I assure the noble Baroness that the committee will have a work plan that will be made publicly available. We think it best for the committee, as the experts, to decide what it chooses to look at.
We will, of course, work closely with the committee, which will have a dedicated secretariat to support its work. We want to ensure that the committee is appropriately resourced with sufficient membership and administrative support to make an impact and scrutinise the most important decisions but is not so large as to become unmanageable or overbearing. Your Lordships tried to pin me down on this when the Committee last met. I am happy to give a little more clarification. As has been said, your Lordships can look at the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, with its 12 members and a proportionate dedicated secretariat, as a rough indication of the scale that we are looking at.
I offer my reassurances to the noble Baroness that it is very much intended that the committee will publish reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. This will be a key tool in embedding consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am moved to intervene briefly because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that the people want it—I think I quote her exactly. I think the people want animals to be well treated; I think that everyone in this Room wants them to be well treated, and we have pretty good legislation that already protects animals, both domestic and wild, from unnecessary cruelty and ill treatment. However, in my 23 years in the House of Commons—I know that the noble Baroness represented people in the London Assembly—I can certainly say that nobody mentioned animal sentience. They mentioned lots of animal welfare issues, but nobody mentioned animal sentience. I think they were about as concerned about animal sentience as about the divine right of kings, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. Although the noble Baroness cannot intervene, perhaps my noble friend the Minister might say how many people came to him when he was an MP and said they wanted an animal sentience Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will explain why. My noble friend was—as the previous Speaker used to say—a great denizen of the House of Commons for many years, as he rightly reminds us. But, sadly, he was not there when the Government of the day decided, for reasons that have always been slightly obscure to me, not to include the provisions of Article 13 in the legislation that took us out of the European Union. Those of us who were there found a tsunami of emails and letters from people who may not have understood the most detailed aspects of animal sentience but were very concerned that the Government were not reflecting their views. This resulted in rather a lot of mid-air turbulence in trying to get to this point. Without baring the soul of the discussions over that time, I respectfully correct my noble friend to say that this was something people were very concerned about in the much wider sense of where animal sentience and animal welfare combine.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps my noble friend might list the constituents who wrote to him.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full reply. He did comment on my amendment; I will have to read what he said in the Official Report, but towards the end, he said quite rightly that the remit of the animal sentience committee was across Whitehall. That includes the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission was set up specifically to look at how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by devolved policy. I am now unclear—perhaps my noble friend could help me—about how much of sentience is devolved and what exactly the committee will be able to do in the devolved countries. Will it be able to go to the Scotland Office and thus up to Holyrood, look at its policy and tell Scotland that it has to change its ways? I am not quite certain how this will work in practice. As this is Committee, it is an ideal time for my noble friend to explain the Bill a bit more to us.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I hope to be able to reassure him. The job of the animal sentience committee will not be to walk into Holyrood and instruct our friends in Scotland how they should deal with animal sentience. It is a committee based around the UK Government that, as he rightly says, covers Scotland, but these matters are devolved issues—animal welfare is a devolved issue. But, on these small islands, it would be absurd if we were not working closely across borders with the devolved Administrations to make sure that our animal welfare laws broadly align. We have livestock bred in one country and slaughtered in another, or bred in one country and fattened in another. We have other activities, such as fishing and all forms of animal welfare, which require a cross-border understanding.
The Animal Welfare Committee’s remit is right across the country. The animal sentience committee will be restricted to the UK Government and will work with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the policies it is commenting on are properly managed in respect of the department to which it is making its report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I think that I may be interrupted by a vote at some point so I will try to be quick, although I might not be.
I thank the Minister for his comments; I will read them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood fully where our interests overlap and where there is any divergence. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I listened carefully to everybody. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Mancroft, care deeply about these issues. Their views are valuable, but I found them quite repetitive. We have heard all this before. We have been told that the two committees will not clash and will have particular remits that will be extremely clear. I think that we perhaps underestimate the interest of both committees in terms of being able to understand where they might work together and where they absolutely must not because it is not relevant, so I do not have the same fears about any sort of overlapping.
I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, agree with the concept of policy in the round. The minute they started agreeing with me, I started to wonder whether I did not know what I was talking about, but I will look into that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trying to tie the hands of the animal sentience committee. I just do not think that that is appropriate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned animal rights activists. This term has been thrown at me since we did round one of this Bill; perhaps he can tell me what he thinks he means by it in reference to me. He can always send me a private email if he would prefer.
I offer a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his comments and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support, which is incredibly valuable. They both made an excellent summary —much better than I did. I thank them for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about the committee being a critical friend, which is incredibly valuable and something that the Government do not have enough of. I would argue that your Lordships’ House is a critical friend, but we do not always have the same opportunities to support the Government when they change their mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about the tsunami of people who wanted us to put animal sentience back into legislation. Of course, most people probably had not used that term before, but they certainly had once the Government had taken it out of the EU legislation that they moved over—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness but I must adjourn the Committee for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee is resumed and I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
Finally, I thank the Minister for his simple explanation of how the two committees will work. That is incredibly useful, and I hope that it calms the fears of the noble Lords who have worried about that during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 28.
Amendment 28
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure the academic robustness of the Committee’s work.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 28, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and Amendment 42, which is linked. The purpose of these amendments is to require that any report of the animal sentience committee be peer-reviewed academically before publication and, connected to that, that the period for the Minister to respond to any such report be not three months after it is published, but three months after it is published in the said peer-reviewed journals. The second amendment is tidying up and consequential.
Science is at the heart of the Bill. Every proponent and supporter of it would agree that the claims for animal sentience must be scientific, not merely a sort of infantile anthropomorphism. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Inglewood said rather tellingly, and rightly I thought, that Bambi was an illusion. If our approach to animal sentience is simply that animals feel and look nice—what I would call Bambi-ism—then the whole Bill is pointless. The Bill has to rest on a proper scientific basis. I thought it was worth having a few moments while we are in Committee to discuss some things about the science of animal sentience because they have not as yet been debated. These amendments give an opportunity to do that and a rationale for them as well.
When we met a couple of weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pushed back against any suggestion that there was no science behind animal welfare. Before she becomes too worried or excited, I am going to agree with her on this: there is indeed science behind it. She cited courses in animal welfare at the University of Glasgow and the University of Winchester and the Royal Veterinary College’s animal welfare science and ethics group, which specifically researches in the field of animal welfare, animal behaviour, veterinary ethics and law. What is notable and revealing about that list—as I say, I agree with everything the noble Baroness said, as a matter of fact and a matter of opinion on this point—is that nowhere in it is animal sentience.
It might be easily thought by the Committee that “Ah, you see, animal behaviour generally must include sentience” and so forth, and that it must be all wrapped up in there, but there is a genuine conflict between animal behaviourism and animal sentience as a scientific methodology. If one goes back, in the great part of the 20th century, studies of animals and animal welfare were based on behaviourism—the study of behaviour. So if you apply a stimulus, the animal reacts in a certain way; if that is repeated in other cases and experiments, you begin to establish a body of knowledge about the behaviour of animals. That scientific approach specifically eschewed trying to delve into what was happening in the animal’s mind, so to speak, because there is almost no scientific way in which one can establish that. It dealt with the epiphenomena of behaviour in trying to understand how to deal with animals and how to do so in a kind and humane fashion.
The origins of animal sentience science come much later. At Second Reading I mentioned the work of Professor Peter Singer and his seminal book Animal Liberation, published in 1975. I remind noble Lords that when a young man, Professor Singer was suddenly converted to vegetarianism and then, as a professional philosopher, later wrote a book trying to justify the choice he had made. At the root of this was the concept that what animals and humans had in common was sentience. It is not surprising that studies of animal sentience science as a discipline originated in that last quarter of the 20th century, but it is at odds with the traditional and established behavioural approach, which has not been abandoned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, illustrated when she listed the subjects of study there.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It brings us back to the concern expressed on previous amendments about the committee’s composition—that people who feel very strongly about this will not necessarily share the broad spectrum of views on this whole issue. I have nothing against people being vegetarians or vegans but the reason why they are is because they cannot bear the thought of animals being killed to feed human beings. If we were to have a significant number of vegetarians and vegans on this committee, it might start producing rather strange judgments about animal sentience.
My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to express concern about this. This committee will have enormous power and its composition will be critical to the judgments it will come out with; that is why it is very important that it gets subjected to peer review and that others can comment about the judgments made by it. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that he is determined to set this committee up in a way in which it is sensibly and broadly based and reflects all people who might have an interest in this matter, but of course it will be set up by statute and I have no doubt that subsequent Governments might have different views about its composition. That is why I think that we need some form of academic peer review so that this can be subjected to expert opinion from outside and have a bit more balance in some of its judgments. I support this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 28 and 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan; I have added my name to Amendment 28. As my noble friend pointed out in his impressive speech at Second Reading, and again today, our animal welfare legislation to date has not been based on any animals rights deriving from our recognition of their sentience; it has been based on our moral obligations as rational human beings endowed with conscience. I agree with my noble friend that the scientific basis for the recognition of sentience needs to be examined. I do not believe that sentience is something that one species has and another does not. I am sure that all forms of life possess a degree of sentience—perhaps even trees and plants. It is not the reason why we should look after animals well.
This Bill could become a Trojan horse and be used by activist groups to attack proper wildlife management, farming and the economic well-being and way of life of our rural communities. Throughout my life, I have noticed that those who genuinely care for wildlife are often the same people who engage in country pursuits and field sports. They are often the people who understand animals, birds and fish better than most. They are prominent among people who perform acts of kindness towards animals and are most determined to spare animals suffering. I worry that the Bill will be used against them and that our rich and diverse wildlife will suffer.
These amendments will ensure that the committee’s work is underpinned by robust academic findings. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the Government will accept them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Benyon.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 28 and 42. Members of the animal sentience committee will be appointed through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition. As I have said previously, the committee will be comprised of experts who will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be, although they will of course be able to consult others.
Peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals will have a role in informing the committee’s work. While we do not propose to dictate to the committee how it should set out its reports, it is usual for expert committees such as this to present well-reasoned reports that show their working. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, for example, publishes its reports online and includes its reasoning and references. However, I do not believe that it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo a full academic peer-review process would be impractical and inappropriate, and would risk creating a process that would slow down the publication of the committee’s views and delay the opportunity for Parliament to hold Ministers to account.
It is key that the committee should be able to advise on policies while they are being developed. This amendment would severely compromise its role. The committee will publish reports, so it will naturally have an open way of working. I believe that this will provide transparency about its work. If a Minister felt that a report of the committee identified a need for further evidence or assessment, they would be free to highlight this in their response to the report.
Nothing would please me more than to spend time talking about the philosophy behind what we are talking about. We could even, if we had time, discuss Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he said that animals possess life
“nobler than any merely corporeal grade of being”.
However, in terms of how we approach this Bill, the definition of sentience is important. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years and will continue to evolve. The Bill does not therefore have a fixed definition of sentience. It is not necessary to define sentience in statute for this Bill to work. We can all recognise that animals are sentient and that their welfare should be considered in decision-making; there is no need to make it more complicated than that.
Our GB-wide Farm Animal Welfare Committee issued a definition of sentience in 2019. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recently published a statement on sentience. There are some differences; this shows the importance of adopting a flexible approach that can evolve. It is worth noting that neither definition is set out in statute. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s definition is one that it has adopted for its own purposes; similarly, if the animal sentience committee considers it expedient to adopt a working definition of sentience, it would of course be free to do so, but that is a discussion for its members to have.
I hope that this reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I just want to refer to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He said that he hoped that vegans and vegetarians will not be on the committee as they might sway its decisions. Can the Minister confirm that the appointment of members to the committee will not be prejudiced against those of religious persuasions or other protected characteristics?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, it is time to resume. Perhaps the Minister might like to say a word in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It would not be our intention to edit the committee’s membership by their eating habits or by any other habits or disciplines. We want a balanced committee that draws together a wide range of expertise across the whole field of animal welfare.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for contributing to the debate. I reiterate the point that the science that underlies animal sentience is of crucial importance to the Bill and deserves further debate, which may come at a future stage in the Bill. To be absolutely clear on my own position in case it was not, I am not saying that there is no such thing as animal sentience science—I believe there is such a branch of science—but I am saying that it is a relatively new, relatively specialist and slightly political branch of science. It needs the buttressing of peer review.
In that regard, I was disappointed by the response of my noble friend the Minister. He said that the Government did not want to dictate to committees such as this because they usually did well-reasoned reports. I thought “usually” was interesting. I quite understand that the Minister does not appear to want to dictate to committees that do badly reasoned reports; he wants to stand aloof from good research, from good reason and from bad reason alike. But that is not a very good basis for carrying the public with you. When this committee comes into existence and produces its reports, I think that much of what it says will be met by the challenge, “Well, that’s not really science anyway.”
It is slightly remarkable that, given the opportunity by these modest amendments to rebut that challenge and say, “No, this is science at the cutting edge. It is the best science we have and we know that because we have ensured that it is properly peer-reviewed”, the Government have turned away in distain and said that they would rather have uncertain science and not have any checks on what the committee is going to do. I am sure that, if they reflect, they will think that that is not really a sustainable or credible position. For the moment, to allow them time to reflect, I am happy to see my amendment withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 35A.
Amendment 35A
The Earl of Caithness
“(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be detrimental to—(a) conservation,(b) biodiversity,(c) crop protection, or(d) human health.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this amendment came to me when we were discussing the Environment Bill last week. I know that it is not drafted as well as it should be; I apologise to the Committee for that. I say to my noble friend the Minister, “Forget about the drafting. It is the principle of what I am trying to get at that is important here”.
Most of our conservation work to improve our biodiversity and wealth of species has been habitat-based. It has not been very successful because when we were in the European Union, and since our exit, the Government have not focused on the critical issue of management. Management requires human decision. There are some fairly easy examples to make about species and how people will react to them, but when you look at pests, people’s opinions start to vary and that perception could be translated into legislation. That is my concern here. Take deer, for instance. You can have lots of photographs and everybody will look at Bambi and ooh and ah, but deer are a pest that need to be controlled. We discussed this in the Environment Bill and there seemed to be unanimity there. It would be an easy species for a committee to make an emotional, rather than scientific, decision on.
One can get into more questionable species. What about rats and wasps? If you analyse what people think about them, they have less feeling for them and are much more prepared to allow proper pest control of those species than they are of some others. That is why local authorities have pest divisions that deal with wasps—I have had to use them—mice and rats. What about bedbugs? Until recently, they were fairly common in this country, and in lots of places they are sadly still common. People’s perception of a bedbug is not the same as their perception of deer or seals. We need to have a scientific basis on which to approach this matter.
We could turn to brown hares. Brown hares are on our biodiversity action plan and are rated an important species but, at certain times of the year, in certain parts of the UK, the hare is a pest, and there needs to be the ability to control it. The ability to control pests in the most humane manner possible was a great omission from the badger Act, and we are paying the price for that with the increasing amount of predation of ground-nesting birds by badgers. We have seen it with lapwings and curlews. I have given examples in the environment committee of the destruction of lapwing at the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust farm up in Aberdeenshire, where the badgers have actually been photographed destroying the nests and reducing species as a result.
During debates on the Environment Bill, we came across the conservation covenants. These will be an important part of the Government’s policy on improving our biodiversity and species number, but, again, action needs to be taken with management in view, not just the habitat.
So, what I am getting at with this amendment is whether the Minister, when he gives the brief to this Committee, will include management and pest control as an important aspect for the animal sentience committee to take into account so that the policies it comments on and the position it urges the Government to take do not contradict with the Government’s well-intentioned position on conservation, biodiversity, crop production and human health.
I have talked mostly about conservation and biodiversity, but I would like to give an example that was raised during the debate on the Environment Bill by my noble friend Lord Lucas, again on deer. It was about a wood that the RSPB looked after in Dorset. The RSPB got round the problem of the deer by fencing that bit of wood so that the deer were no longer a problem. However, that forced the deer on to the neighbour’s land —this is pretty bad management—and the devastation of the crops growing on the adjacent farmland was much more intense because the deer were not allowed into that bit of woodland.
As usual, there is a balance to be struck in all this. I hope that my noble friend will be able to make some comments on this. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity given by my noble friend Lord Caithness in moving his Amendment 35A to probe my noble friend the Minister and the Government a little bit more on the cross-departmental responsibilities of the animal sentience committee. I also want to explore what the relationship will be within Defra and the relationship between existing legislation and soon-to-be legislation in the form of the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill, the latter of which my noble friend Lord Caithness referred to. We spent some time in the first day of Committee on the amendments looking at pests—particularly deer, badgers, bats, grey squirrels and insects—and sentience. It begs the question: are insects to be treated as sentient beings within the remit of this Bill?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his Amendment 35A, which seeks to ensure that the animal sentience committee’s recommendations are not detrimental to conservation, biodiversity and other matters. The House has been clear that the committee should not usurp or encroach on the role of Ministers to formulate and implement policies in the public interest. It is, and will remain, for Ministers to decide policy and for Parliament to hold us to account. If the promotion of animal welfare is ever not fully compatible with other important goals, it is for us—not a committee—to determine the best course of action.
I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. They are right to state their concerns about the anthropomorphisation—I think that is the right word but I am not sure; I look to the noble Lord, Lord Trees—of species. We make gradations of cuteness in our own minds. We look at a deer and compare it to a rat; we often do not mind very much what happens to the rat but mind when it is the deer, when the latter may be more of a pest in terms of conservation and biodiversity. As one person lecturing me on forestry when I was studying land management said, “Remember”—he was referring to grey squirrels—“it is not the squirrel’s fault that it is a pain in the backside”. His point was well made. Even allegedly non-interventionist activities, such as rewilding, actually require enormous amounts of interventionism when it comes to animal welfare. If you go to Knepp, that estate still has cattle, horses and pigs to manage, so there are animal welfare considerations.
However, I reiterate that the animal sentience committee is not there to make recommendations about how Ministers should decide what policy should be. The purpose of its recommendations is to highlight certain effects on which it has the expertise to assess, so that Ministers can understand those effects better. The committee’s members will be well aware that Ministers have myriad other important factors to consider when reaching their decisions—I hope this addresses my noble friend’s point—and that their recommendations are likely to relate to one of a number of important considerations that Ministers will want to take account of.
I fear that directing the committee to prejudge recommendations based on factors other than animal welfare would risk undermining the clear distinction we have drawn and force it to assess matters beyond its expertise. It bears repeating that, rather than being some sort of power-grabbing cabal, this will be a committee of experienced scientists, veterinarians and other experts. These will be level-headed, thoughtful people who are unlikely to wish to advise on matters beyond their remit.
There is also a real opportunity for the committee to add value to the policy-making process. I know that some of your Lordships fear that we will be told we must sacrifice important human needs, such as crop protection, to animals. Instead, the committee will help policymakers to reach intelligent solutions which allow us to advance human interests in ways that are compatible with the welfare needs of animals. I say to my noble friend that we both want to see the committee make suggestions on how well the welfare needs of animals have been taken into account in policy decisions. But I reiterate that it is for Ministers, not the committee, to decide how animal welfare itself should be balanced against other matters of interest, such as conservation and biodiversity.
To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we are talking about vertebrates here. A vertebrate is an animal with a spine: mammals such as dogs, cats and cows; birds; reptiles; and amphibians, such as frogs and toads. Vertebrates do not include decapods and cephalopods —we might come to that later—arachnids, insects and myriapods. With those assurances in mind, I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Moylan. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the predation of badgers, which of course do not come under pest control; they are protected. He did not mention that badgers very much like eating hedgehogs. They are skilled at rolling them over and disembowelling them. When we worry about the decline in hedgehog numbers, very rarely does anybody mention that perhaps badgers are responsible for this.
Another protected species is the sparrowhawk. If you shoot a sparrowhawk you get fined £1,000 because all hawks are protected, but 34 songbirds every week account for their diet. We have to bear in mind that in nature, almost all species are predated on by others. We just want to get all this into perspective.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would be going down a very dangerous path if I moved on to cats and how many songbirds they account for, and would probably find this getting out of hand, but my noble friend is absolutely right. What we seek to achieve through not just animal welfare provision but other legislation and regulation is a balanced countryside. We do not get it right; we are suffering a cataclysmic decline in species, which means that our children and grandchildren will not see the species that we have perhaps relied on seeing regularly. That is a tragedy that we are seeking to reverse through a variety of other policies. At the same time, when it comes to pest control, we can do it as humanely as possible, and we can have management techniques that protect both species and landscapes. It is not an exact science and it will be got wrong at certain times, but, by and large, I think there is a great unity of purpose in trying to reverse these tragic declines in species.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, given our discussion at our earlier session two weeks ago about the composition of the committee, I was struck by the Minister’s certainty that he could describe the members of the committee in such paradigmatic terms. I cannot recall his exact words—I will look at them in Hansard—but he said that the members of the committee would be knowledgeable, balanced, cautious, restrained and unwilling to rush into areas where they were not wanted. This must narrow the number of people who would qualify to sit on the committee to the point where I suspect the Minister must have a list of names already. If he has not, or is not willing to disclose it, is he at least willing to assure us that, when the public appointment process is launched and the person description drafted, the words that he has used now will be carried over verbatim into the person description for the applicants so that we get exactly who he appears to be promising us?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very worried about my noble friend. He appears to have a very jaundiced view of human nature. There are a great many people with those skills whom we meet every day, whether we are having our dog treated at the vets or talking to farmers or discussing wider policy areas in this field. I hope I can prove to him that his glass should be half full on this; we will find the right people.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate, in particular my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her helpful contribution. When my noble friend Lord Hamilton intervened, I too immediately thought of cats and the very good debate on cats that we had before my noble friend the Minister joined the House, when the wonderful work and research done by SongBird Survival was referred to, because of the millions of birds that cats take every year.
I listened with care to what my noble friend the Minister said and was heartened by a lot of it. If what he said works in practice, I think that a lot of our concerns will evaporate. My fear is that when he goes and the Ministers change, the committee will undoubtedly change too, and then the trouble will begin. That will be a few years down the road; I do not wish my noble friend to leave his position any time in the next four years or even thereafter, because this committee will be too important.
I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I shall read it. He was absolutely right that this is not an exact science; it is not, but I fear that we have spent too much effort on habitats and not enough on management. Therefore, the problem has been exacerbated. I hope that, with my noble friend’s experience and knowledge, Defra will spend more time on management than it has in the past, because it is only through management combined with habitats, species and the right amounts of food given at the right times of year that we will be able to increase the biodiversity of this country, which has suffered in the recent past. I am happy at this stage to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 48.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the application of the Bill to mammals.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there are four amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 48, 52, 53 and 57. I will come in a moment to say exactly what they would do, but I shall make some preliminary remarks that arise from something my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said and which has not been sufficiently discussed. This is the famous metaphysical bit that the Minister has been worried about, although I hope to get through this while skirting Descartes—or anybody difficult or foreign, for that matter.
The difficulty we have is that we are asked to assess to what extent, in a meaningful way, we think that animals can feel pain. That requires us to think a little about what pain and feeling are. My noble friend Lady McIntosh brought up insects as an example of this, but it relates to other creatures as well. Pain itself, of course, is not just an interior experience; it is, to some extent, a social concept. Pain is an abnormality, but we learn from others that it is an abnormality that is expressive of something that requires a response. So, we learn as children, “Don’t put your hands on the coal. If you do put your hands on the coal, that is what we call pain; learn not to do it again.” There is a social element to it, and it is not by any means clear that that can be translated to animal experience. This is the problem of operating on a non-behavioural scientific basis.
We humans also have coping strategies for dealing with pain. When I know I am going to have an injection in my arm, I always make sure that I look the other way; that is a very small example of a coping strategy. That illustrates another thing about the human experience of pain, which is that very often it is worse in anticipation than in the experience itself. All of this is tied up with what we understand by pain: for humans, it is not simply a neurological experience that can be tracked by chemicals and electrons, although it has all those aspects to it.
It is very difficult to know how one can map that across the bulk of animals. It is easiest to do so, of course, in the case of mammals, because there we have a closer link with ourselves in terms of DNA composition and so forth. To map it to fish and birds is extremely difficult. Indeed, it is scientifically quite challenging to understand how the very limited neural capacity, or brain capacity, of fish and birds could accommodate that range of complex experiences of pain characteristic of humans and, perhaps, of primates and other higher mammals.
There is also a similar question about what it is to feel something. In ordinary English, “feel” has two aspects: I can feel a table—that is a physical sensation—but I can also feel love, disdain and other emotions. Nobody doubts at all that the vertebrates we are discussing can feel in the former sense but, simply as a matter of their neural and brain capacity, the notion that they even have the ability to feel love, affection, fear and complex emotions such as those is a very challenging one.
We really need to understand that sort of background before we do what the Bill does, which is to cast an extremely wide net. It includes all vertebrates, but it goes beyond that: it gives the Secretary of State the power, which I think is completely unprecedented, to decide that any invertebrate, including the insects referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are in fact sentient. That is the power given to him which, as I say, is almost incredible.
I turn to the detail of what my amendments seek to do. They would cut the thing in different ways. First, Amendment 48 suggests we “leave out ‘vertebrate’” and limit the scope of the Bill to mammals. This would make it much easier for the public, and for many members of this Committee and your Lordships’ House, to accept the Bill. It could be regarded as a first stage; there would be nothing to prevent the Government coming back subsequently and saying, “Having won over opinion on the question of mammals, we could now extend it to the broader class of vertebrates.” Amendment 52 explicitly invites the removal of fish—it is playing the same tune—and Amendment 53 proposes the removal of birds. These are all different ways of coming at the same thing.
Amendment 57 is slightly different, because I still cannot get over my outrage that Parliament is proposing to give the Secretary of State the power to designate any invertebrate as sentient. Here, simply for the sake of modesty and respectability, this amendment would limit that power to “cephalopods and decapod crustaceans”, simply because one knows from conversation and debate that that is the category of animals most likely to come within scope of this unprecedented power. It should none the less, in my view, be limited.
That is the purpose of these amendments and it is important that we explore them, because I do not accept that it is easy to map notions of feeling and pain on to these classes. Perhaps I may briefly refer to—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we shall resume. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, may complete his speech and move his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I had just finished commenting on my own amendments when we were interrupted, so it was a convenient break, but before I conclude I shall comment on a few other amendments in this group.
Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan, would exclude the actions of wild animals upon other animals from the scope of the committee’s activities, and I think that must be sensible.
Amendment 56, from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, to leave out the power to designate invertebrates is in keeping with my amendment, and I support it.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft’s Amendment 59, which would require a scientific report that a being is sentient before it is redesignated as such by the Secretary of State under this very broad power, is an absolute minimum requirement and one that is very much in keeping with my comments on the previous group.
Finally, Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, concerns cephalopods and decapods. As the same words are used in a different order it might easily be confused with my amendment, but on careful examination it has a very different effect. My proposal at least puts some decency on this unprecedented power so that it is confined to the most likely class of animals. I understand—and I am sure I can be corrected—that Amendment 49 effectively takes the decision for the Secretary of State and includes cephalopod and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings on the face of the Bill. That is quite different from what I am proposing, if I have understood the amendment correctly, and I do not think that without proper and rigorous scientific reports, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, this august Committee is quite the place in which to make such a radical transformation in our understanding of the natural world. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall confine myself to speaking to my Amendment 50 for reasons of brevity. The more astute Members of the Committee will have realised that this refers to Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but this seems to me, to a certain extent, the nub of the Bill. It concentrates on what we, as people, are responsible for.
As a slight side-issue, I was asked to change the language because, of course, these days parliamentary language should be gender-neutral. However, surely everyone—however ill-educated—knows that the term “mankind”, or “man” in this context, has always included all human beings, all humanity, of whatever gender. I mention that because language is important, and this is legislation. To have been not specific about “mankind” might have been an example of lack of clarity, of which I fear this Bill is also an example.
On the substance, if I am responsible for an animal, I have responsibilities and duties to that creature, be it my dog, my rather foolish hens—which are not laying eggs at the moment—a cow or, indeed, a pheasant. However, I am surely not responsible for the rats we all live with, nor the squirrels destroying the trees I have planted, nor if my dog catches a rat—it is a terrier, and that is what terriers do. We then come on to fish in a river. Is the owner of a particular stretch of river responsible for a fish moving up and down it? Fish have backbones and are indeed sentient beings. Or is a fishing club responsible? Am I responsible if I run over a squirrel or hit a bird in the road, which I try pretty hard not to do?
I regard myself as a conservationist. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to himself as such in a previous debate. However, unlike him, I see the way this Bill is phrased as paving the way for interference in anything and everything. It has been suggested that it is a Trojan horse and that there will be mission creep. I think it will be an activists’ charter. My noble friend Lord Herbert said in another debate that we need clarity.
The Minister, for whom I have a very high regard—we go back quite a long way and he called me, I think, a “denizen” of the last Chamber we served in—said earlier today that there is a very specific role for the committee. What is that role? It is not clear to me, and I am afraid that the debates so far have not clarified the situation. I hope this amendment may go some way towards clarifying the situation: that we are responsible for those animals for which we are responsible and not responsible for those which we cannot be responsible for.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next three speakers—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—have all withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 59 in this group. Clause 5(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to bring any invertebrate of any description within the meaning of “animal” and thus within the scope of the Bill—thus declaring them sentient in law. My noble friend Lord Moylan has already drawn attention to the extraordinary breadth of this new power. At Second Reading, he said:
“The clause that strikes me as most extravagant, however, is the one that gives the Secretary of State the unfettered power to declare, should he wish, that an earthworm is a sentient being. This is a power greater than that given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, which, as I recall, was restricted to the power to naming animals. Here, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to reclassify them almost without check.”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1921.]
I do not feel qualified to comment on the powers that God gave to Adam, so I will, if noble Lords forgive me, confine myself to this Bill.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, called for decapod crustaceans, including lobsters, crabs and crayfish, and cephalopods, including octopus, squid and cuttlefish, to be included in the scope of the Bill. Some argued this point on the basis of a film called “My Octopus Teacher” and were advised to have tissues on hand to watch it. However, the evidence contained in a tearjerker does not seem to be the best foundation for the law of the land. The law should be based on hard evidence—hard science and sound evidence—and that is where the problems on animal sentience start and lie.
While everyone agrees that animals are sentient, philosophers and scientists are still arguing about what that means. Does a dog, for example, have the same feelings as a crab, or a crayfish the same feelings as a cow? Perhaps that is why there is no definition of sentience in the Bill. Scientists are not agreed, despite the fact that in the previous debate the Minister gave us two separate definitions of sentience, although neither of them are included in the sentience Bill, which strikes me as a bit odd. So how will a committee opine on something that is neither defined and on which there is no widespread agreement, in fact, on which there is widespread disagreement?
The Government have commissioned an independent review of the sentience of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. This amendment would require only that where the Secretary of State declares an invertebrate sentient, the scientific evidence on which the declaration is based should be published. It seems unarguable that such transparency on the science must be good, and I cannot imagine any arguments for hiding the evidence and not publishing it. If the Minister rejects the amendments, perhaps he can enlighten the Committee about why the science and the evidence should be hidden away.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the last group of amendments is quite long and seeks to limit the scope of the Bill and the groups of animals considered to be sentient.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has spoken in favour of Amendment 48, which would remove vertebrates in favour of mammals, Amendment 52, which would add fish, Amendment 53, which would add birds, and Amendment 57, which would limit the classification of invertebrates to cephalopods and decapods. The noble Lord makes a claim that animals are capable of feeling pain but not other emotions, such as pleasure. I fear I do not agree. A family pet dog is very capable of showing pleasure. When I get home after a week in London, our collie is overjoyed to see me, and there is no mistaking his enthusiasm. As regards the scope of sentience, we should be led by the science available for each group of animals.
Amendment 50, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, is to apply to domesticated animals in the British Isles,
“under the control of man”
and not living wild. I am certain that he would have been supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, if he had not withdrawn. I support the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, in not changing the wording of proposed new subsection (1)(b). He is correct: we all understand what is meant by mankind, and I am not personally offended by the use of that word. While I sympathise with these amendments, I am not sure why it is necessary to limit the group of animals to be included or excluded. It is likely that by adopting Amendment 50 in particular, some animals which are being farmed and also live wild, such as deer—not really cute ones—are likely to be treated differently depending on their status. That is likely to cause unnecessary confusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put her name to Amendment 51, which we support. I am speaking in particular to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and I have also added our names. At Second Reading, reference was made to the evidence on decapod crustaceans and cephalopods being sentient beings. I am not naturally squeamish, but I found the deliberate shocking of shore crabs to see whether they were capable of feeling and remembering pain somewhat unpleasant. The experiment having been conducted during trials, the result is conclusively that they are sentient and have some advanced cognition. Similarly, the octopus is capable of feeling and remembering pain, so I believe both groups should be included in the Bill rather than being left to be added at some later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has raised some interesting publicity on the fate of lobsters and how those destined for the restaurant trade should meet their end. Given that the vast majority of lobsters reach restaurants in a live condition, I cannot see that the Bridlington lobster trade will be adversely affected by how lobsters are prepared for the table.
I can also see that some will think that the Bill is a back door to banning angling and the shooting of game birds. I believe that we are a long way from reaching that conclusion; I would not support it if that were the case.
I fully support moves to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the classification of sentient creatures. I will listen carefully to the arguments in favour of the rest of the amendments in this group and the outcomes their tablers are looking to achieve.
In response to a question on the first group, the Minister gave the impression that the inclusion of these groups is something for another Minister. I hope he can confirm that the classification of animals included in this Bill should be widened at this stage and not at some date in the future.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Amendment 50 and have added my name to it. It would be a sensible and logical addition to the Bill. It is absolutely right that where men and women are in charge of an animal they are responsible for it being treated in the most humane way possible, but if that same animal is running free and is wild, then it cannot possibly be under the control of a human being. Therefore, the words that my noble friend wishes to include in the Bill would make the position absolutely clear. I support him on that basis.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who is next on the list, has withdrawn.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, a crucial aspect of the Bill is determining which animals within the vast animal kingdom are sentient. Crucially, of course, that depends on how sentience is defined. The Bill does not attempt to define sentience, and various expert opinions, which I respect, have suggested that that is sensible. But we can be sure that, if and when the Bill becomes law, there will be those who will start to question the limit currently in the Bill or that proposed in Amendment 57, which I support. It is almost certain that at least some scientific opinion will be arguable and credible to propose further extending the range of animals included.
Current definitions of sentience include capacity to have feelings. I know of no way of determining what animals feel, but we know that many lifeforms sense and avoid potentially harmful stimuli, which we do, of course. Although we would sense pain on that occasion, we can only guess at the feeling the animal has, but presumably it is not a pleasurable sensation. Of course it is important to consider the science, but extremely respected scientists can and do differ even when confronted with the same data.
The frontiers of what sentience is will likely shift. I listened yesterday to the evidence given to the EFRA Committee in the other place by Jonathan Birch of the London School of Economics. He is the lead author of the LSE report referred to on the first day of Committee, which has yet to be published but has been carefully considering whether to include cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient beings. Professor Birch commented yesterday with respect to the definition of sentience that the science is evolving. Indeed, the Minister commented in much the same way today.
Clearly it would raise huge issues were more and more animal taxa credibly—and, indeed, scientifically—argued to be sentient. So, although I accept that Amendments 59 and 60 are improvements on the current Bill, I feel that the range of animals included in the Bill should be a political decision determined by the Secretary of State and with the complete and full consideration of Parliament, where the cost-benefit considerations can be properly weighed—taking scientific opinion into account, of course, but not being bound by it.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier in the afternoon when noble Lords debated amendments to which I added my name. Unfortunately, there was an additional meeting of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, meeting on a different day and at a different time. However, I am here now. I will speak to Amendment 51 in particular; in that connection, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to say that they fully support the remarks I intend to make about it.
I make no apology for wishing to see cephalopods and decapods included in the realms of sentience and not left until some future date. I am aware that the Minister is awaiting the LSE report to which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred. I would be interested to know from the Minister when we might expect to see that report and whether it is likely to be in time to make a decision about including these creatures in the Bill before it reaches its final stages. For my part, I believe that there is already sufficient hard evidence to make it perfectly acceptable to include them here and now.
It is interesting that, way back in 2005, the European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare considered these animals sufficiently sentient to be included. Since then, a lot of work has been done by Professor Robert Elwood of Queen’s University; I believe that he has provided good scientific evidence. I am happy to accept scientific evidence. I think mention was made earlier of one experiment where hermit crabs, which like to retreat to quiet places, were given an electric shock if they entered one refuge but not if they entered another. It soon became evident that they knew which one to choose and that they remembered it. Shortness of time forbids me from giving any further examples, but I firmly believe that there are good examples that give hard evidence. We know, too, that a number of other countries are ahead of us on this issue. They include, for example, New Zealand, some of the Australian states, Austria and even, surprisingly, Italy.
The final point I want to make is that I commend to the Minister the precautionary principle. Great publicity was given to it in the Environment Bill as one of five principles. It was given a good boost. I suggest that the precautionary principle is one to adopt here and now. As I understand it, it means that, if there is some evidence, you do not have to wait until something is proved to the hilt before you take action. On that basis, I have no hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 51 as it stands, but I hope for better things before the Bill reaches the statute book.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am speaking to Amendment 49 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I thank them for their support. Before I move on, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that he has understood the purpose of my amendment completely correctly. We also support Amendment 51 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes.
Clause 5 currently defines “animal” as any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. Amendments 52 and 53 talk about adding “fish” and “birds” to the scope of the Bill. I know that they are probing amendments, but they are vertebrates—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Okay. As I was saying, they are probing amendments that are basically asking for animals to come in that are already covered, as they are vertebrates. I am just a bit confused about that. If we look back to the European Council directive in 1998 which preceded the Lisbon treaty, fish and birds are included all the way back to then. I will be interested in what the Minister has to say and why the probing amendments are felt to be necessary.
Looking at Clause 5(2), we have had some debate about the fact that the definition could be widened in future to include invertebrates if evidence of sentience among invertebrates comes forward. We have put forward this amendment because we believe that evidence of sentience among two groups of invertebrates, cephalopods —for example, octopuses—and decapod crustaceans, is already established and has been for a number of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke about the importance of scientific evidence in the debate on an earlier group, so I am sure he will be interested in the fact that back in December 2005, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare of the European Food Safety Authority published a report that examined the scientific evidence about the sentience and capacity of certain invertebrate species to experience pain and distress. It concluded that decapod crustaceans and cephalopods can experience pain and distress, and that the largest decapod crustaceans are complex in behaviour and have a pain system and considerable learning ability.
As regards cephalopods, the scientific panel concluded that they have a nervous system and a relatively complex brain similar to many vertebrates and sufficient in structure and function for them to experience pain. Notably, they can experience and learn to avoid pain and distress, such as avoiding electric shocks. In addition, they have significant cognitive ability, including good learning ability and memory retention, elaborate communication systems and individual temperaments. More recently, a number of scientific papers strongly point to the conclusion that both cephalopods and decapod crustaceans are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
Even more recently—the noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to this—evidence was given to the Select Committee in July, this month, by Dr Jonathan Birch from the LSE, who is, of course, the author of the report that Defra is producing. He provided written evidence, along with Professor Nicola Clayton and Dr Alexandra Schnell from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Heather Browning and Dr Andrew Crump from the LSE. These are serious academics, who are the kind of people we should listen to when we consider scientific evidence in making decisions. If noble Lords will bear with me, I just want to pull up a couple of their points on this Bill. They say:
“In our opinion, the evidence vindicates the 2012 extension of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to cover all cephalopod molluscs. We now have a very strange situation in the UK: all cephalopod molluscs are protected in science but they are not protected by robust animal welfare laws outside scientific settings.”
Coming to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—and perhaps to answer his considerations about this—they also say that:
“Regarding decapod crustaceans: although it would be possible for animal welfare law to protect some infraorders while excluding others, this has the potential to generate significant confusion. A better approach would be to protect all decapod crustaceans in very general legislation such as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill”.
Having made that point, I would like to look at the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. In February this year, it issued a definition of sentience to cover both groups we have been discussing in light of the accumulating evidence, and that preceded the evidence I have just read out to noble Lords. Our amendment acknowledges this growing amount of evidence and seeks to embed it within the Bill by extending the definition of “animal” to cover cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. We know that they are already protected in some other countries—Australia, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand—and in some states in the United States and Australia. The recognition of cephalopod and decapod crustacean sentience has already been acknowledged within the scientific community, so in our mind there is no good reason to delay acknowledgement of it within the Bill.
The independent review has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. There is huge expectation that this report will be published soon, and it has a significant role to play in informing the Bill we have been debating in this Committee. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us an update on its progress because to have it before us before Report is very important.
Before I finish, I want to speak very briefly to a couple of the other amendments. First, on Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I just feel a bit disappointed that it has been tabled to remove wild animals from the scope of the Bill. I do not think there is a case for their removal. I heard the noble Lords’ concerns around responsibility, and I would be very keen to hear some clarity from the Minister on this area. I really think that if we accept that animals are sentient by virtue of their biology, sentience applies whatever the condition an animal is in, whether it is wild, farmed or kept as a companion. Human activity—what we do—impinges on wild, farm and companion animals alike. So, consideration of how our activity impacts on the welfare of sentience should cover all animals that would come under the scope of the Bill at the moment.
Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and other noble Lords, would limit the Bill’s coverage to mammals, as we heard in the introduction. I would just like to make this point: when we consider whether an animal is sentient, we should not be affected by how like it is to us. That is not the point of sentience. As noble Lords, we need to consider this fact very carefully, and that is borne out again by the scientific evidence. On that basis, being an invertebrate should not automatically preclude sentience, so the limitations proposed by the amendment would then become an entirely arbitrary limitation given the overwhelming evidence I have just expressed concerning the fact that sentience exists across vertebrates.
I am aware that there has been quite a bit of press interest in our amendment. I know we are not allowed to use props, but I have a newspaper here, the Times, whose editorial on 8 July said, “Considering the Lobster” —it is almost getting a bit Lewis Carroll, is it not? The subheading was:
“Ministers are right to ban the practice of boiling shellfish alive.”
In light of this, I urge the Minister to take action and accept our amendment.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will start with Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. With it, I will take his Amendments 52 and 53, together with Amendment 59 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
It is evident that there is a rather wide range of views in the Committee about which animals should be recognised in this Bill as sentient. Some noble Lords wish to see the scope of the Bill immediately broadened to include decapods and cephalopods; others additionally wish to see the exclusion of certain classes of vertebrates. As drafted, the Bill defines an animal as a non-human vertebrate—that is, an animal with a backbone. The scientific evidence is clear that vertebrate animals can experience pain and suffering. It is on that basis that the definition of “animal” in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 extends to vertebrates.
Government policy will continue to be guided by scientific evidence. That is why we have future-proofed the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add different species of invertebrates to the definition of “animal” by regulation. We will use this power where supported by robust scientific evidence. This corresponds to the similar delegated power contained in the Animal Welfare Act. I am mindful, of course, that this House has mixed feelings about the inclusion of delegated powers such as this in public Bills. It is rightly expected that Ministers offer a good reason for their inclusion. I can assure your Lordships that we would not have taken the trouble to seek this power if we were not prepared to use it when needed. I can confirm that new additions to the remit of the Bill—new species—are subject to an affirmative resolution, so noble Lords can scrutinise them.
On Amendment 56, my noble friend Lord Trenchard would, had he been able to speak to it, have sounded a note of caution regarding the delegated power in the Bill. I can assure him that such a power will be exercised appropriately, as I said. That is why the affirmative resolution process applies; Parliament will have the final say on any extension to the Bill’s scope. If either House is not satisfied that Ministers have good evidence to justify their use of the delegated power, then its use can be vetoed. We know that scientific research is a continuous process and new evidence on sentience will emerge over time as our understanding increases. That is why we have included the delegated power. I am aware there may be different views on the inclusion of a delegated power in the Bill. However, this power is necessary to allow us to recognise other species as sentient if there is sufficient evidence to support it, and I can confirm we intend to use the power if that is the case.
Naturally, when we talk of possible extensions to the Bill’s scope, many noble Lords are thinking primarily about its extension to decapods and cephalopods. This is reflected in Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as well as Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As noble Lords know, my department has commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters as well as sentience in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. I can confirm that the report will be published before the Bill returns to the House on Report.
We want this Bill to stand the test of time. Our understanding of animal sentience has developed in recent years and will continue to do so. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that I would be reluctant to do away with the ability to extend the Bill’s scope to other species, subject to parliamentary approval, if that is what the evidence calls for.
Turning to Amendments 55 and 58, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I am not sure whether there is anything to be gained from explicitly excluding or including foetuses and embryos from the committee’s remit, as the noble Baroness’s amendments would require. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is therefore unlikely that the committee could find itself considering a policy beyond its remit.
To conclude my remarks on what species the Bill covers, I recognise that there are strong views advocating for many different directions. We want to ensure that any extension of the recognition of sentience is informed by engagement with the evidence from experts and stakeholders. Parliament can expect us to weigh the evidence carefully, with the assurance that it will always have the final say on the matter.
I saw and was profoundly affected by the documentary “My Octopus Teacher”, which has been frequently quoted. Other than the beauty of that particular animal, it also showed the healing power of nature for the individual who made that film. It is one of the most remarkable programmes that I have seen for a very long time.
I turn now to Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan, which seeks to refine the scope to kept animals. Your Lordships might wonder what is the point of recognising the sentience of animals that are outside human control, such as wild animals—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made this point. It is simple: these animals are sentient and equally capable of feeling pain and suffering. Sentience is not a capacity limited to those animals under the control of man, nor does government policy impact solely on kept animals. There are numerous ways in which a government policy might affect wild animals. Crucially, we share an environment. Hence we should not limit the committee to considering the sentience of kept animals alone.
I will answer various points that have been raised. To my noble friend Lord Moylan, I will quote Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men: animals should be part of natural law
“less because they are rational than because they are sentient”.
I do not usually pray him in aid—his writings led to the French Revolution and the Terror—but I think that, in this case, he was right.
Like many others, my noble friend Lord Robathan referred to the words “Trojan horse”. I do not understand why they keep being used in the context of the Bill. The Trojan horse was a special forces operation, as he should be well aware, and it led to the sacking of a civilisation. I do not see that it has any corresponding circumstances here.
Finally, my attention was drawn to something in Hansard on 25 July 1979—so in the first few weeks of the then Conservative Government—where an MP who then went under the name “Miss Fookes” asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
“what progress has been made with the Government’s review of their animal welfare policy”.
She was clearly on the march on animal welfare matters even then. In his reply, the Minister, Peter Walker—obviously late of this parish—set out the parameters that he thought were important for the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is obviously a different organisation. However, his reply clearly sets out the level of expertise and—I say this to my Conservative colleagues—an enduring determination to improve the welfare of animals. It finishes:
“The actions the Government intend to take will provide a more efficient and effective means of furthering the interests of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/07/1979; cols. 295-98W]
I could not have put it better than that in the context of this Bill.
Finally, as this is the last group, I thank every one of your Lordships who has spoken on the Bill today and at the previous session. As a new Member of this House, I can certainly say that its reputation as a place of careful consideration and scrutiny is well deserved. I hope that my noble friend will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a fundamental difference between a lobster and a prawn? If an image of a prawn is magnified many times, we see that it is not dissimilar to a lobster. Of course, when children go shrimping or catching prawns, whelks, cockles or mussels, those creatures are all put into boiling water, pretty well killed immediately and cooked. Does the Minister feel that there is a fundamental difference between those bigger crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs and the smaller ones?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not an expert, and that is why I want an animal sentience committee that will advise me and my successors on the rights and wrongs of dispatching species of all kinds. I cannot answer my noble friend. I understand the point that he makes. He is a seasoned political debater. This is an issue which requires people who will make decisions about such matters, and that should not be lay men like me.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments, particularly my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Robathan and Lord Mancroft. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, felt able to express support for Amendment 57 in my name.
I also want on this occasion to thank the Minister for handling us so well. These have been two afternoons of extremely informative and at the same time very good-natured debate, and he has taken everything that we have thrown at him and come back with a dazzling display of intellect and sympathy, though it is mildly regrettable that the only philosophers he cites are all French—maybe he should have a closer look at that for the future.
I apologise for expressing myself badly if I conveyed to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that I did not think that dogs could feel pleasure. That is not what I intended to say. In fact, one of my amendments specifically preserved mammals as part of the scope of the Bill. I was trying to say that, while we can certainly understand pleasure and indeed pain in a dog or in the higher mammals, it is very difficult to understand what that means in any meaningful sense when one is talking about fish, for example. It was simply that point that I was trying to make; I am sorry if I did not express myself well.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that Amendments 52 and 53 would add fish and birds to a clause that excepts—it is an exception clause—so that it would except homo sapiens “and fish” and so on. It takes them out of the scope of the Bill. Clearly, the noble Baroness does not want them taken out. However, she was never going to express support so, in a way, it does not matter.
As a final point, I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness said about cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, and it is a bit of commentary on much of the Bill. I think that we are all agreed that the Bill has to say something, and we have a Bill here which is so empty of content that it would almost be a scandal if it passed in its current circumstances. Today and on previous occasions, we have discussed how it ought to say something about composition and about term limits—which we discussed last time. Perhaps there is a feeling that it ought to say something too about cephalopods and decapod crustaceans. Where we might differ around the Committee, because we have not sufficiently coalesced, is on what exactly it should say on those issues, but I think that many of us sitting here, from all political parties and groups, can probably agree with me if I say to the Minister that as the Bill stands, it is not good enough, and that when it comes back on Report we expect many things that we have said to be heard and the Bill to be improved in a number of respects.
I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to make the Bill better so that we are all as happy with it as we have been with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
Lord Trees
“(1A) The function of the Committee is to determine whether, in relation to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy subsequent to the Committee’s establishment, it is satisfied the Government is having all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the Committee’s remit relates to the process of the formulation and implementation of policy but only that which has been formulated and implemented after the Committee's formation.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I broadly support the Bill. Moreover, in 2018 I tabled an amendment to the withdrawal Bill to bring Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK statute. That was rejected by the Government at the time, but I suspect that if Her Majesty’s Government look in the mirror of history, they may feel that they should have accepted that amendment then; it would have addressed the issue of sentience at that time and given us a foundation to build on and make changes if so wished.
Article 13 had considerable scope for unintended consequences, and this Bill, which is Article 13 with bells on, has considerably more—hence the number of amendments, particularly from the Government Benches. The Bill goes considerably further than Article 13: for example, it sets up an animal sentience committee; it covers all government policy; it has no exceptions for cultural, historical or religious practices; it includes certain invertebrates; and it specifically allows for the retrospective consideration of government policy formulation. The considerable widening of the scope of Article 13, yet at the same time the lack of detail in many places, has led to the large number of amendments that we see today.
Amendment 1 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to whom I am grateful for their support, makes two key points. Clause 1(1) of the Bill establishes an animal sentience committee. Our amendment seeks to define, at the start of the Bill, two key aspects of that committee’s remit. The first aspect, which seeks to make explicit what I understand is Her Majesty’s Government’s intention, would introduce the word “process” with regard to the committee’s function in scrutinising the formulation and implementation of policy. It would make it very clear that the ASC did not have a function with regard to commenting on policy per se but, rather, on the degree to which the Government had taken animal welfare into account in developing that policy.
I suggest that that is a critical aspect of the Bill. For example, one of the briefings that we received says that the Bill entrusts responsibility to the animal sentience committee for considering the impact of its policies on animals as sentient beings. But it does not; it requires the ASC to consider whether the Government have considered the impact on animal welfare of the policies that they are developing. I submit that this is not mere semantics but a substantive difference, which introducing the word “process” in respect of the function of the committee makes clear. I note that other recent amendments—for example, Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have also included the word “process” with regard to the function of the committee and its scrutiny of the formulation and implementation of policy.
The other key point in Amendment 1, which is a feature of other amendments in this group—I think that is largely why it has been put there—is to exclude retrospective examination of policy formulation and implementation. It is exceptional that any legislation allows retrospective evaluation of actions, and I find it difficult to understand the justification of that. The ASC will exist alongside the current Animal Welfare Committee, which is advisory, and, if some historic legislation appears no longer fit for purpose or inadequate in any way, the AWC is perfectly placed to point this out and to make suggestions for either new legislation or the revision of existing legislation. That is totally within its remit. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister of the justification for these retrospective powers, which—to judge from the number of amendments on this issue—a number of noble Lords find problematic. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 12, 14 and 16 in this group are in my name. However, I will first support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which seems to be both sensible and necessary to be made to the Bill if we are to have a committee in this form at all. I also support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
I have one query about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which I will come to in relation to my Amendment 16. The first two, Amendments 12 and 14, underline the requirement in those amendments for the committee to deal with only future policy and when it is being formulated. Surely the value of this committee if it is to have any real effect is to perform a role not already covered by other committees, to draw attention to failures of consideration if it finds them when policy is being formulated or has just been formulated and before implementation, so that the defects can if necessary and possible be remedied before the policy is enacted.
In the Bill at present there is no limit as to how far back the committee can go. The draft terms of reference, which the Minister kindly sent us, express a hope—no more—that it will concentrate on more recent policies, but there is nothing to stop the committee going back as far as it chooses. Ministers come and go—so do civil servants. An examination of whether a past Secretary of State gave all due regard to the effect of a policy on animal welfare, possibly long enacted, will be difficult if not impossible in many cases. The additional cost of this committee, according to the terms of reference, is to be no more than half a million pounds from Defra’s budget. However, there is no calculation of how much time will be needed to be spent by other departments trying to answer the inevitable investigation into how decisions were made. It must take time from the work of those departments in each case, and of course be at public expense too. This committee surely cannot be intended to be a quasi post-legislative scrutiny committee, yet the Bill is without any limit as to its remit.
My Amendment 16 removes implementation from the committee’s remit. After Committee I looked forward to seeing the draft terms of reference because, as it stands, the purpose, remit, scope and any limits on the powers of the committee are not clear in the Bill. I hoped they would be remedied, at the very least, in guidance. Sadly, they are not. Instead, in a number of respects, the Bill and the terms of the reference are in direct conflict.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in Committee a lot of us argued very strongly for several amendments, and one of course was to strengthen the terms of reference and ensure that the committee was free and independent from government interference. I was very happy to spend today arguing over various amendments and we have here a whole hotchpotch of them, some of which are fine. However, we also have a naked attempt to filibuster and scupper the Bill by the right wing of the Tory party. I say: “Shame on you”. This Bill is far from perfect, but it is better than it was. Noble Lords must know that the public care very much about this issue and want to see something on the books.
It was also, of course, a manifesto commitment by the Government. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have supported it and been loyal Conservative Party members. I shall not speak again in this debate, because I think that it is a complete waste of my time. I shall simply vote against all the spoiling amendments that noble Lords opposite have put forward.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and see her so loyally supporting my Government—and in the Lobbies as well, no doubt.
I shall add a point to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and, in reference to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, emphasise the question of the terms of reference and what they do to complicate the work of the committee. By the way, the chairman of this committee is supposed to spend 20 days a year on this, yet he has to look at all past policies, all future policies and all present policies in all aspects of government. That will be quite hard work for him.
The terms of reference note that the committee may seek outside input, including from “stakeholders amongst others”. If the committee is looking at process—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made—rather than policy, why consult stakeholders? Similarly, the terms of reference suggest that the committee
“may wish to prioritise policies … which are more significant in terms of Parliamentary, Departmental, Stakeholder or public interest”.
Is this about ensuring that all due regard is had to animal welfare in the process of reaching policy decisions or about the issues and decisions themselves? Will the committee focus on animal welfare issues that are of high profile as a result of campaigning by interest groups, which does not seem to have been the original intention?
The terms of reference refer to it being
“beneficial for UK Government Departments to seek advice from the Committee to assist them in understanding the effects of particular policies on the welfare of animals”.
It seems from wording like this that the committee will look not simply at process but at the policy itself that is under consideration. I hope that my noble friend will address this point, as it seems to be an issue of mission creep that we need to understand.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group but, before I turn to them, I congratulate my noble friend on his announcement last week with regard to soil. It was a significant step forward by Her Majesty’s Government, and one that is wholly welcomed by those concerned about our farming in this country and our ability to grow crops. I thank my noble friend very much for what he did last week and for his letter on it.
I turn to the Bill in front of us, to which I have tabled two amendments. Amendment 15 basically copies that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has just spoken, but it also has a second part to it, which is trying to be helpful to my noble friend to get him out of this particular problem. The problem is the retrospective nature of the legislation. In the terms of reference and accompanying letter, we are told that Defra expects the committee to produce between six and eight reports a year. I asked what the likely policy issues of Defra were that the committee would look at—to which the answer inevitably came back that it was up to the committee and not to Defra. However, I cannot believe that the committee will be kept busy looking at future policy of Defra; it is supposed to look across government, but the rest of the departments have to take absolutely no notice of the committee, because the Government merely “hope” that the rest of departments will pay attention to the committee. That is a positive step.
My Amendment 18 would allow the Bill to go through as it is worded but with the condition that, if there is going to be a retrospective report on policy that has already been implemented, the committee merely needs the written consent of the Secretary of State. That, surely, is a sensible way forward. It encourages the committee to look forward and not back and stops it from going on wild fishing trips into past, established policy to try to meet its target of six to eight reports a year. So the amendment is formulated in the hope that it will allow my noble friend to make a tweak to the Bill that will achieve the same result but with a little bit more sense to it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, following Committee, in which I took part, this Bill has not really changed at all. As one who cares deeply about animal welfare and cruelty to animals, I would like to make a general comment before I turn to the specific amendments. The Secretary of State said recently, at a meeting that I attended, that he did not want to create a “hostage to fortune” in the future, but that is exactly what this Bill does. It is enabling legislation with no real detail; it has got such broad scope that it allows almost any interpretation. Frankly, it is the most terrible piece of legislation. It is a shocking piece of legislation and the Government should be embarrassed by it. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is yet another very un-Conservative measure for the right wing of the Conservative party, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out. It will be passed with the cheers of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. As taxes get raised to their highest for 70 years, do Ministers think people will continue to vote for a party that is not recognisably Conservative, or will voters desert us as they did indeed in Chesham?
Turning to the group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made an extremely good speech, pointing out so many things, and I cannot better it. But I will turn to other amendments later. I say to the Minister—and we have known each for some time and are friends, I hope—that this is a terrible piece of legislation and he needs to go back to the Ministry and tell them that.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Robathan’s remarks. I think this a perfectly terrible Bill, and I would like to speak to Amendment 1. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point that this Bill was Article 13 of the EU with bells on. He knows a lot more about this sort of legislation than I do. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to speak to this amendment, will explain why this Bill has to have bells on. Why could it not be just Article 13 of the withdrawal agreement? Why did we have to add things on to it? Many of us are disturbed at the propensity of our government machine—Whitehall departments—to always add things on to Bills and make them even more elaborate than they were originally intended to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also made the point that his amendment was about process. Process, as I see it, and certainly in the days when I was in government, was all to do with legislation. When a department produced legislation, if that legislation affected other departments, it was circulated through those departments for their comments on it before it was ever submitted to Parliament. I do not quite understand what this new committee is going to do in looking at legislation before it is actually submitted to Parliament, compared with what happened before. Presumably, if the question of animal welfare came up, it went to the Department of Agriculture and it went to the Animal Welfare Committee who looked at it and said whether it was within its remit and whether it approved of it. So what is this committee doing that the Animal Welfare Committee did not do before? Perhaps my noble friend could elucidate that when he comes to speak.
Generally, what we are doing is expanding the whole mass of quangos and we have to think about the Climate Change Committee. It always advertises itself as a committee that advises the Government but seems to have a complete mind of its own when it comes to climate change. It seems to be obsessed with CO2 emissions. It never seems to champion or recognise what has actually been done in this country to reduce CO2 emissions, and it does not seem to take any account of the collateral damage. I hope this committee is not going to be another one like that.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the two previous speakers, and I have no wish to be associated with the views that they expressed.
To look at one particular detail, my understanding of the committee is that it will produce reports which will then come to Parliament, where we can all see them. That publicity seems to me an excellent way of dealing with things. Of course, the committee would not be instigating legislation; it would be an advisory body. It will be up to the government departments concerned whether they choose to accept its advice, but at least we will know what this committee is thinking.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, although I do not entirely agree with her uncritical support of the Bill. I want particularly to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have lent my name, but also generally to support the other amendments in this group. The characteristic they have in common is that they deal with the retrospective powers of the committee—its powers to look back at existing policy and past practice—which clearly cause a degree of concern. My comments are intended to be largely helpful to the Government.
I have heard it said that the Government cannot support this amendment or the general thrust of these amendments because farming practice and husbandry practice go back decades—indeed, hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Therefore, they would say that it is impossible to look at the current situation or a change in the current situation without looking back at what it is changing or at the past. I would have a great deal of sympathy, as I think many people in the House would, with the Government if they advanced that argument. My suggestion, which I hope the Government will be able to take account of, is that an amendment could be crafted, perhaps by the Government, in response to this debate which ensured that the new animal sentience committee could look at existing and past policy only where the Government were coming forward with a specific proposal to change it—that unless there was a proposal to change it, the committee would not be able to look at current and existing policy.
I realise that is not quite the same as the amendment I have put my name to in support of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I do not think any of us here are trying to pin the Government down to a particular outcome—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that she was generally supportive of this. We are coming together around a sort of principle, which is that the ability of this committee to roam into existing policy at will should be limited, and it should be limited in ways that keep it focused on the present and the future, rather than going into the past. If my noble friend could find a way of agreeing something along those lines, I think the force of many of the amendments in this group would fall away.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for boosting my right-wing credentials. I think one thing the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I have in common is that we find ourselves a little out of kilter with our respective parties in relation to the Bill before us this evening.
I have amendments in the third group, so I would just like to put two general queries to my noble friend the Minister. I would hazard a guess that, had we had this Bill in front of us when we were both serving as shadow Ministers in the Defra team some years ago, we would have been minded not to accept what is in the Bill before us today.
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in moving his Amendment 1. I am proud to be an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I commend him for his work in flying the flag for vets—I think he is the sole flyer of that flag in this House. He adequately addressed not just the process but the retrospectivity aspect of this amendment. Could my noble friend the Minister give us a reassurance this evening that it is not intended that the work of the committee will have any retrospective effect—that is, going back over old laws in its work—should the Bill be carried in its present form?
I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and ask for what particular reason—for some reason the manifesto did not reach me this time, possibly because we are not allowed to be candidates—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I did—my noble friend teases me, but I did. I did not always agree with every single item in every single manifesto, but my understanding was that we made a manifesto pledge to roll into national law what was effectively, as has been rehearsed here this evening, set out in Article 13 of the EU treaty—which I do not think I have read either. My understanding is that that was our commitment. So I would like my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this debate, to set out for what reason it was not acceptable simple to rehearse in UK law what we had already committed to in EU law, because I believe that that would have been acceptable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I add for the benefit of my noble friend that the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election contained—I have looked it up—simply a pledge that
“We will bring in new laws on animal sentience.”
Nothing more was said in any detail.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for that remark.
I am going to go on and query the path the Government have gone down and why aspects of the committee may be subject to judicial review in connection with this Bill, whereas every other Bill that has been put forward by this Government has not been deemed to be subject to such a judicial review. If the Minister will reassure me that there will be no retrospective effect and that we will revert, if possible, to the very limited effect of Article 13, I think it would have the unanimous support of the House today.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments broadly consider the remit of the committee regarding policy. Clause 1 sets up the committee. The stated purpose of the Bill is to make sure that animal sentience is taken into account when developing policy across government, but policy is not always set in aspic and I find it concerning that the majority of the amendments that have been put down in this group would prohibit the ASC considering policy formulated and implemented before the committee’s formation.
At the start of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about unintended consequences, but we should also look at the unintended consequences of this group of amendments if they are accepted. We believe that the prohibitions that are being put forward would prevent the committee considering how the ongoing implementation of recent and historic legislation affects the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The impacts can be significant. To take an example, the primary legislation used to prosecute hare coursing is the Hunting Act 2004 and the Game Act 1831. We believe that the ASC should be free to consider how the implementation of those laws affect the welfare of hares as sentient beings. While the ASC will be likely to focus its work on emerging policy, we believe it needs the freedom to consider existing legislation where it feels it is appropriate to do so.
Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would require scientific evidence to be published. It is very important that scientific evidence is taken into account right across the committee. It is clear from the terms of reference that that will be an important part of its work. But again I have concerns: requiring things to always be published before being presented to Parliament could place an unintended scientific barrier in front of the committee. I worked in publishing for many years, and I know that sometimes it can take a long time. I would not want to see the committee’s work hugely delayed as an unintended consequence of this amendment.
I will keep my comments brief throughout Report. We discussed at length in Committee many of the amendments before us again today. I do not want to waste time going back over issues that we have already spent a lot of time on, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to people’s concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Caithness, for their amendments on the subject of the animal sentience committee’s remit with respect to existing policies. My remarks will address all the amendments.
This is the first piece of legislation I have steered through the House. I am conscious that I am in the presence of experienced legislators and people very much more experienced, perhaps, that I was in the other place where, when a piece of legislation was described as “terrible” or “poorly drafted” it was usually code for the fact that the speaker did not agree with it. Here, I am sure that that is not the case and that noble Lords are much more discerning, and I will seek to answer their points, be more conciliatory in my remarks and address their concerns.
I thank noble Lords for their discussion on this issue, and for the opportunity to put on record a clear statement on the remit of the committee. The Bill is already drafted so as to ensure that animal sentience is actively considered in current policy-making and implementation and, in line with its statutory function as set out in the Bill, the committee will be expected to prioritise current or recent policy decisions. Prioritising policies that the Government are currently pursuing fulfils the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. This clause requires the Secretary of State to respond to the committee’s reports and is the only legal consequence the committee reports have. As I have repeatedly stated, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a proportionate, targeted and timely accountability mechanism. There are limits to how far you can hold a current Government to account for the decisions they did not make, and this would certainly not be timely. I hope this addresses points made by my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lady McIntosh and others.
However, the value of the committee is in looking at policy issues that are live in some way, and the committee would not be acting in the public interest if it did not do that. There would be no benefit for animal welfare, for the public, for Parliament or for the Government in discussing policies that have long been customary, revised or resolved. To put it more simply, the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and to reignite past policy issues that are now closed. If this happened, it is something that would need to be raised with the committee chair as part of the performance management and governance processes that will be in place.
Seeking to impose a rigid form of words in legislation on these matters risks excluding the committee from areas where its scrutiny would be valuable. Attempts to distinguish current policy from established policy in statute would leave the committee wide open to challenge if interpretations of the wording differed. We are also of the view that, for the committee to provide targeted and effective parliamentary accountability, the committee’s report should not be subject to approval or preselection by Ministers. I would caution against the approach proposed my noble friend Lord Caithness, which would require Ministers to agree to the preparation of any report.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about process. Clause 2(2) envisages that the committee can examine what adverse effects a policy might have on the welfare of animals and whether the Government are aware of all those possible adverse effects and fully understand them so they can properly take them into account in their decision. This is clearly about the process followed in decision-making.
My noble friend Lord Ridley talked about the committee’s ability to consult stakeholders. He is right that the committee may choose to engage with a range of external bodies and individuals, as it sees fit. This stakeholder engagement is important as it will allow the committee to prioritise policies that are more significant in terms of the nature and scale of their effect on animals or the extent of parliamentary, departmental, stakeholder or public interest.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could he answer the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that this is Article 13 with bells on? Why is so much added into this legislation, which goes way beyond Article 13?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It does not go way beyond Article 13, but it does create a committee that did not exist. There were other measures in the European Union which sought to give substance to the wording in Article 13—we will come on to talk about some of them, perhaps in the next group of amendments—by referring to cultural and other issues that were of concern to member states. We have tried to transpose the legal wording recognising animal sentience into UK law and have sought to make the Government’s decision-making better by giving them an expert committee to advise them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is not the noble Lord, Lord Trees, one of the most eminent and respected veterinary surgeons in our country? Could we not take his advice?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, a lot in my few months in this role. I respect his views and his counsel and, wherever possible, I take it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps I may press my noble friend, because I did not follow what he said about retrospectivity—or perhaps he did not say anything. Will he confirm that there is no retrospective effect? I listened very carefully to what he said about animal sentience; I hesitate to say it, but I think he is confusing animal sentience and animal welfare. I think the mood of the House is to keep Article 13 on animal sentience and let the other committee that is already set up to look after animal welfare do the perfectly good job it is already doing.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I will not detain the House by repeating the paragraphs I have put on record in relation to the prioritising policies that the committee will look at. That will be for the current Government and the policies they are currently pursuing, and it will fulfil the committee’s statutory function under Clause 3. I went on to say—I hope this was clear—that the committee would not be doing its job properly if it sought to rake over old coals and reignite past policy issues that are now closed. My noble friend and noble Lords will know that words said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box hold sway when people try to interpret legislation. I hope I have been as clear as I possibly can be about the remit of this committee and the kinds of priorities it will look at. I hope that has reassured my noble friend.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which I and many others, I think, share, about the time, expense and bureaucracy that may be entailed in the legislation having retrospective force. I would still, however, say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that I do not see why the animal sentience committee cannot look at current legislation and policy and comment on it. It is a statutory committee. I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and her passion for animal welfare, which I share, but I think that she said it was an advisory committee. The committee is statutory. It is a very powerful committee and is there to hold the Government to account, which is why more detail about its remit could usefully appear in the Bill. I respect the explanation by the noble Lord that the terms of reference are very clear about this, that and the other, but as I recall the committee itself can alter its terms of reference, because they are not made explicit in the Bill.
This issue of process is cardinal, and I hope it does not come back to bite us all. Having said that, I am not one to make futile gestures; I appreciate that the Opposition are not supporting amendments and that there is a strong government Whip. I support the essence of this Bill in toto, but one wishes to make constructive suggestions that might improve it. I very much appreciate the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. With that, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
Lord Marland
“(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 comment on the policy decisions of Ministers or to recommend future policy or changes to existing policy.(1C) It is for Ministers to take into account any other considerations of public interest, including economic, cultural and religious considerations, as well as the impact on different species, in the formulation and implementation of any policy. (1D) Schedule (Animal Sentience Committee) has effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would clarify the Committee’s role and make clear the Committee is limited to commenting on process. It also makes explicit that Ministers should take into account any other public interest considerations. It gives effect to the Schedule, which sets out the Committee’s role and function.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who, sadly, has fallen to the Covid virus, and we of course wish him well. It falls to me to take on the challenge of trying to persuade the Government, who so far have been pretty unpersuadable, to take this Bill more seriously and put it into better shape. For the record, I do not consider myself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, a right-wing Tory, even though some of my colleagues do. This has nothing to do with right or left. I think that the general feeling in the House was that this is a badly constructed Bill. I know that some of the government amendments have the support of the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which means that it is not a well-supported Bill.
For those who have just joined this debate, I say the following: I do not farm, and I rarely fish. I am not an industrial fisherman or commercial farmer; occasionally I shoot—but what I really enjoy is our green and pleasant land, and living in the countryside. As far as I am concerned, it has been under responsible stewardship for a very long time, or it would not still be a green and pleasant land. If I am a Tory, which I am, I believe the well-known Conservative Party tenet that people do better when the Government do least. Here we have a Bill that seeks to interfere with people and how they run their lives. It is not just this Bill on its own, in isolation; we should look at the general onslaught of change that is happening to farmers in the countryside.
How do we arrive at this place? It is extraordinary. I may be totally wrong, but I can count four animal welfare-related Bills, three of which come under a new umbrella of animal welfare created by Defra. Ministers say that they want experts to advise them on sentience, but they are getting loads of advice. They could just come to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and get terrific advice from him, or the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and get fantastic advice from her, because they are well-known experts. It is why they have been appointed to this House—among many other reasons, I hastily add. It just demonstrates another way of Defra interfering with farming, the countryside and fishing. It is setting down standards and definitions of standards that many other countries do not support. Not even the European Union has gone this far in setting out standards, insisting that our farmers and fishermen adhere to a certain group of standards.
Yet on the other hand, the Government are signing trade deals with these countries and allowing imports of various goods from countries that will not adhere to the same welfare sentiments that we do. We will still get lobsters from Canada—we will be able to get lobsters from Scotland, by the way, as this relates to the United Kingdom. We will still be able to get octopus from Spain not killed in the same way as we think it should be. We will get langoustines from Scotland and France killed totally differently than the ones that we have—and prawns, as we know, come from Thailand and other countries like that.
There is no civilised way of killing animals, or anybody, for that matter—whether it is slitting their throat, catching them in nets and leaving them out of air on fishing boats, hooking them and shooting them, stunning them or boiling them. They are all terrible ways to die. We should bear in mind that that is the case. Yet Defra is going to appoint a committee that sits as judge and jury on how these animals and sentient beings should be killed—in the animals’ case, but also it will give the description of sentient beings. This will destroy the livelihoods of our fishing industry, which will not be able to compete on the same level field, and it will make farming very difficult.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27, to which I have added my name. In short, these amendments seek to restore so-called Lisbon treaty provisions, or balancing considerations, to our laws on animal welfare, old and new. The arguments in favour are substantial, relating to practices in this country, and legal, relating to the avoidance of judicial review—on which I hope the House will listen to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which was apparently inserted by reason of pressure from this country, says:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s … policies”,
et cetera,
“the Union and the Member States shall … pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
Far be it from me to want to continue any European law, but this particular provision did in fact mirror what was already the situation in this country. My concerns if it is not enacted relate to medical research and religious traditions in killing animals.
The Lisbon provision successfully kept issues out of court, and religious minorities were content with it. Not to include this amendment is to open the door to vigorous disagreements over traditional practices and to more judicial review—and if there is one thing this Bill was supposed to do, it was to corral the committee and the Minister in policy issues. Muslim spokespersons are likely to be as worried about halal as are the representatives of the far smaller religious Jewish community. In the past, they have lived comfortably with the Lisbon balancing factors, and we want this to continue.
The committee might decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with them. Without the balancing factors that this amendment would introduce, both sides are wide open to judicial review.
The last time I spoke on this, I criticised the Bill as unnecessary and I worried about restrictions on medical research, inter alia. Living in Oxford as I do has meant witnessing protests by so-called animal liberationists. As recently as April this year, they were protesting just two miles away from the laboratory where the esteemed scientist Sarah Gilbert was working on the AstraZeneca vaccine—which, no doubt, some of them would be happy to take, and if not they would selfishly put others at risk. I hope that medical research is included in the term “public interest” in Amendment 2. The reference to legislative provisions in Amendment 27 is certainly meant to include the many laws we have about research on animals.
All our talk about inclusivity and diversity demands due respect for what is important to minorities and to others who have for centuries had a special relationship with animals and wildlife. We do not want today’s cancel culture extending to interference with medical research and peaceful coexistence, and Article 13 would be a safeguard. Moreover, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights could, through the Lisbon treaty, be brought to bear in this amendment.
On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right falls within Article 9 of the European convention and is reflected in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Our own Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains a specific provision, in Section 13, that:
“If a court’s determination of any question … under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation … of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”
It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this. In fact, when one reads about the terrible cruelty, referred to earlier in this debate, that we routinely inflict deliberately or by accident—in the electrocution of chickens, the killing of pigs, the decapitation of rabbits, the suffocation of fish, the boiling alive of lobsters, et cetera, which we will get to—we really have nothing to be proud of in all our practices of killing animals.
It is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites and medical research.
On 6 July, the Minister gave an assurance about respect for halal and kosher traditional killing, but in the same breath he reminded the House that anything could be changed. Therefore, it behoves the Government to proactively accept Amendment 27—and indeed Amendment 2—both to safeguard religious rites and medical research and to minimise judicial review challenges. I cannot think of any good reason why the amendment should be rejected.
We hope to change the Minister’s mind before Third Reading, and I shall continue to press for this safeguard today and later. As the Bill stands, the committee is not required to respect medical research and rites and traditions, yet the Minister will be bound to consider them when receiving the committee’s recommendations. Without this amendment, his decision and legal position will be much more vulnerable and difficult. I therefore urge him most strongly to accept the amendments which place the Lisbon treaty back where it should be in this country.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just said, particularly with respect to medical research. I have looked up which kinds of animals were used in the development of treatments and vaccines for Covid-19 in the last couple of years. They include humanised mice bred to have human ACE2 genes in them. Experiments on SARS-like viruses were being done on these mice in one city in particular for many years before the pandemic: Wuhan. The animals also included Syrian hamsters, because they have similar symptoms to human beings; monkeys, because vaccine safety always has to be tested in non-human primates; ferrets, because they have very similar symptoms when they get respiratory diseases; pigs, on which vaccines were tested; and sheep, which were used for plasma for purifying antibodies. All of these were vital to the extraordinary speed with which treatments and preventions for Covid-19 were pursued in the last year.
Nobody is suggesting that the existence of this committee will result in the banning of such research or anything like that. But it is possible that, in formulating a research proposal of this kind, you might find you run up against legislation that, in deference to the sentience committee, says that an extra step needs to be taken to check that it is really necessary to use animals in this way. Be in no doubt: all of these animals suffered, and they suffered deliberately from diseases that we gave them as a result of this work. I would hate to think that this Bill would result in anything that slowed down the urgency of medical research in a situation like this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 27, to which I have put my name. I have the great privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in doing so. This amendment goes to the heart of what I see, perhaps eccentrically, as the problem with the Bill. The Bill seems to be about animals and their welfare, and it seems to be based on science, but really it is a Bill about humans and our moral standing. It is not about our moral obligations—all animal welfare legislation for the last 200 years either articulates or creates moral and legal obligations on us; that is what law does—but rather it is about our moral standing. It is the ambition of the people who are promoting the concept of animal sentience that it should be a common moral measure, putting humans and animals on the same moral plane, differenced only by the degree of sentience that they evince.
I find this a really false anthropology. So it is absolutely right that the Bill, which actually makes no reference to humans, should say something about them, if only to try to achieve a better balance in the moral architecture that the Bill seeks to create. Amendment 27 does that. It says that there are some things about human beings that should not be trampled on by this Bill, by the principle behind it, or by the animal sentience committee it creates. Those are quite basic things: they are to do with religion and religious practice, culture and your local region or locality—the place where you belong. All Amendment 27 does is ask that those things should be carved out and specially protected—not in an innovative way, because in fact they are already protected in the European Union treaty, in the language that we adopted before. It is simply about incorporating that language back, not in a copy-and-paste way but because we genuinely believe that those things about human life are important and should be protected. That is why I support Amendment 27.
While I am on my feet, I am going to make a comment on Amendment 48, in the same group. It is a slightly more procedural comment—it is really a question to my noble friend. We have been told since Committee, through the issuance of the terms of reference of the new committee—which are not statutory as I understand it, but of course I am always happy to be corrected—that it is to be set inside and corralled by, so to speak, a new Defra centre of excellence on animal welfare. Other committees that already exist will also be brought within that nest, but the other birds in this nest are not statutory committees—they are creatures or creations of Defra, whereas this new committee is a statutory committee. I simply do not understand—this may be because I am relatively new—how it is that, through some non-statutory terms of reference, a committee that we are today being asked to give statutory independence to, can be reliably told that it will be part of this centre. What if it decided not to be? It is going to have an independent board; what if the board decided that the centre trammelled it or interfered with its work? My question to my noble friend is this: if this committee is going to be on the basis he says, corralled inside the new centre for excellence, should that not be in the Bill?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about including or not including matters that relate to medical science and the slaughter of animals by ritual, religious methods. But unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Act that deals with the slaughter of animals specifically exempts ritual slaughter from what would otherwise be illegal. By the same token, we have legislation that deals with medical experiments which already tightly controls what may or may not be done. I cannot see, therefore, that the amendment being advocated can have any real substance to it, given those restrictions, and also bearing in mind that the committee that is being set up, although it is being set up by statute, does not have legal powers of any kind whatever. It will be entirely up to the relevant Ministers whether or not they accept any recommendations from that committee. In order to change the rules about medical science or the slaughter of animals, I believe there would have to be primary legislation. I hope my noble friend can confirm this.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland. I also wish my noble friend a speedy recovery from Covid. As my noble friend Lord Marland, who spoke so convincingly to the amendment, said, the animal sentience committee will be both judge and jury. My worry is that it will also be legislator, since it seems to me almost certain that, in the way the Bill is currently drafted, it is likely to stray into the area of scrutinising policy as well as process.
I remain worried that the committee will also overlap with the work of the Animal Welfare Committee, as the Countryside Alliance and other institutions that actually understand nature and animal behaviour have pointed out. This committee is likely to be comprised of people who may have a huge understanding of matters of science and parts of the countryside but lack the experience to really appreciate the relationship between the countryside and the animal kingdom.
What about this animal welfare centre of expertise? I understand it is supposed to settle points of dispute with other committees. Which other committees is the new committee likely to be in dispute with? Obviously, it will be the Animal Welfare Committee. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would wish to create an animal sentience committee which is obviously going to cover points that are already covered by the Animal Welfare Committee. I thought that, under this Government, we were likely to see some rationalisation and reduction of the number of committees and quangos being established. I regret very much that it looks as though we are likely to see the reverse.
I would also like to comment on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoken to very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lady Fookes has just pointed out, quite correctly, that there are already exemptions for medical science in some legislation, but I think those exemptions are very much narrower than the exemptions that would be achieved by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. The amendment is quite welcome, and I strongly support it, particularly as, having spent many years in Japan, I came to be very partial to Japanese cuisine. I fear that most methods used, including in this country by Japanese restaurants, to kill fish might fall foul of the opinions of the animal sentience committee. I think it could easily lead to a lot of unwelcome interference.
I also very much welcome the speech by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who explained so well that the sentience of animals is different from that of us. It is relative, and nobody would argue that the sentience of a dog is the same as that of a lobster.
I also strongly support Amendment 48, because to set up a statutory committee of this kind without including a schedule clearly setting out the committee’s role and functions is bound to lead to trouble.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I express my support for Amendment 27, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness have covered much of the ground that I wished to cover, and I agree with everything that they said.
Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty was not only binding on the UK before Brexit but—as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself stated in a letter to Members on 13 May—the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for it, and it has not been suggested at any stage of the Bill that prior to Brexit the UK had any objection to the balancing factors in Article 13.
As I pointed out in Committee, the balancing factors mirror rights under the human rights convention. There is a powerful argument that the right to sporting and other recreational activity that are part of cultural traditions and regional heritage are protected by Article 8 of the convention as an aspect of the right to respect for private and family life. Like a number of other convention rights, it is a qualified right and is subject to interference if, among other things, it
“is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
None of those grounds has been identified by the Government as potentially applicable.
Most perplexing of all, however, is the Government’s failure to exclude religious rights from the purview of the sentience committee. This ground has been substantially covered by what my noble friend Lady Deech said. She referred to Article 9 of the convention, which expressly provides for freedom of thought, conscience or religion; that article expressly states that the right to manifest one’s religious belief is a right protected in practice and in religious observance.
The European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, has highlighted the importance of rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Like Article 8, Article 9 of the convention confers a qualified right and is subject to many of the limitations that I have just listed with regard to Article 8. Again, none of those limitations has been suggested by the Government at any stage of the passage of this Bill.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27, which carries my name. I have some difficulties with parts of it, which I will come to in a minute, but first I will make some remarks about medical research and the threat to it. The concern is very understandable, but in this case probably unwarranted. The question is not whether medical research will be exempted; there is very specific and substantial regulatory legislation in place to control medical research precisely. If there was a challenge as to whether the Government had considered the implications of their policy on medical research, they could answer, perfectly honestly, “Yes, we have the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which is extremely detailed and requires persons involved in medical research to be licensed, the place in which that research is being carried out to be licensed, and each and every specific project, of a particular nature, to be subject to scrutiny and licensed”. I was a Home Office licence holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act for something like 25 years; one can argue very persuasively that due consideration and regard have been paid to medical research.
It is a great honour to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who exquisitely explained the reasons for incorporating these exemptions, which are included in Article 13. My noble friend Lady Deech knows that I differ with her in that I wish all animals to be stunned and rendered unconscious before slaughter. There is a huge weight of scientific evidence to support that. That is why it is illegal for most people, except those of particular religious persuasions—it is illegal for me as a veterinary surgeon—to cut the throat of a conscious animal without rendering it unconscious first.
However, I am a realist. I recognise all the points that my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and my noble friend Lady Deech have made; religious freedoms are enshrined in our laws and internationally. That reflects current government policy to respect religious freedoms. I accept that point and am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for having been detained in the Moses Room earlier in another debate. Much of what I might have said has been put far better by my colleagues who have signed this amendment, in the shape of my noble friend Lord Trees, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lady Deech, who has been incredibly helpful. I thank them very much. I also found the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton very persuasive on the basic and essential point.
I remind the House of a question I put directly to the Minister in Committee, right at the end, about what happens next. He said:
“I do not want to create a feeding frenzy for lawyers by putting anything in legislation that will increase opportunities for judicial review or any other legal measure.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 294.]
That is what set me thinking about whether or not, in the true construction, this provision increased or decreased the possibility for judicial review. We just heard from my noble and learned friend about that, and about how the European Convention on Human Rights would work. I will not rehearse all the arguments or restate what others have said but it is my settled view that, if we do not restore something that was the law of the land until midnight of 31 December last year and then stopped, there is a strong probability—particularly with the arrival of this committee—of increased action in judicial review and increased action under the ECHR. That seems to me to trip the very test the Minister set himself in Committee. That is why I put the amendment down again and why I strongly believe we need to accept it.
A very interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I need to think about it, but in my bones I do not feel it is a problem and, obviously, nor do my colleagues. I am annoyed with myself for not having had the time to talk to colleagues on the Labour Front Bench to explain more carefully why this is not some sort of attempt to wreck anything but is a genuine point; we are trying to make sure that the Government can govern and are not dragged to the courts the whole time on what are, after all, a series of very emotive issues. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about that in Committee.
My simple hope, having discussed this at length yesterday—I am very grateful for the Minister’s time—is that we can have a meeting after Report, and I very much hope the Labour Front Bench will be there, where we can discuss this carefully, including taking into account the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and come to some sort of resolution. As I said, the advice from people who care about this and genuinely know about it is that the very test the Minister set himself in Committee would be tripped if we did not accept this amendment. I hope that, if he cannot accept it immediately today, we will not have a messy vote but agree that this is the one issue to be taken away and discussed between now and Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I support very much my noble friend Lord Marland in his amendment, both the principles behind it and its detail, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which was extremely well argued by her and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Trees—modestly—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
It strikes me that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a muddle on all this. The more I have listened to noble Lords behind me who obviously think the Government have got it wrong, the more I wonder why they are legislating in this way. If he had wished to do so, could the Secretary of State not simply have set up a committee by declaration, to do everything the Government want it to and try out some of these extremely complicated and difficult issues which have been raised not just today but in Committee? I feel it would have been a much better way to progress thinking and policy on this Bill and would not have made the sort of mistakes which I have a horrible feeling the Government are heading into by putting forward primary legislation in this manner, when we all know that changing primary legislation is incredibly difficult.
I hope my noble friend the Minister has listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who made a very fair offer of discussion on this extremely complicated policy matter, with the aim of coming forward with some rationally thought through amendments at Third Reading, which I would very much support.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can I just add to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s remarks? The Government certainly have the capacity to create this committee, but why are they bothering to create a new one? I raised this in Committee and was told, “Oh no; the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee are doing two totally different things.” If you took that outside and asked people in the street, “Do you think there’s an enormous difference between animal welfare and animal sentience?”, they would slightly wonder what you were talking about. It is extraordinary that, as a Conservative Government, we did not take a well-respected committee—the Animal Welfare Committee—and extend its remit to include animal sentience. Surely that would have been the most sensible, straightforward way, without creating new bureaucracy, as well as massive expense and giving it a statutory basis.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, can I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has just said? I remind those in the House who have not looked closely at the terms of reference of the relationship that is anticipated between this new committee and the excellent existing Animal Welfare Committee. They are to have a joint secretariat with Defra, a joint website, a joint point of contact and the same Defra budget. Both will give views and advice about the effects on animal welfare of policy decisions, including prospective future policy and policy currently being formulated, and they will consult one another. The same people can be members of both committees and on occasions give joint advice and attend one another’s meetings. I repeat: I still do not understand why, with a powerful and excellent committee already in existence, we are spending time on the Bill in this House today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with care to what has been said and find the arguments convincing. However, I am slightly concerned about the proposition put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. As I understand the procedure now, if the Minister agrees to such a meeting but then decides to do nothing, we can do nothing at Third Reading. I would like clarification that we could not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading unless there was an indication from the Government today that it would be accepted. I think that is the new procedure.
I have two questions for my noble friend that are relevant. Does he agree with the situation north of the border and the attitude taken by NatureScot that:
“The death of an animal, at an individual level, is not a welfare issue but the manner in which an animal dies is”?
If he agrees with that, will he give an instruction to the committee to follow that same principle? Does he also agree with the thoughts of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, which distinguishes between societal ethical values and public opinion? Again, if he agrees with that animal sentience committee’s thoughts, would he give the same instruction to the committee that he proposes to set up?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this small group of amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, deals with the work of the animal sentience committee and touches on the issue of religious rites in Amendment 27, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is obvious from the contributions made that everybody feels very passionately about this.
Medical science is important and should be confirmed wherever possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, lots of safeguards around licensing of medical science are already in place. There is obviously a need to ensure that those for whom religious rites are an important part of their lifestyle are respected, as set out in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. Despite the fact that this was before Brexit, I believe the Government should and do respect this right, upholding the values of those for whom the method of slaughter of those animals which form part of their staple diet is protected.
Amendment 48, which has not had a huge amount of debate this evening, is consequential on Amendment 2 and sets out the detail of the way in which the committee will be constituted and work. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, has just set out a bit about that and there is detail in the amendment. However, I am afraid I do not agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on parts of the amendment.
Limiting the term of office to four years could lead to a loss of expertise on the committee, especially if all members were appointed at the same time—which could happen, since it will be a new committee—and, therefore, rotated off at the same time. Further, I find the list of who may not sit on the committee very restrictive. It could lead to someone with the necessary expertise and knowledge being excluded from being a committee member. However, I agree with this amendment in that there should be transparency and independence. That is the direct opposite of the first group of amendments, which sought to fetter the committee’s independence.
The detail in Amendment 48 is extensive. However, the draft terms of reference document is also comprehensive and indicates that Defra has thought carefully about how the committee is to be constructed and how it will carry out its functions. On balance, I am inclined to go with the Defra guidance on this issue but will be interested in what the Minister has to say on this subject and on the knotty issues around Amendment 27.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will talk first about the first part of Amendment 2, which looks at committee remit and policy. That has not really been discussed much in this debate so far. I draw attention to the terms of reference, because they include a lot of information about the role of the committee and policy. I put on record that we welcome a number of formal recognitions that the committee will have. It will: consider positive effects on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process; report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible; examine policy decision-making by previous Governments where this has a significant bearing on ongoing policy-making. It is also important that the selection of the policy decisions it will choose to scrutinise will lie within the committee. I will make a final point on policy before moving on. I draw attention to the fact that it is not for the committee to reach a value judgment on whether a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest.
On Amendment 48, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has pretty well covered all the areas I wish to draw attention to, so I will move on. The second part of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27 refer to having regard to cultural and religious considerations, as we have heard. Clearly, this is extremely important; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in particular, demonstrated that passionately in her speech. As we have seen, Amendment 27 seeks to sustain an aspect of the sentience responsibility that applied when we were EU members: the derogation to Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which exempts cultural practices from animal welfare considerations.
Again, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that this derogation was negotiated during the Lisbon treaty by a very small number of EU Governments particularly looking to preserve practices such as bullfighting. I believe that we now have the freedom to widen our ambitions for animal welfare while still respecting cultural and religious practices. Indeed, the restrictions in Article 13 have frequently been cited as one of the key flaws in EU sentience policy that post-Brexit UK sentience policy can improve on. In fact, the then Secretary of State at Defra Michael Gove said in 2017:
“The current EU instrument—Article 13—has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law—in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.”
Article 13 has not stopped any of those practices, but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. This matter was discussed at length in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made some good points about existing legislation. In Committee, in response to noble Lords’ concerns, many of which were exactly the same as those expressed today, the Minister assured us that any Minister would have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form views in accordance with them. I hope that he can similarly reassure noble Lords today.
Finally, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I am always happy to meet to discuss policy and legislation with anybody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I start by wishing my noble friend Lord Mancroft a speedy recovery, and I am sorry he is not here. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others for speaking to it.
The amendment seeks to clarify the role and detail of the animal sentience committee. I reassure my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Bill already makes it absolutely clear that the only role of the committee is to provide an assessment of the extent to which policy decision-making has considered whether a policy may
“have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
We are sure that the Bill already makes it clear that the committee will not be authorised to stray into making value judgments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just said, on how well a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest. There is no need to specify explicitly in the Bill that it is for Ministers to take other public considerations into account when formulating and implementing policy, because this requirement applies as a matter of course.
Amendment 48 concerns the structure of the committee, criteria for appointments to it and how it is to operate. My noble friend’s amendment raises a number of points about the design of the committee, which I will address in turn. I agree with him about the optimal size of the committee. That is why we have already made it clear that there will be eight to 12 members, working part-time. We want the committee to have everything it needs to do its job well, and its members will be its most important asset. We are committed to ensuring that the committee is large enough to have a suitable breadth of expertise among its members, while not making it so large as to be unwieldy. Of course, the committee will always be able to consult outside experts when needed. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated to the animal welfare centre of expertise and, as I have said, this means there will be enhanced liaison and co-operation between experts.
The committee has the statutory power to issue reports giving its opinion on whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or 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. The Bill already places a legal duty on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports within three months of their publication. Once established, it will be for the committee to determine how it fulfils its statutory functions. The draft terms of reference set out how we expect it to work.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My noble friend repeatedly emphasised during the course of his reply that the decision on these matters would be made by Ministers, but he will know, as we all do, that the decisions of Ministers are subject to judicial review. We have heard from no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that, without the language contained in Amendment 27 in particular, the risk of judicial review of those decisions by Ministers is increased, not reduced. What is my noble friend’s answer to that point?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My learned noble friend will know that there will be attempts to judicially review Governments at every stage of a process of policy, particularly in areas that are emotive and that carry great weights of public opinion in one way or the other. The question is not whether judicial review will be attempted but whether it will be successful. Last week Defra won a court case—as we do many times—against an attempt to take things to judicial review because the judge said it was not permissible to take the matter any further. That is why we have strictly limited the duties on Ministers that lie behind the Bill to only two areas. So I am not saying at all that there will not be attempts to judicially review, but I hope I can convince my noble friend that those attempts will not be successful because we have been so careful to limit the scope of the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Would the attempt at judicial review not be more likely to be successful if there had been a report from the animal sentience committee saying that there was something illegal about ritual slaughter?
Lord Benyon (Con)
With respect to my noble friend, no. As long as the Minister has set out that, “We have received this report and here is our response; we hear what you say but there are wider cultural and religious factors that I have to consider in taking my decision”, that will be absolutely within the terms of this legislation and will not be able to be successfully judicially reviewed.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken so eloquently, including those who have supported my amendments.
The Government really are in a mess on this subject. They cannot defend the reason for the committee. They do not know who is actually running these decisions—whether it is Ministers or the Government. Most people, once torpedoed beneath the bows by the very eloquent and eminent noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would have given up and said yes, especially when followed by my noble friend Lord Howard, who underlined the terrible mess that the Government are in. The very fact that Defra has defended itself from legal disputes shows us the onslaught that is going to happen. If that were not enough, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a brilliant intervention showing that committees are already in place to help them.
We on our Benches want to help the Government, not to hinder them—we want to make this better for them. But I fear they have lit a long fuse that is going to explode in our faces in five to 10 years’ time, and there will be nothing that we can do about it. It will traipse through the courts, there will be no defence to it and all the warnings that we have given will have been to no avail.
I am a loyal member of our party, so I am not going to invite the opinion of the House, but I sense that there is a strength of opinion in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, so I would certainly not want to interfere on any decision that she might make on her amendments—but I hereby withdraw my amendment.
Lord Robathan
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I have been asked to introduce this amendment. I think he is either on his sick bed or on a horse; I am not quite sure which.
Before I start, I will pay tribute to the Minister. He is making a pretty good fist of what is almost indefensible. I congratulate him but gently remind him that, although this may not be the result of social media, if memory serves me right he told us in Committee that, while still a Member of the House of Commons, he had had something like 200 messages—probably mostly from Liberal Democrat opponents—saying that the Government had to introduce an animal sentience Bill. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he told me that.
Amendment 3 and other amendments wish to introduce some clarity regarding the Government’s intentions about appointments to the committee and the committee’s own role in those appointments. For instance, should the Secretary of State appoint people; if so, what qualifications should they have and for how long should they be appointed; and, to quote from subsection (3), what “terms” will determine the appointments? I know my noble friend Lady McIntosh, a fellow “extremist right-winger”, will speak on later amendments on this subject.
One of the concerns expressed repeatedly as the Bill has made progress is the lack of clarity about the role of the committee, how members will be appointed and how the committee will operate. In response, the Minister agreed to publish the draft terms of reference, which has now been done, but the draft terms provide little additional clarity, and there is little if anything binding current or future Ministers. Indeed, the shortcomings of the terms of reference seem to confirm the concerns expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages. The terms indicate the establishment of this animal welfare centre of expertise, bringing together the various animal welfare advisory committees already in existence, as well as the new committee. This seems to be a recognition of the potential overlap and conflict between the various committees yet, unlike other committees, the sentience committee will enjoy statutory status and a reporting function to Parliament.
Perhaps most concerning is the ongoing lack of clarity as to whether the committee will be looking at and advising on the process of making and implementing policy, or indeed of policy itself. 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, its objectives and responsibilities should be found in the establishing Act of Parliament, which we are discussing now. It should not be for the committee to ratify its “objectives and responsibilities”. These amendments, together with proposed new Schedule 1, seek to give some clarity and certainty where this is currently lacking.
I do not wish to repeat things that have already been said or detain the House unnecessarily, but I believe that the terms of reference leave unresolved a great many issues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group.
I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means.
As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”
This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case.
I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category.
In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes “an act” for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case?
In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be
“for a period of three years”.
I argue in Amendment 6:
“The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses”.
Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill.
Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening.
The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill.
I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says:
“Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review.”
I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable.
I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments seeking to specify the membership of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have set out the rationale for their amendments and there are some contradictions. Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether, whereas Amendment 8 would leave the power to appoint with the Secretary of State. Amendment 6 would ensure that certain levels of expertise were included in the committee’s membership.
I agree that certain skills and level of expertise are important, and can see immediately from the list that a single person can have more than one skill level and fulfil more than one function. For instance, the law currently requires that a veterinary surgeon must be present in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, he or she will have knowledge of the way a slaughterhouse operates.
However, whether such people will have time to sit on the animal sentience committee remains to be seen. A veterinary surgeon who no longer works in a slaughterhouse might do, depending on their current workload, but setting the membership in legislation could be something of a millstone around the neck of the chair or the Secretary of State, whoever is recruiting the membership.
The list of what the animal sentience committee can and cannot do under the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is extensive and somewhat cumbersome. I believe it could be streamlined. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these issues.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, this block of amendments goes to the heart of what is wrong with the proposal. We all have an idea of who “the expert” is and what kind of person will give us the answers we want, whether that is a vet, someone banned from being a member of an animal rights movement, or whatever. The idea that there is some disinterested, impartial, patriotic expert who can somehow rise above the rest of us and be the only objective person is one of the most pernicious ideas in modern politics. We all have our opinions and starting assumptions, the “expert” more than anybody, if by “expert” we mean someone has spent his or her career in one field. They are the last person to whom we should contract out our decisions as a parliamentary assembly.
I totally understand that the Minister will want some flexibility, but a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising proposes a sunset clause. Maybe we could see whether the committee works out with the experts as proposed in the way the Minister assures us. If it does there will be no problem, and, if not, we will have another go at it. Perhaps that would be the wise amendment for the Government to accept.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all refer to the make-up of the membership of the committee and how it is appointed. Noble Lords who were with us in Committee may remember that when we debated membership of the committee, a number of us, including me, put forward amendments about its make-up and who should be on it. By the end of that debate, I felt that it had become absurd to prescribe exactly what kind of expert we should have and what area they should come from, because by the time we had finished it looked like the animal sentience committee would have a membership of around 170. We have to be practical and make sure we get the right kind of people on the committee without being specific in the Bill about exactly what job or experience they should have, because where do you end? At what point do you draw the line?
So it is important that within the terms of reference we have a clear understanding of what the committee’s role is; that is, to underpin and enhance a fundamental constitutional principle—namely, ministerial accountability. It is also important that the terms of reference make it clear that the committee is expected to operate and promote a culture of openness. It is therefore important that we have the right and proper people on it.
I am sure the Minister will point it out when he speaks, but the terms of reference clearly state that appointees will be experts—I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is of the same opinion as Michael Gove that, we “have had enough of experts”, but there we are. Appointees will be experts with the appropriate experience relating to policy decision-making and the welfare of animals and the Secretary of State may seek to promote a diversity of expertise—which is important, as we need a proper diversity of expertise—so that the committee can offer high-quality advice on policy decision-making and its animal welfare implications.
From my perspective, and that of these Benches, the concerns that we raised in Committee about what the committee should look like and who should be appointed as a member have been answered by the terms of reference, and we are happy with what we see in that document.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny of the Bill, and the envisaged structure and operation of the animal sentience committee. I will address the points raised in turn.
I start with Amendments 3 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Robathan, concerning the membership of the committee. These amendments would limit the power of the Defra Secretary of State in appointing members to the committee. We believe that the Defra Secretary of State is very well placed to be responsible for those appointments.
Defra has a long track record of recruiting expert advisers to give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and this is important. The aim of the code is to ensure the best applicants are appointed. Anybody suitably qualified and wishing to apply would need to be assessed alongside other candidates according to a rigorous selection procedure. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. Your Lordships can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members to the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed for the committee to perform its role.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her Amendment 4, concerning term limits for members of the committee. Before I get into the meat of her point, I will say that our commitment to supporting farmers is total. I ask her to read, if she has not already, a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State on Thursday; it sets out our commitment to support farming and farmers, particularly in the upland areas that I know I know are dear to her.
I agree with my noble friend that the committee should benefit from fresh thinking and new perspectives, but this should be balanced against the risk of unnecessary churn and loss of talent. Setting inflexible term limits could prove disruptive to the committee’s work. It would be regrettable if a member’s term ended mid-report, for example.
Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances; for example, the ongoing pandemic. This was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who may not have been referring to the pandemic, but her point was right. The pandemic disrupted recruitment to several organisations, and I would not want to take away the ability of the Secretary of State to apply short extensions to members’ terms if necessary.
We have sought to strike a sensible balance in the approach outlined in the draft terms of reference—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her points about that. Members would, in general, be appointed for terms of four years, renewable once. This is the standard approach for public appointments of this nature. These are the same terms on which we appoint members of other animal welfare expert bodies such as the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee. It is tried and tested.
Of course, there will be safeguards. As set out in the terms of reference, the Secretary of State reserves the right to terminate appointments if he or she considers that a committee member’s performance, attendance or conduct has been unsatisfactory, or if there is a conflict of interest which threatens the integrity of the committee. I hope my noble friend will agree that our proposed approach strikes the right balance.
I turn to Amendment 6, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, concerning the membership of the committee. I agree with my noble friend that vets and livestock farmers have a lot to contribute when considering animal welfare. We recognise the importance of having experts with hands-on experience of working with animals on the committee. Anyone who is an expert in the fields of animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law and public administration who wished to apply would be assessed alongside other candidates via a rigorous selection procedure based on fair and open competition. We want to ensure that the committee benefits from a diversity of expertise, and we hope to encourage applications from a wide range of specialists.
That is one reason why we have sought to avoid being too prescriptive about the make-up of the committee, be that in the Bill or in the draft terms of reference. Also, the expertise required by the committee may change from time to time as the scientific understanding of the welfare needs of animals continues to evolve. It is important that the Bill leaves scope to adjust the committee’s membership as required. It is also important to avoid creating requirements in the Bill that are so specific that they lead to appropriate candidates being unable to fulfil the criteria. For these reasons, I would prefer an approach that encourages the recruitment of a diverse range of experts to the committee, rather than setting out too-rigid specifications in statute.
I turn to another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, Amendment 8, concerning the governance and operation of the committee. When we last discussed this amendment, my noble friend stressed that it is
“intended to be entirely helpful”,—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 298.]
and I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that she has offered. The draft terms of reference reflect many of the points raised in the amendment. As I have said, they make provision for the Secretary of State to remove underperforming members, and they also propose term lengths and performance management procedures.
My noble friend has said that her amendment is based on the text used in the Trade Act to describe the Trade Remedies Authority. I would argue that the committee’s role and remit is very different from the authority’s, and so provisions appropriate to the latter are not necessarily suitable for this committee. For example, there is no need to create executive and non-executive classes of membership for the committee. It will be the members themselves who prepare reports, with assistance from the committee’s secretariat. There is little need to codify any delegation of functions. In the committee’s case, it is the Secretary of State who should ultimately be responsible for its good governance and effective recruitment. The draft terms of reference make this responsibility clear. I would be reluctant to dilute this accountability by delegating such responsibilities as the amendment proposes.
We have proposed an approach that makes Ministers accountable for ensuring the committee is run well, while avoiding excessive red tape. We want a timely, targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism. This requires the committee to have sufficient confidence and independence to offer meaningful scrutiny, but without conferring legal powers and responsibilities on it which are not appropriate for a body of this size and remit.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I understand that my noble friend and other Peers have queries regarding the need for such a committee and suggest its functions could be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier. The two committees have different roles. The animal sentience committee needs to be established in statute to provide for effective parliamentary accountability. The Animal Welfare Committee operates very effectively as a non-statutory body that provides expert advice on specific issues set out in remits issued by the Government. While both committees hold expertise in a similar area, their roles are distinct. For the legislation to require Ministers to publish a written response to a report by the committee, and to lay the response before Parliament, the committee must be referred to in the Bill. It is on this basis that the committee has a legal persona, and this role could not be undertaken by a completely non-statutory body such as the Animal Welfare Committee.
The animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee will be affiliates sitting within the animal welfare centre of excellence. We expect that, within the centre, the committee will have a particularly close working relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee. The two committees may refer issues to each other as required. However, the function to issue reports on how well central government policy decisions have taken the needs of sentient animals into account can be undertaken only by the animal sentience committee, in accordance with the parameters set out in the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel content not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he has not explained why he argued so vigorously in Committee that, if the details that are now in the terms of reference appeared in the Bill, they might be subject to judicial review. His view must be that, because they are in the terms of reference, they are not subject to judicial review. In my view, they constitute an administrative act, so how is he going to get round this and avoid judicial reviews?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If, as my noble friend suggests, we put details in the Bill that incorporated the types of people who had to be on the committee, and then if, for example, someone were off sick or had not been appointed or for whatever reason was not available at the point at which the committee wrote a report, that would leave the Government open to a successful judicial review. These are matters that we think sit absolutely in accordance with other committees that are set up across government, where the terms of reference are amendable without having to go back to legislation. This is a fast-moving area of policy and, in future, we may feel, after thinking about it for a while, that the terms of reference need to be amended. This allows, in an entirely normal way, the Secretary of State to make those amendments in consultation with others. I do not think that it would be wise to put it in the Bill because that would increase the risk of judicial review.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I have two questions for my noble friend before he sits down. Does he accept that the Animal Welfare Committee could have been put on a statutory basis and its remit expanded to take in animal sentience? Secondly, if there were a change in Government after the next election, could a Labour Secretary of State put totally new people on the sentience committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Let us deal with the second question first, then I will see if I can remember the first. A future Government can bring in legislation, if they have a big enough majority to get it through, to do anything they like within the law. We are a sovereign nation and they could take those decisions—indeed, they could populate arm’s-length bodies and expert committees with who they like.
On the first question, no we could not, because the Animal Welfare Committee has a different remit. For starters, it is a UK-wide committee and it is not a creature of statute; it gives expert advice as and when required. We wanted to have a body that is a creature of statute, so that there is parliamentary accountability in the process of policy-making.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, for one glorious moment I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was going to support the amendment that I moved—she disappointed me, but then what do you expect?
I do not wish to detain my noble friend the Minister any longer. I will let him off the agony and let him go and have some dinner. Notwithstanding the fact that I remain convinced that there is very little clarity either in the Bill or the terms of reference, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 6th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
21:38 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 25 / Noes: 74 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Baroness Mallalieu
“(4) No person may be appointed a member of the Committee unless they have confirmed that they—(a) are not affiliated to an organisation promoting animal rights;(b) are not a member of an organisation promoting animal rights;(c) are not currently employed and have never been employed by or been a consultant of an organisation promoting animal rights;(d) are not in receipt of, nor have ever been in receipt of, payments or funding, whether directly or indirectly, from an organisation promoting animal rights.”
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
I am the lucky recipient of yet another of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He did not indicate to me why he had decoupled it from the previous group. I think the Minister has, in effect, already replied by saying that he is not prepared to put in the Bill who should be on the committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, effectively sets out who should not be, and I assume that the same answer will come to me.
However, I would like to say, literally in a sentence, that one of the reasons for widespread disquiet about the Bill is concern about who may or may not find places on the committee. I come from an area where the animal rights movement has been particularly virulent, especially during the badger cull, with people with balaclavas damaging farm property, threatening people, letting livestock out and so on, and, more recently, damaging all the tents at the local country fair by painting Animal Liberation Front logos on everything. As a result of that, a lot of us are concerned that some well-known public figures who purport to be friends of animals and campaign on their behalf do not condemn this terrorism. We are concerned that, whoever comes on to this committee, they should be, as the Government have indicated is their intention, people with proper scientific experience and knowledge who can contribute—not from a neutral point of view, because that is impossible, but whose judgement can be relied on—rather than people who are merely from pressure groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Very briefly, I think the concerns on this amendment were answered in the response to the previous group. As it is not necessary to have in the Bill who should be on the committee, it is not necessary to have in it who should not be on the committee.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. We have already debated this, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns regarding conflicts of interest and what they may mean for the committee.
We want the committee to succeed, and I am confident that the Bill and the draft terms of reference will ensure that that is the case. As has been said today, the Secretary of State for Defra will be responsible for appointments to the committee and appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. The draft terms of reference set out that the Secretary of State may decline to consider an application from an individual whose conduct suggests that their membership could damage the reputation or credibility of the committee—for example, their membership of an extremist organisation. My noble friend’s amendment is simply not necessary. Defra has shown that this tried-and-tested approach works. There are a number of existing Defra-owned expert bodies which give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Few would ever accuse the Animal Welfare Committee, for example, of being made up of zealous activists.
I say again that noble Lords can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members of the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed in order for the committee to perform its role. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that, together with the reassurance given by my noble friend the Minister on the previous group, it will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could she reassure the House that, for instance, Chris Packham and Mark Avery of Wild Justice would not be eligible to be on the committee?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid I am not able to give that reassurance. All I can say is that they might not be considered to be experts.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I just hope that the reassurance she has given us will be followed by future Secretaries of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Ridley
“Animal Sentience Committee
(1) A Committee within the Cabinet Office, called the Animal Sentience Committee, will be established and maintained.(2) The function of the Committee will be to determine whether in the process of formulating and implementing policy it is satisfied that Ministers of State and the departments of state are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to reduce conflict over membership by creating an internal committee of the Cabinet Office.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 9, 11, 33 and 37 in this group, which are in my name. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have torn up three-quarters of my speech to speed things up. I declare my interest as a fortunate owner of farmland, woodland, moorland and river. I affect the welfare of sentient animals, both positively and negatively, from time to time.
Together, these amendments would cut some of the Gordian knots that we have wrestled with today, and would deliver an animal sentience committee that reported to Parliament but was independent of Defra. The role of the committee as proposed in this amendment must be understood together with the animal welfare strategy that it would be required to produce under Amendment 11. The committee would then be required to report to Parliament on the compliance of Ministers with this process, as in Amendment 33, to which Ministers must respond, as in Amendment 37.
If the sentience committee is to ensure that animal welfare is properly considered, and to act as an accountability mechanism to Parliament, to create it as a creature of Defra raises a number of problems. It may not be welcomed by other departments, which, as the draft terms of reference confirm, are under no obligation to co-operate with it. A committee within the Cabinet Office would have a clear, overarching remit, set a cross-departmental standard and be independent of other departments, whose Ministers would still be required to respond to the committee’s reports to Parliament. The other advantage of a statutory committee within the Cabinet Office is that it avoids the problems identified at earlier stages of the Bill around who should or should not sit on the committee, which we have just discussed.
A committee within the Cabinet Office that is not a Defra committee would be better placed, I would argue, to drive change across government, avoid inter-departmental resentments—as I said earlier—and ensure that all due regard to animal welfare was properly and consistently applied. Then, as with the current proposal, it would be for parliamentarians to hold Ministers to account.
Amendment 11 would ensure that there was a clear strategy setting out how, in the process of developing, deciding and implementing policies, the animal welfare implications of those policies must be considered.
Amendment 33 largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the animal welfare strategy, while still allowing the sentience committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the strategy before a policy decision has been made. This would seem a much more impactful approach to driving change across government than the current proposals.
Amendment 37 ensures that Ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the animal welfare strategy identified by the sentience committee. It would also mean, for example, that if the matter was a policy relating to the Department of Health, it would be for the Health Secretary to respond. The Bill is not, at the moment, clear on this, although the draft terms of reference make it clear that that is what is intended. That intention should be made clear in the Bill.
I hope it is clear that these amendments are intended to be helpful and are in the spirit of trying to turn a bad Bill into a less bad Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there is a large number of amendments in this group, so in the interests of time and the number of groups yet to be debated I shall focus on Amendment 38 in my name, which would insert a new clause after Clause 3 requiring the ASC to submit an annual report on its work to both Houses of Parliament. I shall also speak to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.
The animal sentience committee is being set up as a non-departmental public body with an advisory function. The latest available figures suggest that 63% of such bodies present an annual report to Parliament. It is clearly in the interests of accountability and transparency for MPs and Peers to be able to regularly scrutinise the committee’s work. A yearly report would also allow parliamentarians to gain a wider view of animal sentience issues over the preceding 12 months and of any emerging policy trends that impact on it. Requiring an annual report through this new clause would ensure that this essential transparency and accountability measure is sustained throughout the lifetime of the committee. I urge the Minister to consider including it in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank your Lordships for amendments, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the points made.
I start with Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, which would establish the animal sentience committee as a committee within the Cabinet Office. I would argue that Defra is well placed to host the animal sentience committee—which I will refer henceforth to as “the committee”. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated as a constituent of Defra’s animal welfare centre of expertise, alongside other expert animal welfare committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. This provides for these committees to draw upon one another’s expertise much more easily than if they were hosted separately.
In his explanatory statement, my noble friend suggested that, if the committee were under the Cabinet Office, it would be easier to reach agreement on membership. It is not clear how changing the host department would achieve this. We believe that our approach to recruiting experts means that the committee will have the right experts. The same considerations would apply regardless of which department was responsible for supporting the committee.
Importantly, Amendment 9 would mean that the committee would be non-statutory, with no independent existence from government. This would undermine its purpose—one of proportionate scrutiny and accountability. A statutory committee allows experts the appropriate independence to achieve its function.
Amendments 11, 33 and 37, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an animal welfare strategy and for the committee and the Government to undertake actions associated with this. In this Bill, we have given the committee the power to produce reports about individual policies containing its views on to what extent the UK Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which those policies might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. We believe that it is important for the committee itself to decide which policies to report on, within the remit of the terms of reference. We would expect it to form an overview of all policy decisions with a significant effect on the welfare of animals. This need not cover every single policy decision but could cover those which are of a higher priority to animal welfare.
To ask this committee to produce reports relating to every department annually would be a significant burden and would mean less scrutiny on those policies that really matter. We want the committee to be targeted, timely and proportionate in how it operates. It is better to focus on policy decisions which have the most impact. The co-operation of departments is necessary for the committee to be able to work effectively, and Defra is already working to secure this. I believe a collaborative approach is the most appropriate one.
The committee’s role is not to set out a strategy for animal welfare nor to devise plans for future policy. These are clearly a matter for the Government. In May this year, the Government launched Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare. This sets out the Government’s current and future reform programme on animal welfare, covering both kept animals and wild animals under a series of strategic themes. I do not see the need for the committee to publish its own animal welfare strategy.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, feels that we have already covered Amendment 13 and the remit of the animal sentience committee in group 2. But I am happy for him to raise issues in a moment if he feels we have not.
I turn to Amendments 17, 22 and 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, concerning the reports of the animal sentience committee. The committee will be made up of eight to 12 members, and we anticipate it will take forward six to eight reports a year. However, Amendment 17 would require it to issue a report on all policy decisions. This is neither feasible nor desirable. We want proportionate and targeted scrutiny and accountability, and in so doing, the committee is to consider which policy decisions it deems most important. It should not be beholden to consider every policy decision regardless of its importance to animal welfare.
The question in Clause 2(2) is designed to allow the committee to express its views in an informative way to provide a proper understanding of the decision-making process followed. We believe that the committee’s recommendations are likely to be nuanced. The purpose of these reforms is not to impose a simple “pass or fail” test, which Amendments 22 and 34 suggests it should. That is not necessary, and it is likely to be unhelpful, and indeed unworkable, in many cases.
There may well be cases where the committee’s report into a policy decision does not identify major concerns but makes recommendations that would further improve future decision-making. The proposed amendments would not cater for this situation. While I understand, in principle, the rationale for limiting the requirement for Ministers to reply only to reports which identify major concerns, this would generate missed opportunities to consider valuable recommendations for improvements.
I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which query the use of the phrase “all due regard” when describing what the committee is to consider in its scrutiny of policy formulation and implementation. The technical meaning of the phrase “all due regard” in this instance is not considered to be materially different to that of the phrase “due regard”; “all due regard” emphasises that the committee should assess the extent to which all relevant factors affecting animal welfare are being considered.
I turn now to Amendments 21 and 26, again from my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to clarify that the committee can consider positive impacts on the welfare of some animals of a policy alongside the negative effects of that policy on the welfare of other animals. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Meeting the welfare needs of animals includes avoiding negative impacts as well as providing for positive experiences. Depriving an animal of its ability to have positive experiences, like exhibiting natural behaviours, counts as an adverse effect. I can assure your Lordships that the reference to “an adverse effect” in the Bill allows the committee to consider whether the positive experiences of an animal have been restricted.
We consider that the committee is already able to express its views on the ways in which a policy decision may not be able to maximise the welfare needs of animals, and that it may set out missed opportunities to make positive improvements to animal welfare. This is outlined in the draft terms of reference. Furthermore, I assure my noble friend that the Bill does not change existing law on pest control or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses.
I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, concerning the Bill’s scope with respect to the devolved Administrations. The committee will select policy decisions made by the UK Government on which it can issue reports. This will cover all matters that do not fall within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. As animal welfare policy is a devolved issue, it is a matter for the devolved Administrations as to how they wish to recognise and consider animal sentience when formulating and implementing devolved policies. It would be inappropriate for their Ministers to be held to account to the UK Parliament on matters that fall within their legislative competence.
Scotland has already used secondary legislation to establish an advisory body, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which advises its Government on those policy areas for which they are responsible. The commission has been asked to consider how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by policies of the Scottish Government. The Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are free to introduce their own legislation, should they wish. In addition, the Welsh Government have powers to set up a committee through secondary legislation if they wish to.
Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an annual report. We wish to ensure that the committee is as effective as possible in undertaking its role. Reports issued by the committee will be made available on its public website. Ministers will be required to prepare a written response to these reports for Parliament, which will create opportunity to hold Ministers to account. This process will provide a great deal of transparency about the committee’s work and the policies it has chosen to consider. Further transparency will be provided through the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.
We will conduct regular performance reviews of the committee to ensure that it is fulfilling its purpose. However, we would not want to commit to an onerous annual reporting process for the committee in statute. This could take resources away from the committee’s primary scrutiny role. Ministers are required to lay timely written responses to every committee report before Parliament. This means that Parliament will be well aware of what the committee has been working on.
Finally, government Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that clarifies the time limit in which Ministers must respond to reports published by the committee. The Bill requires Ministers to lay a written response to a report before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. This amendment excludes from that time limit certain periods in which Parliament is not sitting. We wish to make it clear that, in these limited circumstances, a Minister may submit a written response at a more appropriate time. We are committed to Ministers providing timely responses. That is why we want the time limit established by the Bill to be clear. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this issue. While we did not have the opportunity to discuss this amendment in Committee, we have considered his contribution and improved the wording of the Bill.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I am obviously a little disappointed that my brilliant suggestion about the Cabinet Office committee has not fallen on more fertile ground. To use an analogy, you would keep a sheep dog in a kennel rather than with the sheep, but I will not pursue that one. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the academic robustness of the Committee’s work.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 23 and 35 give the House the opportunity to discuss the robustness of the science on which the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is allegedly resting. I detect a lack of enthusiasm for the wide-ranging debate on this topic that might have otherwise ensued at a more timely part of the day, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as can.
I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.
We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.
No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.
Pain is more than a simple neurological reaction. Pain, as we understand it, exists in anticipation. One worries about it coming in one’s direction. It exists in reflection; one thinks about it in the past. One has coping strategies for dealing with it, and so on. Most importantly, it exists as a time of abnormality. Pain is abnormal; we want the pain to go away, so that we can go back to normal. How can a creature with no memory have any conception of what normality is, let alone what abnormality is? How can it understand pain, beyond that neurological reaction, in any sense that we understand it? Yet there are scientists, or people who hold themselves forth as scientists, who say that scientifically that link can be made when it is actually almost incomprehensible for most of us. Who are the scientists in whom the Government are placing such faith for the scientific basis of animal sentience that they claim to exist? Where do they gather? Which respectable journals do that publish in? Who is this cadre of leading animal sentience scientists?
Of course, there are animal welfare scientists and veterinarians, and people like that, but this is very specialised, a very narrow and a relatively new field—only over the last 20 years. It has no leading lights at the moment; it is, I would suggest to your Lordships’ House, predominantly ideologically driven, and it is based in large measure on funding being supplied by what might be thought of as groups and foundations with a prior view.
So my question really to my noble friend, even as he trembles on the brink of his success—he is very close to getting his way and seeing this Bill through with practically no amendments—and before he commits the nation to this Bill and this version of animal sentience, is whether he should not think twice about the claims that he makes and the confidence that he rests in what is a very ropey branch of science. Should that not lead him to pull back and consider this amendment, which requires peer review of scientific reports from the committee? In fact, it requires peer review of all reports, and I realise now that that is a bit silly, because some of them will just be procedural—but we can work on the wording. On the scientific reports of the committee, could not he and I work together to get an appropriate amendment at Third Reading that would try to make sure that we rest at last on robust science and not on something ropey and partisan? If it is ropey and partisan, we will come deeply to regret it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I shall just comment very briefly on what my noble friend has just said. I disagreed with him on one point, when he said that there were no leading lights in the science of sentience. I draw his attention to a wonderful book published by Oxford University Press just a few months ago by the great Cambridge psychologist Nick Humphrey. Nick says, after 60,000 words of argument, as he put it to me in an email:
“My conclusions are quite radical—and at odds with both academic and popular wisdom. I argue that the only animals that have evolved to be sentient are mammals and birds, and not all of these. We really don’t need to worry about lobsters or octopuses.”
He did not add, “or crocodiles”.
So I think that there is developing science on this, and my noble friend is quite right that it needs to be peer-reviewed and investigated. I think that we will find the goalposts move on what is sentient, and that it is not a given that everything with a backbone is sentient or, indeed, that some of the decapods and others are as sentient as we have heard in recent years.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my various interests in the Countryside Alliance, including chairing the organisation. I apologise for being unable to take part in this Report stage earlier, but I was isolating and was only just released less than two hours ago. However, I was watching the proceedings very carefully, and it seemed to me that there was an emerging pattern—a serial rejection of all the amendments proposed by my noble friends and others, whether on issues of retrospectivity, on the composition of the committee, or on the matter of the risk that this committee is going to present of more judicial review. I could only admire my noble friend’s élan in batting away each of these suggestions, which came from former Ministers, from a former Leader of the House and from a former leader of the party—and from a brace at least of Queen’s Counsel, as well as suggestions and advice from a former Master of the Rolls. They were all swatted away elegantly by my noble friend.
I simply wish to say that my noble friends are sentient beings, too, and I believe that we are being treated cruelly. There is a case for reference to an independent committee to make advice as to whether all these suggestions should have been taken more seriously. Perhaps, if Ministers dismiss the advice of the animal sentience committee with the same alacrity, we will have little to fear from its future proceedings.
However, the truth is that there is less of a risk to specific aspects of farming or other activities that we can identify now than, I judge, of gluing up government with a constant process of analysis and rejection, followed by review, of proposals made by the committee. Indeed, there is to be not just one committee but two and, as we heard earlier, they will refer matters to each other, in a description that reminded me very much of a passage from “Yes Minister”. Ministers sometimes, when they occupy two briefs, as I once did, are encouraged to write letters to themselves in their dual positions. Now we have two animal committees that will be encouraged to refer matters to each other. This is an overcorrection because of a promise made earlier.
The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Moylan that, at the very least, we should ensure that the advice that the committee gives is grounded in the soundest possible science and is peer reviewed seems eminently sensible. I also join his modest suggestion that this might be the exception and the one proposal that the Minister might entertain.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. Why do we have delegated committees? Why do parliamentary bodies contract out part of their function? The only answer, it seems to me, is that you need very specific accumulated scientific expertise—in the field of economics, or whatever—that you would not reasonably have from a legislative Chamber.
When I made the point on an earlier amendment that there is no such thing as a disinterested expert—we all have our prejudices and opinions and scientists are still human beings—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that I was Luddite or, worse, “Goveian” in my attack on all experts. But this is surely having it both ways. We cannot say, “We must have this outside committee but there is absolutely no reason for them to base their recommendations on reputable science”. If we are not prepared to require the experts to rule on the basis of where the expertise is, on what possible basis are we creating this committee at all?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I bring your Lordships back to the amendments, which are on peer review and publication, but I say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who entertained us wonderfully with his stories of crocodiles. Why does he think that the Government—his Government—would use “ropey advice”, as he put it, to make decisions? I find that a quite extraordinary claim, particularly given the recent report on cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, which is the basis of a debate we shall be coming to shortly, which was done by the London School of Economics. I certainly would not classify the LSE as “ropey”. So why does he think that there is evidence of “ropey” scientific evidence being used by the Government in this Bill?
There is a certain amount in this that is very similar to Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on publication. As I said on his amendment, it concerns me that, once we start asking for everything to be published, particularly in an academic journal following peer review, we are adding a lot of time and delay to the committee’s work. Policy scrutiny reports differ in purpose, content and form from academic journal articles. The scientific evidence requirement for publication could limit the committee’s work to areas where a body of research already exists. Such research will not be in place for every policy that would impact the welfare of animals as sentient beings. In fact, I see part of the committee’s value as its ability to examine questions that have not been considered before.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I do not want to detain the House, but I was very entertained by my noble friend Lord Moylan’s trips down the gradations of sentience that might exist across the animal kingdom. I was trying to work out whether he was a follower of Aristotle—who believed that animals lacked rational souls and therefore were outside the sphere of justice—or whether he was Descartian or Rousseauan in his view. I do not want to go into a philosophical—
Lord Moylan (Con)
It may help my noble friend—seeing as he was so kind as to ask the question, I am sure he will be interested in the answer—to know that I stand on every occasion with Aristotle on this, as on so many other matters. I just want that to be clear.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is good to know. I am very grateful. However, I differ from him entirely if he thinks—which I do not think he really does—that the Government, of whom I am proud to be part, would engage with any form of ropey bunch of scientists. In fact we will come on to talk about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the degree of scientific breadth that went into the 300 different pieces of work studied by the London School of Economics in its reports on decapods and cephalopods. It is an indication of the expertise that exists out there.
I think my noble friend Lord Hannan has the advantage on me in that he believes that legislators do not need experts. I may have misunderstood him, but as I gaze around this Chamber I see precious few scientists, with one notable exception. There may be more—of course, there is the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Benyon (Con)
No, I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Both Houses lack the kind of expert rigour that we need in decision-making. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 23 and 35 concerning the academic rigour of the committee. We will ensure that the animal sentience committee is comprised of members with the right expertise. They will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be and, in doing so, they can consult others. I reassure my noble friend that the annual work plan of the committee will be made publicly available. This will ensure that its priorities and approach are fully transparent. As the draft terms of reference for the committee show, we fully intend to appoint members through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition.
Of course, peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals has a role in informing the committee’s work. However, I do not believe it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. It is critical that the committee should be able to advise in a timely way—this is the key point—on policies that are being developed. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo the full academic peer-review process would cause considerable delays in enabling Parliament to hold government to account. This amendment would severely compromise its role. I hope with those few words I have reassured my noble friend, and he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, although he says he does not want the committee’s work to be peer-reviewed, does he still abide by what he said in Hansard on 25 May when he was talking about pollinators? He said:
“It is right to use science as the absolute arbiter in this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 891.]
Is science going to be the absolute arbiter for this committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend that science and good scientific evidence is at the heart of decision-making and that is why we need the right advice for Ministers—so, yes. However, his experience and mine will have been that one can get conflicting scientific advice, so one needs to choose scientific experts with care and make sure that they give clear, unbiased opinions to Ministers and that their information can make better policy. Therefore, scientific evidence will be at the heart of this and we will follow it in the selection of committee members.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, does he think that Mrs Carrie Johnson has the expertise and rigour to be on the animal sentience committee?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will make sure that every single person who applies for the committee has the necessary expertise, whatever background they come from. We will be looking for a range of people, from those with agricultural experience, those with experience of animals at the end of life in the slaughter process, and veterinarians. I made a list earlier; I will not repeat it because there were some long words which I cannot remember, but they will undoubtedly be a factor in deciding who will be members of the committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a great disappointment that my noble friend has not conceded the very sensible proposal I made. It was unsurprising, however. What did surprise me were the remarks from the Opposition Dispatch Box. A more thorough-going endorsement of government policy better presented it is rare to imagine coming across. The idea that the Government never take scientific advice that needs to be checked or disputed and that they would never take dodgy scientific advice, now endorsed by the Labour Front Bench, is one I will cherish and store up for reference, no doubt, on some future occasion. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Deech
“(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.”Member’s explanatory statement
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.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not appreciated the centrality of this amendment—the decent working of the whole Bill. I beg to move.
“(4A) Recommendations under subsection (3) must not be detrimental to—(a) nature conservation,(b) biosecurity,(c) crop protection, and(d) human health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the Committee take into account the consequences of their recommendations for nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health and thus to help HMG meet its ambitions of the Environment Act 2021 and Agriculture Act 2020.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 28 standing in my name. This is a similar amendment to the one I moved in Committee and it asks that any recommendation from the animal sentience committee is not detrimental to nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench will know very well, our major concern is the unintended consequences of his project and what these could lead to. My concern is that there is huge potential for causing damage to nature conservation. We have just completed discussions on the Environment Bill, and much of what that seeks to achieve could be undermined by some of the decisions of the committee that are then translated into action by Ministers. It is the same for biosecurity, crop protection and human health. I refer to pests, in particular.
The reason that the committee could put undue influence on the Government is that Defra’s largest postbag in the last 15 to 20 years has been on animal welfare, and the Government regularly receive petitions on animal health and welfare issues. We even heard today that Her Majesty has received a petition signed by school children. It is also well known that public consultations consistently receive high response rates—for example, those on bovine TB and badger culling. It is for that reason—this intense emotional pressure—that I asked my noble friend the question about the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, and whether he would follow its recommendation. He has not yet replied to me. I think he will shortly—at least, I hope he will—in which case he will set a precedent. I have been waiting three weeks for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to reply to some of my questions, and I have been waiting 10 days for the Secretary of State to reply to my questions. So Defra is not very high in my good books for replying to questions.
It is important that the committee should understand the difference between societal ethical values and public opinion; the two are very different. Backing public opinion could lead one to unscientific and wrong recommendations. My noble friend the Minister mentioned scientific evidence. As he rightly says, there will be contradictory scientific evidence; I hope that when the committee gets scientific evidence, all the contradictory scientific evidence will be clearly reported and not ignored.
I turn to the issue of biodiversity. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his place because there are important ways in which those who care for the countryside and look after it have to manage pest control. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about this. He said in Committee on 20 July:
“To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 30.]
My noble friend is right to a point: pest control is regulated—but it is not checked. If he wanted to buy some serious rat poison he would have to produce a licence, as he knows. However, you can buy the same rat poison online without any identification or licence; so, there is legislation, but it is not controlled.
With the committee able to act with the remit that it will have, there is potential for more of this to happen. I ask my noble friend to consider fox snares, which are a widely misunderstood device; a fox snare is to tether the animal, not to strangulate it. The fox snares now being used are of the highest international standard, but the animal sentience committee may choose to engage only with stakeholders and the public rather than consult those who actually know about these things. Will fox snares be an issue that the animal sentience committee can look at? What about Larsen traps? They are permitted under Section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; they do not meet the criteria, but they are allowed under general licence. That is a perfect example of where the animal sentience committee could cause all sorts of problems. It is hugely important that Larsen traps are effective during the breeding season to keep corvid numbers under control.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 45 in my name is in this group. I have listened to crocodiles and in the next group we will get crabs and lobsters, so I will introduce the fish. If the Minister thinks it right to put crabs and lobsters in the Bill, he might consider my amendment.
There is a very significant body of scientific evidence that fish feel pain and are sentient animals. Individuals are capable of experiencing pain and feeling emotions such as fear. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, a fish may be a protected animal if it is under the control of man, but the Explanatory Notes on Section 59 read as follows:
“This section provides that anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing is not covered by this Act … The term ‘fishing’ should be understood as applying to ordinary activities of fishermen and anglers, and also the ordinary activities of those who own and run stocked ponds in allowing fishing activities to take place on their ponds.”
My amendment proposes that precisely the same provision be placed in this Act as was put in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It would give reassurance to a great many people who enjoy fishing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about biosecurity. The implications of not taking care of biosecurity, which is mentioned in his amendment—I do not necessarily agree with all of the amendment—are fundamental; it is an ongoing threat to biodiversity and the ecological strength of this nation. I re-echo that point on biosecurity in terms of this Bill. As we know, at the moment we have few protections for biosecurity in our current arrangements, but, hopefully, that will change in the new year when there are greater controls on imports to this country. I just wanted to re-emphasise that point in the noble Earl’s amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for making that point, which is incredibly important, particularly to me, as someone who lives in Cumbria, where we have so many problems with tree diseases and are losing so many trees. It is pitiful watching some of the woods being taken down around places such as Ennerdale and Loweswater.
Coming back to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, he is right that we do need to look out for any unintended consequences of legislation. There are concerns that there may be an adverse impact on the environment. It is important that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords that there will not be these outcomes from the Bill being enacted. This brings me back to the points we made earlier about how critical it is that the animal sentience committee has the right members who are highly qualified to advise the Secretary of State on these matters when any proposals are put forward.
Looking at Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I say that it is not necessarily unfortunate to be stuck in Scotland at the moment; I might like to be joining him there. There was a debate on the Environment Bill about lead shot, and I will be interested to look at government progress on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced Amendment 31 on electric dog training collars. These are opposed by the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council and the British Veterinary Association. I am aware that the Government have previously announced plans to look at banning shock collars on dogs, and on this side of the House we would support the Government if they wanted to go down that route.
The final amendment, Amendment 45, was introduced by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I thank her for it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to her concerns.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to discuss and explain the interaction of the Bill, and the animal sentience committee, with important policy matters related to animal welfare.
Turning to Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I can only apologise to him that I do not have a response at present to his point on New Zealand. I want to make sure I get it right, because I do not want to be criticised on the Floor of the House for replying to him late or giving him the wrong answer to a question—but I will reply to him.
This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to ensure that its recommendations would not have a detrimental impact on certain other matters of public interest and great importance. I agree with my noble friend that these vital matters of public interest should be properly considered in all relevant government decisions. But the animal sentience committee is not a decision-making body, and the committee will not have the kind of expertise to evaluate these kinds of impacts. I do not think it would be fruitful to impose this requirement on the committee itself.
Ministers should consider the full range of relevant factors and arrive at a decision as to the appropriate balance between them, for which they are accountable to Parliament. I fear that this amendment would mean asking a committee, which is not accountable to Parliament in the same manner, to prejudge this balance.
We should also be careful to task the right experts with particular scrutiny and advisory functions. The right people to comment on a policy’s effect on human health, for example, are doctors and medical scientists, rather than animal welfare experts. I would not ask doctors to provide an expert opinion on animal welfare issues. Ultimately, we must allow specialist expert committees to focus on their own particular remit. For these reasons, I believe there are better means to ensure that the important matters my noble friend raises are given fair consideration in policy decision-making.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for coming in on biodiversity—I am glad he was in his place for this amendment—and to the Minister, who has gone further than he did in Committee.
As we know, the animal sentience committee has to consider whether an animal has been deprived of one or more of its five welfare needs as set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. One of those is the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury or disease. That opens up a huge ambit for the committee. At the moment, we are extremely fortunate in having a Minister in Defra who understands the countryside, how it works and the need for balance. What many of us are concerned about, given the emotion and public opinion that some who are less concerned about that balance are able to generate, is that future Ministers who are not so attuned to the countryside and what happens there—I can think of quite a number in the past who were not—will not be as strong and forthcoming as my noble friend Lord Benyon. That is where we are concerned, and it is why we are trying to alter the Bill in some respects.
I have clearly failed to persuade my noble friend. He has the brief that I so often had, which at the top right-hand corner says “Resist”. His resistance is going to overcome my willingness to change, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Benyon
“(3) The following do not count towards the three months referred to in subsection (2)—(a) any day in a period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, and(b) any day in a period of four or more days during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that periods when Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for 4 or more days do not count towards the period in which the Minister is required to respond to a report by the Committee.
Lord Benyon
“(b) any cephalopod mollusc, and(c) any decapod crustacean.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds cephalopod molluscs (for example, octopus and squid) and decapod crustaceans (for example, crab and lobster) to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance, and for your views and insights on this important piece of legislation. I will also speak to the consequential Amendment 43.
As I have said during previous debates on the Bill, the Government’s approach to recognising the sentience of animals will be guided by the scientific evidence. My department commissioned an independent review from the London School of Economics and Political Science of the evidence surrounding the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans for that very purpose. As promised, I made the findings of that review available to your Lordships for consideration ahead of today’s debate.
Sentience is broadly understood to be the capacity to feel pain. Our Animal Welfare Committee advised in 2018:
“Sentience is the capacity to experience pain, distress and harm.”
The review considered the findings of around 300 scientific studies, using a set of criteria based on brain structure, nervous system complexity and testing for adaptive behaviour to assess whether these classes of invertebrate are sentient. The report itself was subject to peer review.
The Government have given careful consideration to the contents of the final report. We accept that there is strong evidence of the sentience of these invertebrates. It is only right, therefore, that they are included in the provisions of the Bill. That means that the animal sentience committee, once established, may produce reports under Section 2 of the Bill in relation to the welfare of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.
However, I want to be clear that this amendment does not alter existing legislation or policy. I have heard, for example, the concerns put to me by representatives of the fishing sector, and I can assure this House that nothing in this amendment, or indeed in the Bill, changes the rules governing the activities of individuals or businesses.
Naturally, in due course, the Government may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the scope of other animal welfare legislation to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. While that is not the question we are discussing today, I take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that any changes to existing laws would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and we would consider carefully how we would engage industry in their development.
Today, we propose simply to recognise the sentience of these invertebrates in line with the scientific evidence. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for their previous amendments on this subject. I hope that they, and the rest of the House, will support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is with some regret that I note that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box did not thank me for my previous amendment on this subject. I accepted as far back as Committee that it was likely that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans would be added to the list of sentient beings covered by the Bill, although I did not expect it to be done in the Bill but through the secondary legislation which it contemplates.
I introduced an amendment in Committee that said, beyond vertebrates, the Government can only add, to the list of sentient beings, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans and no more. This was countered, so to speak, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who put down an amendment that actually added those two classes of creature to the face of the Bill. Neither amendment, of course, proceeded at Committee stage. I find it rather sad and curious that, of those two amendments, my noble friend at the Dispatch Box selected that promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and has rather ignored mine.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I have been up, and indeed in, many African rivers, but not the Zambezi, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. So, I will try to be as brief as he has been, but I want to make two comments: one about Amendment 39 and one about Amendment 42.
The inclusion of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods within the remit of this Bill is warranted, evidence based and consistent with current legislation with regard to cephalopods, in that they are protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, so I support this amendment. However, currently in the Bill, it appears that larval forms of decapod crustacea would also be included. These can be microscopic; they are the fauna of plankton, and then they grow up into shrimps and prawns and so on. I ask the Minister: at what point does a larval decapod crustacean become sentient? A briefing from the Marine Biological Association and the National Oceanography Centre expresses concerns particularly that, if larval forms of crustacea are included, it might compromise their environmental monitoring and research functions. I ask the Minister if consideration has been given to an amendment along the lines of Amendment 41, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, that excludes embryonic forms.
Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, removes the possibility, currently in the Bill, for the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the list of animals covered in the Bill. This would still be possible but would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny through primary legislation. This would recognise that, as scientific research continues, evidence may accrue from which it might be argued that other invertebrates may have some degree of sentience. Crustacea are but one group within a vast taxon of arthropods that includes many thousands of species including the insects.
In the excellent LSE report that reported on the sentience in decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, there is a matrix of criteria—eight in that report—in which evidence of varying strengths may be aggregated in varying levels of confidence to arrive at an overall judgment whether a particular group may be considered sentient. There is not a clear demarcation between sentient and non-sentient.
The inclusion of further groups of invertebrates as sentient merits very thorough and balanced political, economic and societal—as well as scientific—consideration, and should ultimately be a parliamentary decision in primary legislation.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend may not like it but I will support him—I hope he appreciates that—because he said something very sensible about Larsen traps. On a small Midlands farm I catch between 40 and 82 magpies—that is the most I have ever caught—a year. Visitors congratulate me on the huge clouds of linnets, yellowhammers and whatever that we have on the farm, so I was delighted to hear what he said about Larsen traps.
In relation to government Amendment 39, I have always thought that putting a lobster into boiling water must be cruel. People say, “Oh no, they don’t feel, they’ve got no brain”. I have no idea whether they have a brain or not, but it must be cruel, and the Government are making a very good move in seeking to protect such things. While I support the amendment, however, I am not sure that it should be in the Bill—in primary legislation. I would have thought that it could have done by SI; I am not sure that this is necessarily the right way to go about it. I will, however, on this occasion support the Government without any compromise.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am a bit perplexed by all this. The Government have decided to include lobsters and octopi—I prefer those terms because I understand them—but to exclude fish and, if they do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the minute creatures that they produce. It seems to me that we are on a slippery slope here: the sentience committee could come to the conclusion one day that fish have sentience and feel harm, and then we would ban them. Once you start down this road, there is no limit to where you can go in describing creatures as sentient. That troubles me enormously, and is why I am less than enthusiastic about my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, with this amendment we move on to Clause 5. It rather intrigues me, because it makes an exception of homo sapiens, and I wanted to ask the Minister whether that means that the Government see us as a non-sentient species. Perhaps he will answer that: if the answer is yes, I would probably agree, on track record. However, I will not detain the House. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville would do, I want to thank the Government for this amendment and Amendment 43, which we very much support. I understand and greatly respect what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, but I am also aware that the recent scientific evidence on the mental facilities of species such as the octopus—how it is intelligent in a very different way from that in which mammals are intelligent—should be taken very seriously and included in the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled Amendment 39, which, as we have heard, has picked up the amendment I tabled in Committee and expands the definition of animals in the Bill to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods.
It has also been good to hear support from some noble Lords, although I am sorry that it seems to have made the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so sad. As the Minister said in his introduction, this amendment follows the London School of Economics and Political Science’s report, which concluded that there is strong scientific evidence that decapod crustaceans are sentient and can experience pain. I will not go into the detail of the report because the Minister has done that admirably, but I draw attention to the overarching central recommendation that all cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be regarded as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law; they should be counted as animals for the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and should be included in the scope of any future legislation relating to animal sentience. To be honest, that could not be clearer. The LSE is a well-respected organisation.
The report also provides some helpful recommend-ations for improving best practice and welfare and for regulating existing commercial practices that are of reasonable and widespread animal welfare concern for decapod crustaceans. In addition, it is consistent with the approach other countries have taken, for example, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, some Australian states and territories and some German and Italian cities. Importantly, the report also includes recommendations about how industry can be supported through any necessary changes. Will the Minister confirm that marine industries and the food sector will have advice and help to manage any impact that a change in legislation would bring?
I want to say once again a big thank you to the Minister and the Government for taking this forward and proposing its inclusion in the Bill. I am sure he is very aware that he has the strong support of these Benches.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I think it might be helpful to the House if I say how this came about, as it answers the points about how we got to the stage of including decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. It is a matter of serendipity. For many years people have been pushing for work to be done, and it was done by the LSE. It just so happened that that report came into the Government’s hands over the summer while we were in the process of going through the Committee stage, and it seemed an obvious moment to take this forward when the findings of that report were so clear.
To cheer up my noble friend Lord Hamilton a bit at this late hour, I cannot think of any other species that are likely to go through this process. If there are any, I suggest that it will probably be at least a decade before someone is standing here recommending that we take that forward. It may be less; this is a fast-moving area of science, but it has taken many years—I do not know how many precisely—for decapods and cephalopods to be recognised in this way. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Baroness asked a question about the food industry and making sure that, if the committee were to make recommendations about how one treats these organisms as part of food processing or cooking and the law is then changed because Ministers accepted that advice, there would have to be a huge amount of work with the food industry to make sure that it was prepared for it. However, this amendment does not change anything. It does not change the law; it just allows it to be within the remit of the committee to give advice to Ministers who will then take other factors into account, regarding, for example, the marine environment, fish, the economic benefits of the fishing industry to coastal communities or the importance that the Government put on fish being part of the nation’s balanced diet. These are the sort of wider factors that Governments will take into consideration.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Moylan feels put upon. I thought that I was the victim here, but clearly that is not the case. I will try to be kind to him when I come to his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 41, and here my remarks relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill recognises that live animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. A government amendment has been tabled to also recognise decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs as sentient, as I have said. It is our intention and expectation that the committee will concern itself with consideration of the welfare of live animals. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or an embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is unlikely, therefore, that the committee would find itself considering a policy beyond its remit. The central recommendation in the report is that these cephalopods and decapods will be regarded as sentient animals, but we carefully considered the recommendations in the review. The evidence of sentient decapods and cephalopods is clear: we are committed to being led by science when it comes to sentience, and that is why we amended the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as I mentioned, the Government are led by the science when it comes to sentience. We have considered the review’s findings carefully before amending the Bill to recognise these invertebrates as sentient. I can confirm that, at the present time, there is no intention to treat any other invertebrates, beyond decapods and cephalopods, as sentient animals. The scientific evidence that led to the Government commissioning the LSE review has been many years in the making. I can assure the House that this will continue to be the case for future extension, using the delegated powers in Clause 5.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I note what my noble friend says about there being no plans—and I fully accept that that is so, as he has assured the House—but if there are no plans, why do the Government wish to take the powers to continue to pursue them? Would it not be better if the Minister would just accept that primary legislation will be required as and when the science demands it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend by saying that if the Secretary of State were to use his or her powers to recommend another species or group of species to be included, that would be the subject of parliamentary oversight. It would be an affirmative resolution requiring debate in both Houses and would be subject to other areas of parliamentary scrutiny, such as Select Committees and other means by which noble Lords and people in the other place would seek to hold that decision to account. I hope that we would not wish to risk this Bill becoming out of date by removing the ability to update its scope should the scientific evidence develop.
While we are not aware of any instances on the horizon, we cannot discount the possibility that new evidence will emerge in the future that demonstrates the sentience of some additional category of invertebrate. Decapods and cephalopods were the invertebrates most likely to qualify for being regarded as sentient animals. The likelihood that another category of invertebrate might one day be shown to be sentient is small, but it is not zero. That is why we wish to leave an option to update the definition if needed. Such a power must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, of course, and I will address this point shortly.
In the meantime, I take this opportunity to clarify that the Bill is all about government policy decision-making and how well particular decisions take account of the welfare needs of animals. The Bill and our amendments do not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals or businesses. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has come to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the Bill and will therefore support the government amendment. I also hope that the points I have set out reassure noble Lords and that they will be content not to press their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Benyon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Benyon’s first amendment to Clause 5.
Lord Robathan
“Expiry
This Act expires at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who is unavoidably detained somewhere in the country—I am not quite sure where—I beg to move this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister feels put upon, because I think he is doing a very good job defending what some people have described as indefensible, and well done him.
This is a very simple sunset clause. It is fair to say beyond peradventure that some of the arguments raised in the past six or seven hours show that there is dispute over whether the Bill is a sensible idea. Therefore, surely, we should have a sunset clause so that, after five years, we can look back and say, “Actually, it’s not working very well, let’s scrap it”—or improve it, or whatever it might be. That is all a sunset clause does, and that is why I move it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Robathan. In anybody’s language, this is an extremely controversial Bill—that has come from a number of extremely distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The most appalling collateral damage could be caused by the Bill which no one has anticipated. That is the problem. When you have such Bills with a mind of their own and committees that can roar off doing all sorts of things and are completely independent, it is only later that you realise that it was a very great mistake in the beginning. In all modesty, I think the Minister should seriously consider this sunset clause so that we can reconsider whether the Act, as the Bill will no doubt become, has been a good idea, whether it has achieved what it set out to do, or whether it has caused so much damage that it needs to be radically revised. A sunset clause of five years gives us a wonderful opportunity to think again, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment sets a sunset clause on the Bill. Sunset clauses are quite rare and are usually associated with emergency legislation to deal with a time-specific problem. Recently, we have seen sunset clauses around the Coronavirus Act and previously, in the 2000s, in anti-terror legislation. This Bill is not a piece of emergency legislation passed to deal with something that is time specific. It is establishing the animal sentience committee for the long term, so we on these Benches do not believe that a sunset clause is appropriate or necessary.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for introducing Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which would insert a clause that would repeal the Bill after five years. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for pointing out that sunset clauses are needed more for emergency legislation.
The Government have laid the Bill before Parliament because there is an ongoing benefit from a targeted mechanism that provides greater transparency for the consideration of animal welfare in central government policy decisions. However, we know that this must be done in a timely and proportionate way. Animal welfare considerations will not cease to be relevant in five years’ time, so it is hard to understand why the committee’s work should be brought to an abrupt halt at that point. It is the Government’s considered view that it would be plainly wrong for the Bill to expire after five years, as the animal sentience committee will have plenty to contribute beyond that time.
That is not to say, of course, that there will not be a review of processes to ensure that the Bill and the committee continue to fulfil their objectives well. As indicated in the committee’s draft terms of reference, we plan to ensure that it is subject to annual performance reviews. Defra will ultimately be accountable for the committee’s ongoing effectiveness and good governance. In addition, the Bill will be subject to the standard post-legislative scrutiny process, including a review of its effectiveness. That will take place within five years of Royal Assent. I hope that that reassures noble Lords and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, does she not feel that a sunset clause might in fact be to the great benefit of the Government, because they would not need to have the dramatic act of wrapping up the committee and the Act; it would merely come to its own conclusion? If, on the other hand—unlikely, in my opinion, but not impossible—the committee was doing extremely well, legislation could be introduced to continue it. It is not difficult to extend the life of an Act; it is much more difficult to abolish an Act altogether. If it lapsed automatically, it might be to the advantage of the Government in the future, rather than their disadvantage.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not agree with my noble friend, because the committee’s work will be ongoing, and it will also respond to changes in scientific research that may come out in the course of its many years of work. To introduce a hard stop—a hard deadline—to its work would be both unnecessary and impractical.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, if I might say, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Hamilton, because it is not a question of ending the work of the committee, but of saying, “Is the committee doing well after five years, and do we just continue it?”, which is very easily done. I have some experience of this in the past. However, I shall not force this to a Division, my noble friend will be pleased to know. Both my noble friends on the Front Bench will be particularly pleased to know that there is only one more clause to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
“(3A) The Secretary of State must set up an independent committee of experts to report on the possible consequences of this Act.(3B) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the report by the independent committee.(3C) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements to move a motion for debate on the report of the independent committee and the Government’s response to it in each House of Parliament.(3D) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the motion in subsection (3C) has been debated in each House of Parliament.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 47. This is the last amendment to be debated and I call it the lifebelt amendment. Since 4 pm—with a couple of breaks in between, but nearly seven hours ago—the Government have heard of all the things that are possibly wrong with this Bill. There are problems with the terms of reference; problems with the setting up of the committee; and the abdication of power by the Government to the committee. My noble friend on the Front Bench has heard expert opinions from both the legal and the veterinary side about the difficulties that this Bill could pose. The zoologists are equally concerned that the terminology in the Bill is so wishy-washy that it will be very hard for some decisions to be made accurately.
I drafted this lifebelt amendment, which proposes to give the Government time for considered thought about the Bill. Yes, my noble friend has got his Bill; he has fulfilled his instructions from on high and defeated every amendment. But having got his Bill, would this not be a sensible time to set up a committee to look at the unintended consequences, of which so many have been raised, before the Bill is enacted? This would give the Government a chance to have a look again if they were persuaded, on the evidence of the committee, that the Bill ought to be redrafted in a different way. I totally applaud the sentiment behind the Bill. We want it, but we also want one that is right, so I offer my noble friend a lifebelt at the last moment. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, this seems quite novel as an amendment—to try, once a Bill has gone through Parliament and become an Act, to judge it afterwards. It is a novelty that I find perhaps rather difficult. I share the noble Earl’s thoughts about some of the issues around the Bill, but this is probably overly bureaucratic and, if we believe in Parliament, probably not the best way to move forward on this occasion—despite the great respect I have for him.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I agree; I too hold the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the greatest respect and the highest regard. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that any Government should consider seriously unintended consequences when considering any new legislation but, along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I agree that this proposal is overly bureaucratic. Do we really need another committee? We seem to have an awful lot of them already. Expert advice will be readily available to the ASC, as we have heard, as well as to the Secretary of State.
I am very pleased that we have reached the end of Report and I congratulate the Minister on his resilience.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, and I congratulate her on hers, too—and I thank her for her help in making this Bill better, although we have more to do. I join in the praise of my noble friend Lord Caithness. In my short time in this House he has proved himself to be a redoubtable holder of the Executive to account, if that is not a tautology.
He calls this the “lifebelt amendment” but I call it the “committee on the committee amendment”. I thank him, but it would require the establishment of a committee to assess the impacts of the Bill after it had received Royal Assent but before its provisions came into force. We believe that it is for Parliament to satisfy itself about the impacts of the proposed legislation before it approves it, and not to pass legislation on the proviso that it goes through further approval before coming into force.
The Bill has been subject to exacting scrutiny in this House. It has been scrutinised by the EFRA Select Committee, and there has been no absence of scrutiny of the Bill and its implications. My officials and I remain ready to answer any questions that noble Lords may have about the Bill. Parliament remains free to seek the views of outside experts on any aspect of the Bill. I have been clear throughout its passage what the implications of the Bill are; it does not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals, businesses or any organisation outside the UK Government. It will establish the committee, on the purpose, structure and membership of which I have spoken today at length. I give absolute assurance that Ministers will continue to have full discretion and responsibility as to the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other matters of public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister not only for his reply but for the backbone that he has shown throughout the proceedings today. He has done a marvellous job at resisting, and I hope that the English batsmen learn from him before they take on Australia in the Ashes. But the bowling was all from one end today; Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were mostly absent, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a superb job of playing vice-Minister today. I hope that she gets her normal verve back and becomes a proper opposition Minister for the next Bill.
I really am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he listened, but I do not believe that his brief gave him any room for manoeuvre. He has done an excellent job in fulfilling his brief and saying “resist” to every amendment and getting the Bill through. I have great pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I said at Second Reading that this Bill is our opportunity to build on the UK’s record as a world leader in animal welfare. Animal sentience is a matter of scientific fact and it is only right that it is recognised in UK law and properly considered in policy decision-making. I am therefore pleased to see the Bill progress towards becoming law, an outcome for which there is clear and unambiguous public demand.
It has been an honour to lead the Bill through this House. As your Lordships know, it is the first Bill that I have had the privilege of guiding through this House, and the experience has been an educational one. The House is known to offer particularly robust and careful scrutiny of proposed legislation, and I can certainly confirm that it has lived up to its reputation. While the hours of debate may have been long, they were also constructive and informative.
I thank noble Lords on all Benches for working constructively and coming forward with positive suggestions. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Mancroft, who I am pleased to see has risen like Lazarus from his sickbed to be with us today, Lord Marland, Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Forsyth, Lord Caithness, Lord Ridley, whose imminent departure from this House is a matter of great regret, Lady McIntosh and Lady Meyer. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose understanding of these matters is second to none, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Earl, Lord, Kinnoull, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Mallalieu. Finally, I thank all noble Lords who discussed the Bill with me, inside and outside the Chamber. The Bill, and the animal sentience committee’s draft terms of reference, are in better shape than they would otherwise have been as a result of your Lordships’ engagement.
In addition, I thank officials in my department for their many hours of work on the Bill, including the Bill manager, Katherine Yeşilirmak, and her colleagues Hannah Edwins, Jack Darrant, Phoebe Harris and Cathrine Hughes. I am also grateful to my private secretary, Lucy Skelton, and to Hannah Ellis in the Whips’ Office.
I was delighted to see noble Lords across the House support the amendment to include decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. There has been much interest in this issue, and our decision was fully informed by a robust research report.
I must also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on the Front Benches opposite, for their time and constructive engagement with the Bill. It is a better Bill for their involvement. I am also particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and Lord Younger of Leckie, whose support and guidance has been indispensable over the past few months.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and I are united in, to use the words in his Motion, supporting measures to improve animal welfare. I have known and worked with him on these matters for a great many years, and I understand his commitment to animal welfare. I do not propose to revisit all the arguments made at earlier stages of the Bill, but I would like to take a moment to reassure my noble friend that the accountability furnished by the animal sentience committee will be proportionate, timely and targeted.
My noble friend has expressed concern that the committee would glue up government with its analysis and proposals. I respectfully disagree: if anything, I believe it will oil the wheels of the policy-making process. We have indicated that the committee should look to produce six to eight reports a year. It will have to select policy decisions very carefully, and the administrative burden that is created will be light. Furthermore, the committee is not empowered to make recommendations on the substance of policy decisions; its recommendations will be strictly limited to consideration of the animal welfare impacts of the policy decision. It is therefore difficult to see how the committee would hinder the business of government in the way that my noble friend describes.
I understand why my noble friend has asked about the need for two committees. To be clear, the animal sentience committee is the only new committee to be established. It needs to be referred to in statute to provide for the effective parliamentary accountability that we envisage. By comparison, the existing Animal Welfare Committee advises, rather than scrutinises, Defra and the devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland about particular animal welfare issues that have been remitted to it. Ministers are not required by law to respond to the points made in the reports published by the Animal Welfare Committee, which is not established in legislation. I hope this reassures my noble friend, and that he will be willing not to move his amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Herbert of South Downs
At the end insert “but that this House, while strongly supporting measures to improve animal welfare, regrets the way in which the proposed Animal Sentience Committee is to be established”.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my positions in the Countryside Alliance, including chairman, which I have declared in the register of Members’ interests. I regret detaining the House. I appreciate that there is important business next on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. However, as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill leaves the House, I feel that there are important issues that need to be addressed. I would like to make two points at the outset.
First, none of what I am going to say is an attack on my noble friend the Minister. He is a good friend and a good man who has been given the impossible job of defending a Bill about which many of us have considerable reservations, and has done so with unfailing grace and humour. I am genuinely sorry to differ from him on this measure. Secondly, every one of us in this House wants to promote animal welfare. I certainly do. I feel strongly that animals must be treated properly but, whatever the good intentions of those promoting the Bill, I fear that it is not a wise measure as drafted. In fact, if we take a step back, it is actually an incredible measure. It seriously proposes that the effect of any government policy on the welfare of animals may be considered by an unfettered statutory committee and that Ministers must respond to that committee’s reports.
When the Bill started, that measure applied only to vertebrates; now it applies to cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. That was one of the few amendments made to the Bill, and that was by the Government. At the height of a pandemic which has killed thousands of people and cost our economy billions, we have decided to devote time to passing a law to ensure that no government policy can hurt the feelings of a prawn.
The Government rejected every other amendment put to them. We pointed out that sentience is not actually defined in the legislation; apparently that does not matter. What matters is that Ministers must have regard to sentience, even if we do not know what it actually is. We asked for safeguards to ensure the expertise of the committee’s members. We were told that such protections were not necessary. We asked for constraints to the committee’s scope. We were told that limits to the committee’s unfettered remit were not necessary either. Crucially, we asked why the balancing provisions in the Lisbon treaty, which specifically exempt religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage, were not included and why the Bill goes so much further than the EU measure it claims to replace. We were told that this balancing provision was not necessary either. In fact, apparently no change was necessary.
The Government have been able to ignore every concern expressed, largely on this side, by relying on the kindness of strangers—uncritical support for the measures that would have guaranteed the defeat of any amendment. I wonder whether the Government will come to regret that.
I am sure that Ministers do not intend that this new committee will get out of hand. I am sure they intend to appoint sensible people to it. I am sure they believe their own rhetoric when they say that Ministers decide so they will resist the committee’s recommendations if necessary. This is of little reassurance when the Government have already capitulated in the face of a social media campaign to introduce the committee in the first place. It is like saying, “Don’t worry, we are going to make sure the burglar won’t take anything from your house, but we are going to let him in to make helpful suggestions about your security”. This committee will set its own priorities. It will decide its own agenda. It will rove across government at will and demand answers to its recommendations. The Government may believe that they are answering public concern by setting up the committee in this way, but I fear they are making a massive rod for their own back.
This measure departs from the usual practice of taking careful and specific steps to ensure animal welfare by injecting a broad and ill-defined principle into our public administration. The danger is that, in doing so, it will effectively if unwittingly hand an institutional footing to the animal rights agenda. We are giving leverage and power to that single-issue ideology, which can be uncompromising and extreme, without thinking through the consequences.
We are trying to beat a mutating virus. We are trying to level up, to build back better. We need Government to take better decisions, and more quickly. We need to get things done faster, yet we are putting in place a barely constrained mechanism which is simply bound to glue up government. I am afraid that I differ from my noble friend on that. At best, even with sensible people in place, the committee will put spanners in the works because frankly that will be its job. It will make it harder for Ministers to deliver, to take difficult balancing decisions, which they sometimes must, or to ignore populist sentiment. At worst, without the necessary safeguards in place, the committee risks becoming a Trojan horse, used especially to attack wildlife management farming or the well-being and way of life of our rural communities. We know that this is a real risk because the animal rights agenda is in plain sight, and because its proponents are already incessantly abusing judicial review to force government to do its will.
It is usually this House which provides a robust check on measures propelled by populist wins, yet we have passed the Bill with no amendment, except to extend its scope to beasts such as cuttlefish. Some noble Lords may remember that, 30 years ago, it was only the sober intervention of this House which prevented the then Dangerous Dogs Bill from inadvertently making it a strict liability imprisonable offence for a dog to cause injury by accidentally knocking someone off their bicycle. That Bill had foolishly been driven through all its Commons stages in a single day, but today we are showing ourselves to be more inclined to bend without sufficient thought to populism, and now it will fall to Members of the House of Commons to address the deficiencies in this proposal.
We all want to advance animal welfare, but the sentience provisions in the Lisbon treaty had little or nothing to do with the succession of admirable legislation which for over a century has been passed by this Parliament. In fact, with Brexit, we have the freedom to pass laws to protect animals which would not have been possible before—to address puppy smuggling, for instance. Even before this sentience Bill has been passed, other government Bills to protect animals have been introduced or announced, which only goes to prove that this Bill, creating this committee in this way, is not necessarily to protect animals.
I have offered these remarks in the hope that even as the Bill leaves this House, there is still a chance that its serious deficiencies will be addressed and that we will return to focusing on specific workable measures to improve the welfare of animals in ways which we all want and can all support. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister who, with good humour throughout, has defended what is frankly almost indefensible. He has done extremely well, and I hope that he is congratulated by the higher ranks of the Government. I associate myself entirely with the excellent points made by my noble friend Lord Herbert. I will not repeat them, but I will repeat that this is a shockingly bad piece of legislation which should be an embarrassment to the Government.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a member of the RSPCA and president of the Countryside Alliance and the Horse Trust. I too thank the Minister for his patience and courtesy during the passage of this Bill. Given the opposition from parts of the House, this cannot have been an unalloyed pleasure for him.
It gives me no pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, but I must. I cannot understand how a Government who were elected in no small part promising to reduce bureaucracy, especially that which came from Europe, can have taken the wholly uncontroversial subject of putting animal sentience on the statute book, something which nobody would disagree with, and now seem bent on turning it into a textbook bureaucratic nightmare.
When the former Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, told us during the passage of the Bill that it creates a magnet for judicial review; when the foremost vet in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who supports the Bill, tells us that its scope needs definition and its focus sharpened on to future policy decisions; when the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the former leader of the party opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and many others, tell the Government that they need to think again, yet they resist and reject all amendments, save for a small number of government ones, it makes me wonder whether this House has actual value as a scrutinising House when they have the comfort of a large majority in another place and know that they are able to push defective Bills through almost unamended there.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Herbert for taking the trouble to move his amendment today and giving us an opportunity to say a few words in the dying moments of the Bill. I also apologise to your Lordships for my failure to move my amendments last week on Report. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I was knocked over by Covid, but whether I jumped up like Lazarus I am not entirely sure. I think the reason that I am back so rapidly is that my wife was sick of having me about the house, but I am awfully glad to be back in your Lordships’ House anyway.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just said, this Bill introduces the concept of sentience into English law for the first time, despite the fact that it has been the basis for 150 years of very sound animal welfare legislation, so you might wonder why we need to put it on the statute book today. I suggest we probably do not. It also sets up a new animal welfare committee—the animal sentience committee—despite the fact that we have three very good committees looking at animal welfare at the moment, each of which could have fulfilled the tasks set for this committee, so you might wonder why we want this.
As the noble Baroness also said, this is a revising Chamber, except that the Government have chosen to ignore all the suggestions made by Members of this House on all sides, as she said: the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose knowledge of veterinary science can hardly be equalled; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I do not think is in her place today, but who put forward some very important points; and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, herself, on the other side of the House, who made very reasoned amendments and suggestions to this House—as everybody did—none of which were politically based at all.
I have done as much research as I can, and I believe that this is the first statutory committee set up by statute which has no statutory terms of reference. The Government recognised this when it was raised in Committee, and so between Committee and Report they introduced 27 pages of terms of reference for the committee that they propose to set up. But they are not statutory; they can be altered by any official or Minister at the stroke of a pen. They have absolutely no basis in law; they are effectively legislatively worthless.
The Government have argued throughout that this is a minor measure of very little significance—in which case, why have your Lordships been bothered with it for four long, paralysingly boring days? I do not think it is a measure of little significance. Like my noble friend Lord Herbert, I think it is a potentially very dangerous measure that will come back to bite this Government—or, more particularly, future Governments—as the years go by. This House will regret the fact that we have passed it without any amendment and have allowed ourselves to be rolled over.
There is little support for this measure on the Government Benches. I have looked very carefully, but I have seen very little support for it on the Opposition Benches. In fact, I have seen very little support for it anywhere except on the Front Benches, where a rather unsavoury deal has been stitched up to allow this to go to the other place without a single amendment, despite the care and attention which your Lordships have given the Bill. It is the tradition in this House that we send Bills to the other place with good will; we wish them a fair wind. I do not wish this Bill a fair wind. I hope the other place does the duty that we should have done and changes it very considerably or, better still, destroys it completely. Failing that, I hope that a sensible Secretary of State in future fails to enact it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support what my noble friend Lord Herbert said. I underline a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. This sets a parliamentary precedent in the appointment of statutory committees which could have huge ramifications for future Bills. The Government will be able to say that we do not need to set out the statutory terms of reference for the committee because we already have the precedent of this Bill.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Benyon has had to take this Bill through the House. It should have been another Minister. My noble friend was absolutely right when he said that he has had to drive it through the House. He has not looked right; he has not looked straight ahead. He has looked left. He rightly paid tribute to his co-driver, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
Finally, I am disappointed that I have not yet received a reply from my noble friend to the questions I posed on Report. I hope that he will expedite those.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I, also, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. Even at this late stage, it is worth emphasising that the absence of any restriction on the purview of the sentience committee will mean that no recreational activity, cultural tradition, regional heritage or religious rite—in its practice or observance—is safe from scrutiny by the committee.
In Committee, the Minister was good enough to give some reassurances about the long-standing practices of religious slaughter in this country going back hundreds of years. The trouble is that the only policy that has been disclosed means that it will be open to any future Secretary of State, Minister or future Government to take a different view. Unlike under the Lisbon treaty, there is absolutely nothing to restrain them from doing so.
As I said on Report, if the Government decided not to follow a recommendation from the sentience committee on contentious issues relating to animal welfare, it would inevitably give rise to the potential for judicial review and challenge. You cannot stop people bringing a judicial review. The Government may be confident that they would win, but these will not be straightforward matters. One will have to consider whether the sentience committee has acted within its statutory rights, whether or not the evidence sufficiently supports what the committee recommends and whether the Government have sufficient other factors which outweigh the recommendation of the committee. I agree that this Bill is going to come back to bite badly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I associate myself totally with the brilliantly moved amendment from my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs. He encapsulated the folly of this legislation, from which I have kept myself apart because I was, frankly, so appalled to think that a Conservative Government could introduce such a piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Herbert was exactly right in all he said, as was my noble friend Lord Mancroft. It is a joy to see him back. I hope that he has made a full recovery. These are people who know about the countryside. Nobody could have put it better than my noble friend Lord Herbert when he asked why Parliament was consuming itself with consideration for the welfare of the prawn when, all around, people are in danger from a deadly virus. It shows a completely warped sense of perspective and priority of which I feel deeply ashamed. If my noble friend presses his amendment to the vote—which I hope he will—he will have my unreserved support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also associate myself with and will support the regret amendment. I have not been able to be at the discussions on the Bill, but I followed them very closely in Hansard because it is an issue I am interested in. There is one point to note: the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, made a brief reference to populism. I want to speak on behalf of the public, who might well support animal welfare, but I can tell you that if you talk to anybody outside this House and tell them what the Bill contains, they are equally appalled. The irony is that it is not fair for anyone to try to say that, as a consequence, the public might somehow get the blame for this badly formed, badly written, badly drafted, philosophically ridiculous and anti-human Bill. I do not think that is fair. Although I am sure all of us are concerned with animal welfare, the Bill is not about preserving the welfare of animals. It actually takes us into very dark, deep territory, and a bureaucratic nightmare. It is completely anti-democratic and the public would be appalled if they read the debates in Hansard in great detail.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and my noble and indestructible friend Lord Mancroft. I asked at Second Reading: to what problem is this legislation a solution? I listened carefully through Committee and Report and I did not get an answer. I am afraid that I am reluctantly thrown back to the conclusion that this was a Bill brought forward in response to a fake press release—that, at the Dispatch Box in another place, the Minister was panicked into promising legislation in response to a false story to the effect that Conservatives had voted to say that animals were not sentient. Declamatory law of this kind invites unintended consequences. It is almost a textbook definition of how not to legislate. It does not reflect well on our lawmaking process that this House has been prevented from exerting its ameliorating and scrutinising function. I hope that that function will be taken up in another place.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs. I fear I do not agree that this Bill was a waste of parliamentary time. A large number of Bills are coming forward during the pandemic that are not health related, but it is important that legislation moves forward and does not get bogged down in Covid. Similarly, I listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, who, unfortunately, was not able to be here at the beginning of the debate. I live in a rural community and support the rural way of life, and I do not feel the Bill threatens either the ethos or the practical way of life in rural communities. This is overstated.
I congratulate the Minister on his remarks and on eventually getting this very short but important Bill to the point of being able to pass it on to the other place. I did not envisage at the start of the process that it would be so controversial in some quarters of the Government Benches, who, in their own words, have attempted to paralyse the House with boredom.
I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in providing briefings along the way, and for his patience in dealing with the many amendments and queries that came forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her time and assistance in helping to steer the Bill forward. It is always better when Front Benches are united in moving a Bill forward.
The amendments that have been accepted have improved the Bill. It will be interesting to see how the Bill is received in the other place and whether it will make any further amendments. No doubt it will be heavily lobbied by the spokespeople this afternoon. I support the thrust of the Bill and look forward to working with the Minister on future legislation.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, on these Benches we have listened to the speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, and other noble Lords, but we cannot support the amendment. I am sure noble Lords are not surprised to hear that. I will not go into any details. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, we discussed in depth and at length exactly the same issues as we have today, and I am fairly confident that any noble Lord present at any of those debates understands fully my feelings on these issues.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Herbert for his contributions to today’s proceedings and earlier debates on the Bill. I have previously addressed at length a number of the points he raised, so I do not intend to detain the House long. He made an incredibly good speech, and some of his points struck home—I felt a bit like that painting of St Sebastian.
The weakest argument he put, echoed by my noble friend Lord Cormack, seemed to suggest that this House cannot hold two thoughts in its head at the same time. Of course, the priority of this House, the Government and all of us is to deal with the pandemic, but the idea that you cannot produce legislation on any other subject, which is the logical conclusion of his argument, is one that I am afraid I do not agree with. But he made other very good points.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that this concept of animal sentience was on the statute book; we had it under Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The debate, which will continue in another place, is about the degree to which we transpose that. I understand the points she made.
I make an absolute assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made a very good point, and I respect him and his knowledge. On the point about judicial review, we have done all we can to limit the duties that a Minister has to abide by. That is where judicial review really hurts Ministers—if they fail to follow a duty in the Bill—but I absolutely concede that organisations will continuously try to judicially review the Government, on this legislation and elsewhere. The question is: will it be successful? Will it be permitted to be taken forward? Just the week before last, an organisation wanted to take the Government to judicial review and was refused by the courts.
Finally, on religious rites, I made a promise on Report and continue to make that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and others made genuine points about concerns in the communities they come from or sought to represent in their words on this Bill. I and the Government take these concerns really seriously and want to give them every assurance that the Government’s policy remains to support them on these matters of religious importance and on how they wish to have animals slaughtered. We will make officials and Ministers available to give those added reassurances.
I again thank all those involved to date in the Bill’s passage and hope my noble friend will be persuaded not to push his amendment.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good airing of the issues; we have all said our piece. I have no wish to try the patience of the House, which wishes to get on to other matters, any longer. I hope that Members of Parliament will heed what has been said, and that in due course we will have an opportunity to consider amendments that they make, so that this House performs the job of being a revising Chamber—because the Bill has not so far been revised at all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. In 1876, we were the first country to pass legislation regulating experiments on animals. In 1875, we were the first country to introduce measures to improve conditions in slaughterhouses. This House also passed the landmark Protection of Animals Act 1911, an Act emulated by many other countries around the world.
More recently, there have been further improvements. One of the first actions taken by Margaret Thatcher’s Government was the introduction of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, announced to this House in July 1979 by Peter Walker. That Government then updated the law on animal experiments with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which remains an international gold standard. The Labour party has also made its contribution: our Parliament updated the 1911 Act with the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which introduced a robust framework and powers for protecting all kept animals in England and Wales.
Every piece of animal welfare legislation passed by this House since 1822 has implicitly recognised the sentience of animals. During the European Union era, the UK was a signatory to article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which offered a form of legal recognition of the sentience of animals. Although that did not really mean very much, we believe we can now do better through this Bill.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I note that the Secretary of State did not mention the ban on hunting with dogs—a law that needs to be strengthened—which constituents up and down the country are still concerned about. Why should this not be the Government to deal with that once and for all?
George Eustice
We have had many pieces of legislation; I sought in the time I had to list some of the key ones, including the 2006 Act.
How we treat animals, and the legislation we have to govern animal welfare, is a hallmark of a civilised society. We should be constantly looking to improve and refine our legislation in this area. That is why the Government have committed to introducing this new law on animal sentience.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Benyon of Englefield for his work bringing the Bill through the other place. The current version underwent close scrutiny in the other place, as Members would expect. This is a succinct Bill that offers clarity and avoids creating a wide avenue for the judicial review of Government decisions, while ensuring that animal welfare is properly considered as Governments formulate policy.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
As the MP who I think made the first attempt to put sentience recognition into UK law with my amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I warmly welcome this Bill. I congratulate the A Better Deal for Animals coalition for the work it has put into it. The Secretary of State mentions the scrutiny in the other place. Does he have sympathy with the concern raised there about how the Bill’s current wording would mean that the Animal Sentience Committee can look only at the adverse effects on the welfare of animals as sentient beings? Would he consider looking at the positive opportunities in considering those sentience issues, too?
George Eustice
I think this matter was dealt with extensively by my noble Friend, Lord Benyon. The key thing is that an adverse effect can mean a failure to make a change or consider a change that would have a positive impact on the welfare of animals, so I do not share any concerns about that expression.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his Committee’s work in scrutinising our proposals.
The Bill proposes four things. First, it establishes an Animal Sentience Committee, whose members the Secretary of State will appoint on the basis of expertise and experience. Secondly, it tasks that committee with scrutinising Ministers’ policy formation and the implementation of decisions. In each instance, it will publish a report containing its views on whether Ministers have had all due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings.
Thirdly, Ministers will be held to account through a duty to respond to the committee’s reports by means of a written statement to Parliament, and Parliament must receive such responses within three months. Finally, the wording of the Bill offers recognition that non-human vertebrates—that is, animals with a spine—and additionally decapod crustaceans, such as lobsters, and cephalopod molluscs, such as octopuses, are sentient. That means they are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. The Bill contains a delegated power for Ministers to add by regulation other species to the definition of animals. That is to be used if there is good scientific evidence that those particular species are sentient.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Bill as drafted contains birds?
George Eustice
The Bill does include birds, since they are vertebrates, and it includes fish, since they are vertebrates. I point out that those particular animals have been recognised in our law as sentient since at least 1911.
I want to be clear about what the Bill does and does not do. While its aim is to improve the policy and decision-making processes of Government, the committee’s reports will not bind Ministers to any particular course of action. Ministers will remain free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other important considerations.
Devolved matters are also excluded from the Bill’s provisions. The Scottish Government have their own counterpart to the Animal Sentience Committee already, while Wales and Northern Ireland have the powers to establish equivalent bodies, should they wish to do so.
It is also important to understand that the Bill tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with scrutinising the process by which Ministers arrive at policy decisions. It is not there to tell Ministers what decisions they should make or to critique those decisions. Instead, it is there to provide technical assessments of how well a given Department obtained and assessed relevant evidence on the animal welfare effects of the policy in question.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
On that point, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has assessed the possibility of judicial review arising as a result of that assessment process?
George Eustice
As I said, we do not believe that the Bill creates a cause of action for judicial review, for the simple reason that the obligation on a Minister is to respond to the report within three months, and that response can deal with any recommendation or observation put forward by the committee.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case for the Bill. Does he agree that Britain continues to lead the world in animal welfare and that the Bill enhances our role?
George Eustice
Yes. As I set out at the beginning of the debate, the United Kingdom has always been a world leader in animal welfare. We were the first country in the world to introduce animal welfare legislation; we recognised the sentience of animals as long ago as 1822. We have been in the vanguard of new legislation in the area over time, and the Bill demonstrates our continued leadership.
Our approach will promote fair and consistent consideration of animal welfare throughout Government policy decisions, but without impinging on the freedom of Ministers to make those policy decisions, for which they are democratically accountable for Parliament.
For all those reasons, I commend this short Bill to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I believe that across the country and across this House we care deeply about the welfare of animals. In that context, I am happy to reassure the Secretary of State that we support the Bill and will not divide the House on its Second Reading.
Successive Parliaments have sought to ensure that the law protects animals from cruelty inflicted by humans. The Opposition are proud that it was the Labour Government who brought in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, protecting the treatment of domestic animals and making owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are fully met. The Opposition do not distinguish; we believe that all animals deserve protection, whether they are on a farm, at home as a pet, at large in the wild or in the sea.
The Government’s chaotic handling of our leaving the EU has left many gaps in protection and in law. The Bill will address one of those gaps by putting back into domestic legislation the recognition that animals are sentient beings. That issue has been in limbo since we left the EU, and I am pleased that it has now been reconciled. Formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that as a country we are committed to protecting the welfare of animals—provided, of course, that the Government make sure that they deliver on what the Bill purports to promise.
What is difficult to reconcile, however, is that while animal welfare standards are constantly being raised here in the UK, the same is not true across the world. I am very proud that British farmers are leading the way, but it is a fact that many are facing a cliff edge, and with changes to EU subsidy favouring landowners keen to diversify away from farming to biodiversity schemes, it has come at the worst possible time. We are seeing food left rotting in the fields and some 20,000 pigs culled, all because of entirely foreseeable labour shortages.
To make matters worse, although the Government talk a good game on animal welfare, trade deals have been signed that not only undermine British farmers and producers, but allow the UK and its Government essentially to outsource animal cruelty in the supply chain to other countries. Take the UK-Australia trade deal: while we maintain high standards here in the UK and higher costs as a result, Australia allows intensive farming, which means that cattle may spend their entire life locked away without seeing a blade of grass, not to mention being trucked for 48 hours without rest, food or water, often in very hot conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
The Government could have used the Bill as an opportunity to address animal welfare concerns relating to those trade deals. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals acknowledges, the free trade agreement with Australia does not give any guarantee about equivalence of standards for imported products. We share the RSPCA’s concern that that could open the door to imported products such as hormone-fed beef and chlorine-washed chicken, produced to lower standards that would be illegal in the UK. Will the Secretary of State commit to amending the Bill to prevent that, or at least to bringing forward measures that will address those widely held concerns about how our domestic legislation interacts with trade deals that have so far been negotiated and with those negotiated in future?
On British soil, action is being taken by the National Trust and the Welsh Government, but the UK Government seem intent on turning a blind eye to the abuse of the Hunting Act 2004. Lessons are literally being given on how to get around the law of the land, and it is leading to live chases of foxes in this country.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Maybe I should have asked the Minister this question, but does the hon. Member think that when the Government are creating the committee to advise Ministers, it would be advisable to consider an open and transparent process of appointment in which appointees, no matter who they are, must declare their work and their participation in events such as foxhunting?
Jim McMahon
I think that, with every public appointment made, we need transparency and we need to ensure that those around the table are there for the right reasons, and not to look after their own interests. Where there is a genuine conflict of interest—where any normal member of the public would look at it and question whether the motives of that person were in the interests of the country at large—of course that would not be right. It is a fact, particularly during the Boxing day hunt, although it was a day delayed, that the Government were completely absent. The country was lining up to criticise the clear abuse that has been taking place for a period, where loopholes are being exploited and the Government do not take action. On one hand we say that we are an animal-loving nation and that this Government want to protect animals, but on the other we see what is happening in plain sight, but do not see anything like the action that is required.
We are pleased that the Bill has reached this House, after well over six months in the other place, where it benefited from some notable improvements. We should be grateful to their lordships for their work. I give a special mention to my colleague and the former shadow Environment Secretary, Baroness Hayman, for the work that she has done and led in that place. As a result, the Government rightly concede that octopi, lobsters and the like should receive protection upfront in the Bill, rather than waiting to be considered by the Animal Sentience Committee when eventually it meets.
Further improvements are needed, which we and campaigners will continue to argue for in Committee. We share concerns expressed about clause 2 limiting consideration to ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of sentient beings. We understand the legal advice is that that itself does not prevent the committee from recommending positive steps to enhance animal welfare, and that should be made clear in the terms of reference, but surely it would make far more sense to be upfront and have that in the Bill.
We agree with the argument that the Bill should require Ministers proactively to set up a cross-Government animal sentience strategy, and regularly to report to Parliament on how Government policy is working in that regard. The duty simply to respond to a report could allow Ministers simply to dismiss a committee’s recommendation in that regard. That would fall far short not just of the Bill’s aims of enshrining animal welfare, but of the nation’s aspiration that we translate our narrative of being an animal-loving nation into the law that governs the land in which we live.
Animals are capable of bringing us huge joy, and it is right to ensure that they avoid avoidable suffering. We strongly support the need for the Bill, but the Government must recognise that if they say one thing but do another, the public will be rightly critical of the claims being made in support of the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State: where we see that the Government are saying one thing about the Bill but doing another on trade agreements or on foxhunting, we must show the world what leadership is and take action on both those fronts.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to catch your eye in this important but short debate, on a short and, in my view, unnecessary Bill. Of course we can all accept that animals can suffer and therefore we are obliged to ensure that we maintain our high standards of welfare. That animals can experience pain and suffering has been implicit in British animal law, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly laid out, since 1835 when Parliament passed the landmark Cruelty to Animals Act. However, the lack of definition in this Bill or use of science to decide whether an animal is sentient is concerning; it even lacks a definition of what sentience means. It is concerning that we should be passing a Bill with such a lack of detail.
There is a huge rural community in this country that is passionate about wildlife and eager to protect the environment and their activities. The Angling Trust and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—I declare an interest; it is the secretariat for the all-party group on animal welfare and environment which I chair—represent more than 3 million fishing and shooting enthusiasts in the UK. The Bill could deliver another weapon into the hands of litigious animal rights groups that could damage both Government and those who live and work with animals.
Shooting, conservation and angling are highly important for the UK economy. Shooting contributes about £2 billion to GDP and supports the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs. Angling is estimated to be worth £4 billion to the UK economy and responsible for upwards of 40,000 jobs.
We need to make sure that the Animal Sentience Committee set up by the Bill does not have any unforeseen or perverse consequences, and that the Bill is not introduced simply as a public relations exercise to meet the demands of activist groups and the tabloids. A sentience committee does not require legislation. It could have been established by the Secretary of State at any time. He has already told us that the members will be Secretary of State appointments, but that covers a multitude of types of people who might be appointed. Perhaps the Minister could give us a little more idea of the type of people who will be appointed to the committee.
According to clause 2(1), the scope of the Bill encompasses:
“When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
In other words, it gives huge breadth of remit to the committee. So what will be the committee’s resources in terms of funds and secretariat? Would it not be more sensible to limit its remit to the areas currently covered by the European law on sentience, on which my party’s manifesto said we would legislate?
Will the new committee by statute confuse who advises Ministers on animal welfare when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already has an Animal Welfare Committee with a wide remit covering all animals, but not by statute? Will the new sentience committee, which is implemented by statute, be superior to the Animal Welfare Committee, which was established decades ago and works perfectly well? Or will it be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee? If so, will the Animal Welfare Committee be required to approve its reports before publication? What will be the difference between the remit of the two committees?
There is no requirement in the Bill for the committee to consider the public interest or the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the UK relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. In a meat-eating society where vertebrate animals are farmed and hunted for food, and used in scientific and medical research under strict legal limits, the fact that the committee is not required to consider the public interest could lead to a conflict between activist groups and the Government.
Will the Minister therefore balance the requirement to have “all due regard” to animal welfare with a requirement to have regard to the public interest? Can the Minister give an assurance that the medical, scientific, farming, fishing and shooting interests will be represented? This is crucial, because otherwise it is going to breed a great deal of resentment in the rural communities.
There are other ways of recognising sentience in legislation. We could have followed New Zealand’s example and amended the Animal Welfare Act 2006 merely to include sentience. That is all that needed to happen.
Policy and legislation should always be science and evidence-based. It is extraordinary that there is no definition of sentience in the Bill. Even though 80% of the respondents to the Government consultation supported the inclusion of a definition, it still is not there. Instead, clause 5(2) says that the Secretary of State
“may by regulations … bring invertebrates of any description within the meaning of “animal” for the purposes of this Act”.
But there is no requirement to show scientific proof that non-vertebrates are sentient. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing for centuries about which non-vertebrate animals are sentient and what that actually means, and here we have a Bill that does not clarify that debate.
The Bill originated in demands for sentience to be explicitly written into law after Brexit, but it does not contain the safeguards within the EU law on sentience. EU law on sentience is limited and balanced. It applies to agriculture, fisheries, transport, the internal market, research and technological and space policies. Member states—this is a particular part of European law—are required to have
“full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
I will try to get an amendment included in the Bill—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, which I will table shortly—stating that “the recommendations by the committee must respect the legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage”. I say tactfully to my right hon. Friend that, as that is the wording in European law, I hope very much that he might consider such an amendment, so that we can at least focus the committee’s work, instead of it having the very wide-ranging remit that it now has.
Will the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), give us an assurance that nothing in the Bill will have an impact on activities conducted with all regard to animal welfare within the law? Does she believe, as some do, that sentience confers rights and, if so, what rights are conferred?
In conclusion, clarity, clarity, clarity is required on animal welfare advice in government. I am talking about the composition and remit of the committee, the balance between the public interest and sentience, and assurances that legal activities, such as research, farming and country sports, will not be damaged by the Bill. I say to the Secretary of State and the Minister: please could we have an answer to that final question when the Minister sums up?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Animal welfare is a devolved issue and the scope of the Bill is largely England-only. With that established, the Scottish National party broadly welcomes the legislation and is pleased that the UK Government are following our lead in this area. The Scottish Government pledged to maintain high animal welfare standards after we left the EU and, in June 2020, established the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an independent body of leading animal welfare experts responsible for developing expert recommendations on issues relating to animal welfare and sentience. The Bill seeks to replicate its evidence-based policymaking success and expert-driven approach.
The SNP and the Scottish Government take animal welfare extremely seriously. Our party has been vocal in addressing concerns at UK level, and the Scottish Government’s programme for government committed to taking steps to strengthen animal welfare legislation. Each financial year, the commission must prepare a work plan setting out how it intends to perform its functions. It then produces an annual report, laid before the Scottish Parliament, detailing how it has delivered against the work plan. It has the power to establish committees and sub-committees, and the first meeting of the sentience sub-committee took place in November 2021. That group has the function of reviewing sentience-related issues, filtering and prioritising the commission’s programme of work.
The establishment of the commission offered an opportunity post Brexit to replicate article 13. Given that since January 2021, for the first time in more than two decades, there has been no legal requirement for the welfare of animals as sentient beings to be considered in the UK Government’s policy process, it really is about time this place implemented its replacement.
Concerns have been raised about the membership of England’s Animal Sentience Committee, as well as its resources, structure and operation. The Bill has not been updated to address any of those concerns and is essentially the same as when it was introduced, which I note created quite a stooshie in the other place. In my view, membership regulations ought to be considered for the Bill, as should the structures in which they may operate. As an example of where issues could occur, will foxes be considered as sentient beings and will they be granted such protections by the committee, or will that be another cultural flashpoint?
We recommend that the committee avoids being too prescriptive—I know that is the Minister’s view—but rather follows the lead of the evidence-led SAWC. The commission reports welfare policies and recommendations to Scottish Ministers, and just as it has a statutory duty to publish any such advice, the Animal Sentience Committee must also publish its reporting. The Scottish Government have often acted upon the recommendations of the commission. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer have been taken forward on the basis of the commission’s advice. The commission has also strongly welcomed and worked on the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021.
Let me give an example of what England’s new Animal Sentience Committee might examine. Following concerns raised by a number of animal welfare groups, the Scottish Government announced a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets, and of potential threats to animal health and welfare, human health, and native species in Scotland. An interim report was published last year by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission outlining concerns about the welfare of exotic pets, including their sourcing, breeding, transport and keeping. I understand that the Minister of State is keeping tabs on that work. We will of course be happy if the UK Government make use of the final report when it is published and carry out their own investigations. The Scottish National party also welcomes the Bill’s recognition of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient.
Although the Bill largely applies only to England, there are areas of it that the SNP believes must be strengthened, notably in respect of animal cosmetics and scientific procedures, which are matters reserved to the UK Government. There has been some mention of European Union regulations today. In September last year, the European Parliament voted for an EU-wide action plan with clear objectives as well as, crucially, timelines for the phasing out of the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education. It envisages that happening through the reduction, refining and replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific purposes, as soon as it is scientifically possible and with no lowering of the level of protection for human health and the environment. In fact, the EU has leapt in front of the UK on animal welfare standards. We call on the UK Government to reclaim the leadership on this issue that they have shown in the past.
The Bill legislates to enshrine the ability of animals to experience joy and feel suffering and pain, but unfortunately the UK Government do not seek to recognise that animals undergoing scientific experiments or Ministry of Defence tests have rights to sentience; they are excluded from protections. A written question from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) revealed that the Ministry of Defence has carried out nearly 59,000 experimental procedures on animals since 2009. The SNP therefore calls for greater transparency in the animal research industry, and for a commitment in the Bill on the sentience of animals and their welfare rights in relation to the outdated methods used in animal testing and military experiments.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has made a good point about experimentation on animals by the MOD. Does she share my concern about the fact that it includes primates? As recently as 2018, 56 marmosets were subject to such experimentation.
Deidre Brock
I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will say more about that later. I genuinely believe that the general public are not aware of the extent and nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in them. If amendments to the Bill are tabled and accepted in Committee, that may help the public to appreciate what is going on, and may help to reduce reliance on such experiments.
Every two minutes in the UK, a dog, cat, rabbit, rat, monkey, goat, sheep, mouse, or fish suffers from brutal animal testing conducted on it against its sentience and welfare rights, but a survey conducted in 2020 by the UK charity FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—found that 84% of respondents would not buy a cosmetics product if they knew that it, or one of its ingredients, had been tested on animals. Animals in laboratories can legally be poisoned with toxic chemicals, shot, irradiated, gassed, blown up, drowned, stabbed, burned, starved, or restrained to the point at which they develop ulcers or heart failure. They can have their bones broken or their limbs amputated. They can be subject to inescapable electric shocks, driven to depression, deprived of sleep to the point of brain damage, or infected with diseases.
A YouGov poll commissioned by Cruelty Free International shows that people in Scotland and Wales believe that more should be done to prioritise humane and human-relevant science. The findings reveal that seven out of 10 adults living in Scotland and Wales find it unacceptable to use animals for experiments when alternative non-animal research methods are available. In addition, more than three quarters of adults living in Scotland and Wales believe that alternatives to animal tests should be a funding priority in the UK for science and innovation, and a majority in Scotland and Wales want deadlines for phasing out animal tests. I look forward to further discussions on that as the Bill goes through its stages.
When Scottish and Welsh residents were asked about use of specific species in research, they consistently said that it was unacceptable to test on dogs, cats and monkeys, yet despite those public concerns, the UK remains one of the top users in Europe of primates and dogs in experiments. The more we understand animals’ sentience, capabilities and emotions, the more the idea of granting rights to animals is worth taking seriously, urgently. The Scottish National party supports the Bill but urges the Government to address those ongoing issues.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
When I looked at the Bill, I tried first, as I do with any Bill, to work out its purpose and who or what it is trying to assist. I must say that I am still far from having the answer to either question. Actually, the more I look at the Bill, listen to experts and read the record of proceedings in the other place, the more confused I am about what we are trying to do.
While everyone knows what animal welfare is and values what the Bill is intended to do, nothing in it, and no one, can either define animal sentience or say how it is measured. As a result, the phrase becomes a kind of forerunner of what science may, but does not yet, tell us. The Bill is effectively a statement of direction, but does not quite know where to start or where it will finish. It does not define animal sentience, so Ministers will have no gauge to work against. As a result, we legislators are in effect being asked to vote blind on it. The new committee will accordingly have to make things up as it goes along.
At the same time, various lobbyists will push the committee towards reviewing everything that they see as being important to their various causes. If the committee does not produce many—or enough—reports, it will be attacked for inaction. However, if it produces too many reports, it will be attacked for exercising power without democratic oversight or care for costs or whatever. If the Government fail to act on the committee’s views, they will be attacked for inaction, or possibly judicially reviewed. If they do act on them, people could claim that such proposals should come from those who are democratically elected, rather than from an unanswerable committee, or they could say that the Government are using the committee as a stalking horse to avoid taking the blame for proposals that they might think look a bit unpopular. In effect, whichever way one looks at the proposals, they are fraught with problems on every side. One has to wonder why we are doing this. What is there to gain from the Bill other than some short-term, soft publicity because it is somehow about being nice to animals?
Of course, as was mentioned in the other place, in reality, the Bill is not just about public relations, because those involved in minority areas of activity in our national life are realising that it could easily be used against them. Yes, I did see the assurances that the Government gave in the other place that the Bill would not attack the Jewish and Muslim religious animal slaughter practices of shechita and halal, and blatantly yes, the Bill makes no direct attack on those practices, but it does open up indirect lines of attack that could easily be used to prejudice or damage those minority religious practices. Importantly, as was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Bill has no exemptions on the grounds of religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage, although those exemptions were included in the equivalent EU legislation. That should be corrected; I will be with him on that.
If the new committee were, for instance, to come up with regular reports against non-stunning slaughter practices, the pressure for change would quickly switch to Ministers. I would defend those religious practices, although that is not today’s debate. However, it is relevant to argue that any such changes should be formulated and debated by Ministers and then Parliament, not the new committee. If science does eventually tell us what sentience means and how it can be measured, and if all animal welfare will need to be improved as a result, why farm that out to a committee rather than deal with it directly? The committee will be appointed by the Ministers of the day, and let us acknowledge that the Ministers whom we politically support today will not be there on a change of Government. For that matter, if there is to be a committee, why does it have to be set up by statute if it will have no executive powers?
I was very surprised by the unwillingness of Ministers to engage on this issue or accept amendments in the other place, despite the Bill being hugely contentious. I hope that attitude will now change. There seems to be a lack of focus on what the committee will do, and the possible implications. It seems that it will have a full roving remit across Whitehall, although how it would interact with Departments is vague, as is how it would interact with the existing animal welfare machinery, specifically the animal welfare committee. We do not know. Why not make this new committee part of the animal welfare committee?
As chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and a Member with a rural constituency, I have been approached by many to voice their concerns that the Bill is being used as a smokescreen to enable attacks on farming practices and wildlife management processes, as well as field sports. In the last few years, for instance, the lobby against game shooting has become increasingly litigious and now regularly uses judicial review to query a wide range of shooting issues, such as where game shooting can take place and what can be shot using general licences. The idea that such people will not attempt judicial review of decisions taken by Ministers on the back of the new committee’s findings is, frankly, unrealistic.
I predict that the Bill will: complicate many rural activities; add complexity and require legal opinions and court appearances; and add cost and bureaucracy. Despite the Bill being welcomed by the Opposition, it is, to my mind, a poor piece of legislation.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I do not agree with most things he said, but he made a few points that I liked and will come to in my remarks. I welcome the Bill and I will support it today.
The Bill has come a long way since it was first introduced. It is a really good example of how Bills should be improved, especially through prelegislative scrutiny, rather than being stuck in the House of Lords. Many of the amendments made in the House of Lords should have been made in prelegislative scrutiny, so that we did not have a reformed Bill coming to the House of Commons.
I echo the remarks made by the new shadow Environment Secretary, and especially the thanks to Baroness Hayman for her sterling work in the other place, particularly on including cephalopods and decapods in the scope of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the era of boiling lobsters alive will come to an end. That is down to the work of Baroness Hayman and her colleagues in the House of Lords, and is long overdue.
The Bill is not really necessary, so to a certain extent the remarks from the hon. Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Huntingdon were right in one respect: this really should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation. Of all the rules passed by the European Union during our membership, this is the only one that the Government chose not to map over. Why was that? Was it because there is an ideological divide over animal sentience? Was it because of a real desire to change the situation? Or was it because the Government fell foul of a debate that led to an outcry? This should not have been necessary; the measures should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation, and we should be spending our time looking at how we can improve animal welfare, rather than correcting the mistakes by the Government in the Brexit negotiations.
The Bill needs to work, however, and it is important that we get the detail right. Further work is needed to do that. Some of it is in the very short Bill, but the majority is in the terms of reference that accompany it. It is a shame that the Government have not put more effort into explaining what is in the terms of reference, because much of the detail about how the Animal Sentience Committee will work is in there. Many of the things that we need to improve are not in the Bill, but in the terms of reference, so it is important that we look at those.
There are three main changes that we should make to the Bill and that I hope will be accepted in Committee. First, we should remove the word “adverse” from clause 2(2), which says that the Animal Sentience Committee should have
“due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
As my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), said, there really is no need to include the word “adverse”; if anything, it limits the legislation’s ambition and fails to deliver on the Government’s objectives. In the politics around animal welfare, it is quite a dated concept to use the word “adverse”, with its negative connotation in respect of animal welfare. It suggests that the job of animal welfare legislation is just to stop humans doing bad things to animals. It fails to consider the welfare agenda of the 21st century: what is a life well lived for an animal? How can we ensure not only that suffering is kept to a minimum but that animals enjoy a good quality of life? To delete “adverse” would not distract from the Government’s objectives in the Bill; indeed, it would arguably deliver a lot more on them. I hope that the Government will support an amendment to that end in Committee.
Secondly, on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA-land, to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee. I would like this legislation and the committee to be in place by September this year; it is not unreasonable to argue that in September 2023, 12 months from that point, the legislation should apply to all non-departmental public bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that is the Government’s intention.
Thirdly, I am concerned about enforcement. I know that the Secretary of State will not like my saying this but, in my new-found freedom as a Back Bencher, let me be bold and speak frankly: DEFRA is a weak Department that does not really scare other Departments. The idea of DEFRA knocking on the door of, say, the Ministry of Defence to question its full implementation of animal sentience guidance is akin to a sardine taking on an Astute-class submarine: we are British and love the underdog, but it is not going to win. We need to be honest about that in relation to this legislation.
According to the guidance that accompanies the Bill, the Animal Sentience Committee will produce approximately six to eight reports a year. It seems to me that instead of allowing the delivery of written statements to the House of Commons three months after the Departments in question have made their initial reports, it makes much more sense for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make an oral statement, to enable parliamentarians to scrutinise the Animal Sentience Committee’s bulk report all in one go. I am concerned that the lack of such a parliamentary opportunity will limit the effectiveness of the legislation.
If the Secretary of State is keen to avoid the scrutiny opportunity of an annual moment, when he may also wish to set out the year-long cross-Government animal sentience strategy that is missing from the Bill, perhaps the Minister could set out the desired route by which parliamentarians will be able to question the effectiveness of the reports and whether they have led to any action or have simply been talking shops, designed to make Departments look but busy without delivering. Will we need to look to the good offices of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take time out of its busy schedule to analyse each report? Will we need a Backbench Business Committee slot to come free? Or will we need the Speaker to look favourably on a Member at DEFRA questions so that we can scrutinise any of the committee’s reports on the Floor of the House? I fear that without effective enforcement and proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Bill risks becoming a well-intentioned but meaningless piece of legislation.
It is important to look at the committee’s powers. The committee must have proper powers to investigate. Page 9 of the draft guidance the Government have released says that Departments will not have a legal duty to consult the committee. That is really important: Departments will not be required to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. How can the committee improve accountability if Departments can simply decline to participate or to give information? The draft terms of reference suggest that if
“a Department fails to engage with the Committee or assist it with reasonable requests for information as it prepares a report, the Committee may record this non-cooperation in said report.”
That is a scary threat. How will Departments cope with the prospect of getting a black mark on their school report that will barely get any parliamentary scrutiny? What is missing here is a legal duty for Government Departments to co-operate and share information with the Animal Sentience Committee, to ensure that any concerns are properly followed up, otherwise the committee will not have the powers it needs.
I am interested in how DEFRA has come to the conclusion that there should not be a legal requirement to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. Has there been an assessment of DEFRA’s own likelihood of co-operating with the committee? If so, will that assessment be published? Which Department is most likely not to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee? Is it the Ministry of Defence? Is it DEFRA? These are the questions to which we need an answer.
The Government admit in the draft terms of reference:
“The co-operation of UK Government Departments is necessary for the Committee to be able to work most effectively.”
But the Government are making that co-operation voluntary. It will be an option for any Secretary of State whose priority might not be animal sentience. Indeed, if they are being investigated, they probably will not have properly considered animal sentience in the development of policy. I suggest the Government take their own advice and make it a legal obligation for Departments to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. That is another amendment that I hope will be moved in Committee. Perhaps the Environment Secretary will report annually on how many Departments are not co-operating with this new committee, as that would be very interesting for the House to know.
There are concerns about the independence of the Animal Sentience Committee and about who should be a member. In that respect, I share some of the concerns raised by the Countryside Alliance, which is not a likely bedfellow for me—the Countryside Alliance is generous and warm in how it describes me in these remarks. It is important that the membership of the committee is broad and has expertise, but it is also important that its members are clear and transparent about their involvement.
Annex A of the draft terms of reference sets out that the interests of members of the committee will be registered, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, under paragraph (h) of annex A—on any organisations or work relevant to the committee—it will be very clear that all members of the committee, if they are part of a foxhunt, will need to declare it as an interest. I agree with the Countryside Alliance that it is important we have broad-based and transparent involvement. It is important that the interests of every member of the committee are transparently declared.
Finally, I want to address the inaccurate report that the Bill could, in any way, stop our fishers and farmers doing what they do best. We are in a strange period in which the UK does not have animal sentience legislation. We have not had it since we left the European Union because the Government chose not to copy it over, but we will have it again when this Bill passes, as it will.
The hysterical reports from the media and some lobbying groups suggesting that the Bill could affect fishing and farming are incorrect. Britain rightly demands high animal welfare standards for kept and wild animals, and we should be clear that that should continue with this Bill. The Secretary of State has my full support on that, but I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) in saying that we need high animal welfare standards in our trade deals, because it is not acceptable that the Australia trade deal undercuts our farmers by allowing food produced to lower animal welfare standards to be sold in the UK.
I echo a Labour colleague in saying that we need to tighten up the Hunting Act 2004 to stop foxhunting being a 21st-century practice. Trail hunting is an excuse for the live hunting of foxes and we need to close such loopholes. I am disappointed that this Bill does not provide the opportunity to do so.
Much of the Government’s animal welfare legislation has come from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. There are many members of the 2019 intake in the Chamber, and I am sure they have read it thoroughly because, in many cases, they will have voted for many of the manifesto’s soundbites from the Government Benches, but it is not sufficient just to borrow the headlines from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto; the Government must borrow the detail, too. I encourage the Minister to look again at his well-thumbed copy to see what more he can borrow.
This is an okay Bill. It is half a pace forward, but it could be a full stride forward if we get the detail right. I hope that will happen in Committee.
3.54 pm
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
This is a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a Trojan horse for those who have no understanding of, and sadly in some cases despise, the countryside and all that goes on in it. Before I start, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We left the EU in order to pass our own laws, I hope guided by common sense and only where necessary, but this Bill is even more intrusive than the former legislation under EU law. It is a skeleton of a Bill, one that is not necessary and, indeed, it has the potential for great harm. I say “skeleton” because many aspects of the Bill are unclear. Who will be appointed to the committee? What skills will they have? How will it be resourced? Why is this a statutory committee when others are not? Why will it have the power to pass secondary legislation, and is this because the Bill itself has simply not been thought through and revision by whoever is in power will need to be accommodated? Why is the committee’s authority seemingly limitless, with its remit to cover all policy across all Departments, and what implications, which could be onerous, does that have for each Department?
As two of my colleagues have asked so far, what is sentience? It is simply not defined. To me, this will mean that the committee will examine the effect of Government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Sentience has long been recognised in Parliament. We have had animal welfare Bills since 1822. The most recent—it has already been mentioned—is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. They go far beyond the minimum standards set by the EU. Animal sentience is a fact, which is why welfare matters and why we have the highest standards. Then there is the question of the particular circumstances of the sentient animal. Animals kept by man are surely different from animals in the wild, even if both are sentient. To this end, I share the concerns of the noble Lord Etherton, who described this Bill as a magnet for judicial review.
I used the expression “Trojan horse” at the start, and what I mean is that I and many others fear that those with different agendas—often partisan and politically motivated—will hijack this committee and its role to attack activities such as shooting and fishing. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mention fishing a moment ago, but he did not include shooting. The Countryside Alliance rightly believes that the Bill lacks the necessary details and safeguards to prevent the committee from extending its reach to rural activities, and in Labour and other hands that is exactly where this committee will head.
This Bill emanated from the Lords, where on Third Reading the noble Lord Herbert said that proposed amendments defining sentience, limiting the committee’s scope, ensuring scientific expertise, and balancing provision for religious, cultural and regional heritage were all refused by the Government as “not necessary”. This committee will be another bureaucracy whose tentacles will reach far and wide. A partisan committee will bring with it division and hostility where there need be none. Why on earth a Conservative Government are driving a coach and horses straight at our core supporters and many others is quite beyond me. I very much look forward to dramatic changes to this Bill before I would even begin to support it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It feels rather odd to be rising after three Tory Back Benchers in a row—the only three Tory Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate—have all criticised a Government Bill, so I am here to lend my support to the Government, and I hope the Secretary of State is grateful for that.
By the time the Bill becomes law it will be more than six years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. It is now more than four years since the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) moved an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which I seconded, calling on the Government to recognise animal sentience, as enshrined in article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, in UK law. It is four years since the Government promised to legislate, although that was only in a bid to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion after a big public campaign urged MPs to support the amendment. It has to be said that Tory Back Benchers back then seemed a lot more enthusiastic about supporting animal sentience—perhaps that is what comes of recent electoral changes.
It has been nearly three years since I introduced my own ten-minute rule Bill on animal sentience. That was after we took evidence at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Minister kept saying, “We really want to bring measures forward, but we need the right legislative vehicle.” So I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and said, “Here’s your legislative vehicle on a plate,” but the Government did not seem interested. It is also nearly two years since the Petitions Committee debate in Westminster Hall and well over a year since the end of the transition period, so we have been waiting a long time. Forgive me if I am a little cynical, but I am not entirely convinced that the Government really wanted this legislation at all, and I think that was borne out by the contributions from the three Conservative Back Benchers that we have heard from so far today.
I thank the campaigners and members of the public who have emailed MPs, signed petitions and kept pressing, because that is why the Government have finally produced this Bill. This pattern of promising action on animal welfare but taking forever to act is typical of this Government. We have seen it on ivory imports, trophy hunting, live exports and foie gras imports, as well as on refusing to crack down on the cruel and environmentally destructive practice of grouse shooting or to close the loopholes that have allowed fox hunting to continue. It is beyond me why an MP would stand here and say that we need to amend the Bill so that we have the right to be cruel to animals just because that has been traditional in this country. That is not exactly the definition of progress.
Nevertheless, despite my concerns about the Government’s credentials, I am glad the Bill has finally come before Parliament, and with a significant win for campaigners—the recognition of decapods and cephalopods as sentient beings. A couple of MPs have said that sentience is not defined. One reason the Government gave for the delay to this legislation was that they needed to carry out research. They got the London School of Economics to do research, and the LSE said:
“Sentience (from the Latin sentire, to feel) is the capacity to have feelings. Feelings may include, for example, feelings of pain, distress, anxiety, boredom, hunger, thirst, pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, and excitement.”
There we go: that is the definition of sentience. I would have hoped that those MPs would look at the LSE definition.
Luke Pollard
The point I made in my remarks was that the terms of reference that accompany the Bill actually include a definition of sentience, and it is very similar to the one my hon. Friend has read out. Would it not be better if that definition was included in the Bill and not hidden in the terms of reference?
Kerry McCarthy
That might be a matter for the Bill Committee, so that we avoid some of the criticisms we have seen. I hope that the recognition of the sentience of decapods and cephalopods will mean an end to gross acts of cruelty, such as unstunned lobsters being boiled alive in the cooking process. When the Minister winds up, I hope she can confirm that that will indeed become illegal if the Bill passes, as the LSE recommended in its research.
We know that the octopus is an incredibly intelligent creature. I was shocked to read recently that the world’s first commercial octopus farm is set to be established in Spain. The farm will not be on UK soil, but the Government could ban imports and outlaw any such farms in UK waters, again as proposed in LSE research.
As has been mentioned, there are concerns about clause 2, which requires the proposed Animal Sentience Committee to consider only the adverse effects of policy decisions on animals, not the positive effects. I was not entirely convinced by the Minister’s very brief response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on that, and I hope the issue can be discussed in Committee.
I often say this in such debates, but I somewhat hate the self-congratulatory, complacent approach to animal welfare in this country. People are so very keen to boast of how good we are, but there are still many examples of where animals are abused and exploited. Industrially farmed animals can still face horrific, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions and be subject to abuse by those who purport to care for them. With live exports, we see animals suffering from thirst, overcrowding and overheating —again, in appalling conditions. The Environmental Audit Committee has just reported on poor water quality in UK rivers, and one of the key sources of water pollution was sewage run-off and agricultural slurry from intensive farming.
Undercover investigations from organisations such as Animal Equality and Viva! have exposed horrific conditions. Last year, it was revealed that cows were beaten with electric prods and sheep and pigs were slaughtered without adequate stunning at the G & GB Hewitt abattoir in Cheshire. We have seen reports of overcrowding, filthy conditions and even cannibalism among pigs on Hogwood Pig Farm. We have seen pigs being killed by having their heads slammed to the floor on Yattendon pig farm, chickens dying in heatwaves at Moy Park farm and chickens dying of thirst, suffering ammonia burns or resorting to cannibalism on multiple chicken farms that supply Tesco. All the farms I have mentioned were Red Tractor-approved, with supposedly higher animal welfare. We have a long way to go.
I echo what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said about the need to reduce dramatically the number of animal experiments, and the shadow Secretary of State’s concern about importing lower animal welfare standards into the country as a result of recent trade deals. All that leads me to a wider point about what we want our relationship with the animal kingdom to be. The reality is that biodiversity has plummeted by 60% since 1970, yet a staggering 60% of all mammals on this planet are now livestock, as industrial agriculture booms. Only 4% of mammals now are wild animals. That shows the impact that humans have had on the natural world: we have confined nature to farms and destroyed whatever is left outside them.
It is also estimated that since the dawn of human civilisation, 15% of fish biomass has been lost and 70% of global fish stocks are now either fully exploited or over-exploited. Renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle recently said that humans treat oceans like a “free grocery store”, and called on us to respect marine creatures in the same way we do elephants.
Recognition of the sentience of animals is the first step in a better relationship with them, so I welcome the Bill and urge colleagues to support it—but recognition is one thing, and respect is another. If we truly respect animals, we must do a lot more than just pay lip service to sentience: we must end the exploitation and abuse of animals on factory farms; stop treating animals as commodities; end the hunting and shooting of animals for sport; and halt and reverse the devastating damage that we have done to the natural world. I hope that all those issues can come out as a result of this Bill. It is just a starting point, but it is important to get the concept of animal sentience on the record, and I am happy to support it.
Mr Speaker
We now have a maiden speech. I welcome Louie French.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. It is a true privilege to stand among these green Benches as the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, a place I have called home all my life. I thank colleagues for their warm reception today and for the party’s support throughout the by-election. Who would have thought that someone with the surname French would be so warmly welcomed by so many Brexiteers? If the Home Secretary could have forecast my voting against the Government in my first month, she might have deployed the Navy even earlier.
All jokes aside, I am more than happy to give my full support to the Government on the Bill and their wider efforts to improve animal welfare across the UK. As already outlined, the Bill builds on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by recognising sentience in law and requires the Government to set up an Animal Sentience Committee to examine whether the welfare of animals as sentient beings has been given due regard in policy decisions.
The Bill has rightly received support from a range of animal welfare organisations and is welcomed by the majority of residents in Old Bexley and Sidcup, who, like me, are animal lovers. We recognise that animals feel joy and pain, and as such should be considered in future policy decisions, including the strengthening of sentencing for those who carry out the callous acts of cruelty and pet theft. Pet theft remains a real problem for families across Bexley and the country overall; I hope that the tougher sentences for such crimes will act as a deterrent to future offenders. On the subject of offenders, I confirm that I am not the lovechild of Norman Stanley Fletcher from “Porridge”, as has been speculated.
In representing the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I follow my good friend, the late James Brokenshire. I know hon. Members on both sides of the House mourn the loss of James, who was a friendly, thoughtful and well-liked gentleman. It is a great privilege to have Cathy in the Gallery today.
James was first elected to the House in 2005 as the MP for Hornchurch, and was elected in 2010 as the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup. James was an outstanding constituency MP, who fought for the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup every day, never forgetting that it was them who placed him in this House. James was also a diligent and effective Minister, serving the country in some of the most sensitive and demanding positions under three successive Prime Ministers.
James was a true and loyal friend to me over many years, and I will always value the support he provided and the memories we shared, as I know many across this House do. Although I own significantly fewer ovens than he and Cathy, and I do not share his love for West Ham United, which largely reflected his Essex roots, I humbly recognise that he is a tough act to follow. I hope to be able to continue his legacy in some way.
Old Bexley and Sidcup is a fantastic seat to represent, and I am honoured to have been elected as the first home-grown MP to serve the communities across Old Bexley, Blackfen and Lamorbey, Blendon and Penhill, East Wickham, Longlands, North Cray, Sidcup, and Falconwood and Welling. The constituency is located in south-east London, but with its picturesque churches, charming pubs and beautiful green spaces, it is clear that Old Bexley and Sidcup is also firmly within Kent, with a strong sense of tradition and patriotism throughout the constituency.
Many hon. Friends visited my lovely home area during my election campaign, for which I am grateful. I would encourage all hon. Members to visit what I believe is the best constituency to represent, where they will find many fantastic businesses and some of the most scenic parks and open spaces, including Foots Cray meadows, with the five arches bridge over the River Cray.
Old Bexley and Sidcup also played an important role in the great war, through the pioneering work of Sir Harold Gillies at Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup, which opened in 1917. That was where almost every soldier who had suffered a facial injury was sent for ground-breaking facial reconstructive surgery, led by surgeon, Sir Harold, the man widely recognised as the father of modern plastic surgery. The medical staff at Queen Mary’s Hospital also went further, considering, perhaps for the first time, the long-term psychological effects on those disfigured by warfare, using methods of treatment and care that underpin the work undertaken by medical professionals in support of today’s armed forces.
The constituency also boasts two world-class drama schools, Rose Bruford College and Bird College, with notable alumni, including Gary Oldman, who most famously portrayed Winston Churchill in “The Darkest Hour”. Notable residents of Old Bexley and Sidcup are not limited to Rose Bruford alumni, and have included Roald Dahl, Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and Kate Bush, which highlights how culture and the arts lie at the heart of Old Bexley and Sidcup.
As a borough of aspiration, which is reflected in my own journey to this place, we are rightly proud of our fantastic local schools and colleges. Like many families in the constituency, my mother moved us to Bexley when I was born to benefit from the excellent local schools, in my case the old Westwood Infants and Juniors, now called Bishop Ridley Primary School; the old Westwood College, now called Harris Academy Falconwood; and not forgetting Blackfen Sixth Form, where I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) taught at one point. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I apologise, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the constituency. [Laughter.]
I am determined to use my time in this place to do everything I can for our community, and ensure that it continues to be a great place to live. That includes campaigning to secure extra facilities at Queen Mary’s Hospital; increased availability of GP appointments and police on our streets; working to ensure our schools stay excellent; protecting our precious local green spaces; and ensuring Southeastern commuters finally see a much-needed improvement to our rail services.
I would like to finish by reciting James’s words in his maiden speech. He said that
“hope is one of the most valuable things that we can offer. In a small way, I will try to provide that sense of hope to my constituents, by standing up on the issues that matter to them, by listening to those who think that no one is prepared to be interested in their concerns, and by giving a voice in the House to those who have none.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2005; Vol. 447, c. 1470.]
James remained true to his word and I will continue this when serving my local area. In electing me as their Member of Parliament, the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup have given me the greatest honour of my life, and I pledge to serve them with the upmost integrity, dedication and care.
Mr Speaker
A fitting tribute from the new Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We all think of the former Member, who was a friend to us all.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I was moved by his kind and thoughtful contribution on his predecessor, who was indeed well respected and admired by Members across the House. I think his constituency sounds beautiful. I liked the talk of the meadows and I had no idea Roald Dhal lived there. Perhaps I should pop down and visit. It is always good to welcome a fellow animal lover to the House of Commons, and I wish him all the best.
It is no exaggeration to say that I am contacted daily by constituents on one aspect or another of animal welfare. The recognition of animal sentience in law has been a consistent question since I became an MP in 2017. Many of us remember the famous amendment on animal sentience tabled during the constant Brexit debates. I certainly remember the flurry of emails, social media, tweets and messages on Facebook that followed, with numerous people telling me how important animal sentience was to them. It is, of course, entirely proper that the Government of the UK, famed as a nation of animal lovers, should act to remedy that issue. I am here to briefly, but carefully, represent the many voices of the people from Hull West and Hessle who contacted me on the issue.
No one who has looked after animals or spent time watching them in the wild can have any doubt that they are aware and can experience emotions. If you will forgive me for one moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have to mention my two cats, Thomas and Serena, who have entirely different personalities. They are absolutely wonderful and dispel the idea that they cannot experience emotion when I can tell by looking at them exactly how they are feeling. One of the greatest inventions of the internet, of course, is #catsoftwitter, which I recommend to all Members. If they are having a bad news day, they should have a quick look at it and it will cheer them up.
It is worth reminding Members that we are animals, too. We are only different by degree, and more and more scientific research is showing us how slim that difference of degree is. Free or captive, wild or domesticated, our fellow animals should be treated with compassion and respect, and it is proper that the Bill recognises that by applying it to all. In fact, the continuing advances in our scientific understanding of animal sentience were what made the Government decide against including a definition of sentience in the Bill. I am pleased to hear that although a definition might not be in the Bill, it is in the terms of reference. That growing understanding has led to the inclusion of cephalopods and decapods, which include octopuses and lobsters, as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law.
I want to mention the few small reservations I have. Although my remarks are in support of the Bill and those from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) were against, we share similar concerns about the composition of the committee. Who will sit on the committee? How will they be chosen? What powers will they have? How independent will they be of Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made an incredibly useful contribution to the debate, because he detailed his concerns about the committee and the fact that it will have no power even to tell DEFRA how to conduct itself.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Why will she not then persuade those on her Front Bench to vote against this nonsense?
Emma Hardy
In general, we support the Bill. We hope that in Committee some of our reservations will be looked at and the Bill amended—[Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding at me from the Government Front Bench. So far, during the passage of the Bill, the Government seem to be willing to consider amending and improving it. I hope that that will continue.
The Bill does not propose a duty on Ministers to consider the welfare needs of animals when making policy. I think those points were very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I draw attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who is not in his place. I hope the Government will look again at hunting with dogs and at animal standards abroad.
The points made about free trade deals are very concerning. I have had numerous emails from constituents on that point and they are very worried. Some of the flippant responses such as, “Well, they don’t have to buy that meat, then,” fail to recognise the fact that when price is taken into consideration many families might feel that they have no choice. We need to look at some of the animal standards we are importing.
I agree that we should have an annual oral statement, as a written statement produced for Parliament does not give the same chance for scrutiny. That is a weakness of the Bill that I hope the Minister will address.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for raising a point about the use of primates in experiments by the Ministry of Defence, because I had no awareness of that whatsoever, so I am grateful that she has brought it to my attention. I hope the Minister can comment, because I find it hugely concerning.
Although I support the Bill, there are a few points that I hope the Government will take away and consider so that when it comes back for its final votes on Report it is much improved.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in the debate on a very important Bill that Opposition Members will be pleased to hear this Member of Parliament strongly supports. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon; the Bill will be so important in recognising animal sentience in UK legislation.
In the current political climate I am loth to get into intricate debates about the difference between the words “implicit” and “explicit”, but, as the Secretary of State said, animal sentience has been implicit in UK law since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and it remains implicitly acknowledged in current animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I feel that this House and the Government missed a trick in 2017 by not transferring into UK legislation the part of article 13 of the Lisbon treaty that recognised that animals are sentient beings, because that would have been easy to do. That said, by not doing it, we now have an amazing opportunity to put animal sentience at the heart of UK legislation, and that is very important. I also welcome it as the Government’s fulfilling of a manifesto promise, which I strongly support.
I very much welcome the fact that cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans are now included in the Bill. That sets a really good example. The Government have commissioned a piece of work from the London School of Economics and they have listened to it. I am very encouraged by that; I just wish they would do it a little more often.
Although I welcome the Bill, I very much recognise the contributions from Opposition Members who say that we need to be clearer on some of the details and specifics. I recognise that, by definition, this is a brief and general overarching Bill, which is probably quite sensible. That said, I would very much like it to define the term “sentience” in some way. In the 2017 Bill consultation, 79% of responses called for the inclusion of a definition in the Bill. A useful definition made by the Global Animal Law Project and endorsed by the British Veterinary Association states:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
The Minister said in the other place, and also before us in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that it might well be difficult to put the definition into primary legislation because the science is evolving and so potentially it could evolve. We could get round that by placing it in secondary legislation that would be easily updated, so I think that the Government can move forward on that.
I very much welcome the formation of the Animal Sentience Committee, but we need to be clear about its independence and to make sure that it has strong expertise and experience in animal welfare, animal health and veterinary matters. It needs to have some teeth and some power, including power to roam across Government. I am very glad that the committee will be based in DEFRA; although I want it to have a roaming feature, I am more comfortable with it being in the Department that is the custodian for animal health and welfare, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Sir Bill Wiggin
Given my hon. Friend’s expertise and professional experience, what examples does he have from his own life of such a committee being necessary? Why does he therefore want it based in DEFRA?
Dr Hudson
I will come on to some examples of why I think the committee will be important, and how the Government and the Secretary of State respond to it will be useful in formulating policy.
I am glad that the committee will be embedded in DEFRA, but I very much hope that it will be listened to. I draw a contrast with the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House called for, as did the National Farmers Union. We were really pleased to have it scrutinising trade negotiations. It produced a report, but the Government were very slow in responding and were a little partial in their response. I very much hope that the response to the committee from DEFRA, a Department in which I have a lot of faith, will be unlike some of the responses from the Department for International Trade to the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will respond within three months. There has been a lot of fear that the Bill and the committee might be open to judicial review, but the fact that the Secretary of State needs to respond within three months may go some way towards mitigating that risk. I recognise that there have been concerns, however.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that a duty to create and maintain a cross-Whitehall animal sentience strategy would ensure strengthened ministerial responsibility, with greater oversight of the legislation’s impact and scientific opinions or advances?
Dr Hudson
It is very important for the committee to have a brief to look at policy across Departments. Yes, it is important that the Secretary of State responds, but it is equally important that if the committee needs information from other Departments, it should be made available. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I agree with Opposition Members about adverse effects and the wording of clause 2, which relates to whether the Government 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 would like the Bill and the committee not only to include adverse effects, but to look at the positives—the ways in which the policy improves animal health and welfare. I firmly believe that we have the highest animal welfare and animal health standards in the world and that the UK can be a beacon to the rest of the world. If we put it in legislation that we will look at adverse effects on animals, we should also point out, shine a light on and show the rest of the world the positive effects on animal health and welfare. I look forward hopefully to some movement from the Government on that point.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we left the European Union there was much scaremongering about animal welfare standards falling? Does he agree that the Government have demonstrated that those fears were absolutely unfounded, whether in their work on animal sentience or puppy smuggling or in their support for my Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which goes into Committee tomorrow and will ban glue traps? Those are really important issues to my constituents.
Dr Hudson
Leaving the European Union certainly means that the UK can put legislation on the statute book to promote animal health and welfare. I would like the Government to go further, because there are things we can do to improve animal health and welfare now that we have left the European Union. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I sit, has produced a report, “Moving animals across borders”, that makes very strong recommendations about simple things that can be done.
I welcome the Bill, but I stress to the Government the need to please make animal welfare joined up across Government and across different policy areas. We need to act now to do that. The evidence is there in many of these different areas. Oftentimes, we do not need to consult and put it in the long grass; we can do the things that need to be done now.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list some things that we could do that the Bill will help us to do. I strongly welcome the pet theft legislation. I have been campaigning for it, and I am pleased that it has come in to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. That legislation is very much focused on the high-profile species—the dog—that has sadly been stolen in increasing numbers during the pandemic, and that is getting worse, but it is not just dogs that are being stolen; cats are being stolen every day and as we speak.
I strongly urge the Government to expand the legislation. I know there is a clause to say, “This can be done in the future. We will take evidence”, but cats, horses, ponies, farm animals and livestock are being stolen now. I represent a rural part of the world with a big farming footprint, and farm animal and livestock theft is a big issue for us. If we are now putting on the statute book that animals are fully sentient beings, and we are taking that into consideration in legislation, I strongly urge the Government that we need to create a huge deterrent to people who commit this abhorrent crime of animal theft.
On domestic public sector food procurement, I urge the Government to close the loophole in the Government buying standards that allows public bodies to buy food products at lower standards on the grounds of cost, if it is cheaper. We need to close that loophole. When I have raised this with Government, they have been very encouraging, saying, “Yes, we will be looking at that.” Certainly our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at that closely. If we are trying to be a beacon to the rest of the world, we must get our own house in order. I urge the Government quickly to close that Government buying standards loophole.
Opposition Members have talked about international trade. My views on international trade are on the public record. As an outward-looking nation, it is important that we strike trade deals with the rest of the world, but they have to be fair to both partners. Within that, the Trade and Agriculture Commission made a lot of clear recommendations on core standards and the animal welfare side of things, which we need to respect in those trade deals. Sadly, I feel that the Government and the Department for International Trade are being very slow in responding to that.
We need to have core standards in trade deals. We need to put out the message to the rest of the world that if they want to trade with us, they need to bring their standards up to those we find acceptable in this country. We are a beacon. We have high animal health and welfare and we can drive up standards around the world. There must be red-line products that we do not allow in.
I draw a difference with Opposition Members when it comes to hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), talked about. To a degree, that is not going to happen. The Government have been very clear that that is illegal in this country, and it will remain illegal. It is other products that we need to be thinking about in terms of substandard animal husbandry techniques.
I do not want these trade deals to undermine our fantastic British farmers. This is about not protectionism but standing up for our values. What do we believe in? This Bill shows that we firmly believe that animals are sentient beings and that we have a high regard for animal health and welfare. We need to be doing that with our domestic policy, but we also need to be doing it in our international trade deals, when we strike them.
The trade deal with Australia can be a positive thing, but we must make it work and it must be fair to both partners. As it stands, it is not fair to the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to look at the safeguards they have said they have put in place and to ensure that those safeguards have some teeth. We need the tariff rate quota mechanism that I have been calling for, but we also need an assurance that if the amount of beef—it is largely beef, but it could be lamb—coming into this country is too high, that mechanism can be used to turn down that supply. That is not protectionism; that is standing up for our farmers and our values. I also welcome the Government’s having moved, under pressure, to put animal welfare chapters into these trade deals, but I firmly believe they are not strong enough. They need to be strengthened.
There is a non-regression clause in the Australian trade deal, but it is not good enough to say, “Well, our standards will not get any worse.” We need to make sure that the standards come up to the standards that we believe are right in the United Kingdom. We are a beacon on this, and we can drive up animal health and welfare standards around the world.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made a series of pragmatic and sensible recommendations on animal health and welfare in our report “Moving animals across borders”. Unfortunately, the Government have been a little slow and—to give a cricketing analogy—a bit straight bat on it. Our recommendations included raising the minimum age of dogs that come into the country to six months, to stamp out the abhorrent crime of puppy smuggling, and banning the import of dogs that have been mutilated by ear cropping and cats that have been declawed. We need to stop that. We need to ban the movement of heavily pregnant dogs, because that fuels the puppy smuggling trade.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, which supports the argument that clause 2 ought to include positive measures. Would it not be great if we introduced legislation that addressed issues such as cropping dogs’ ears or declawing cats, which would show the world that, through this Bill, we are making progress on such issues?
Dr Hudson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree with her. Pointing out where things are having an adverse effect is important, but so is pointing out positive measures. We need to put out the message about where we think things can improve.
I would also like to see—I have pushed this hard in the Chamber and would do so in the Bill Committee—improvements in the health checks on animals coming into this country, including pre-import tests for diseases such as canine brucellosis, babesiosis and leishmaniasis, and the reinstatement of mandatory tick treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) talked about some of these things. Now that we have left the European Union, we can reintroduce the mandatory tick treatment for small animals that the Europeans stopped us doing. That might seem a semantic, purely veterinary point, but if we protect animals coming in, they are less likely to bring in diseases that are dangerous to our dog population, some of which have zoonotic potential and could affect people. I would also like to see reinstatement of the rabies titre checks for animals and an increase in the wait time to 12 weeks post rabies vaccination. That would indirectly stop the puppy smuggling trade because it would make it less likely that a fluffy little puppy would be coming through to fuel that market.
I declare an interest again as a veterinary surgeon with an equine background. We need to sort out the equine identification system as well. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horses are illegally exported to the continent of Europe for slaughter, and if we improved the identification of those animals, we could stamp out that abhorrent practice. The EFRA Committee has made recommendations to Government, and I urge them to respond. Unfortunately some of the responses seem to be a bit “Little Britain”— “Computer says no.” To quote a famous sports brand, I say to the Government, “Just do it.”
Finally, I want to raise again the crisis that is facing the pig sector in this country. If we are talking about animal sentience and valuing high animal health and welfare, we need to highlight that crisis. As the EFRA Committee has said, it is an animal and human welfare crisis. I say that as a vet who spent time in the field during foot and mouth supervising the cull of farm animals on farm. Those animals did not end up in the food chain; they were disposed of. I can tell the House how upsetting that is for farmers, vets, slaughter workers and all concerned. We need to mitigate and avert that. More than 30,000 pigs have been culled on farm, and I know that the Secretary of State and DEFRA have been moving on this, putting pressure on different Departments, for example to increase cold storage. We had the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration before us and we were, frankly, pretty dissatisfied with the responses. We need some joined-up thinking across Government to improve the visa situation so that people can come here to help solve this crisis. I say to Ministers, “Please act now to avert this catastrophe.”
The Bill needs some additions, but the Government have initiated much that is to be welcomed, and it important that that will be on the statute book. The Government have talked the talk, and I urge them to walk the walk. We have a duty of care for these sentient beings; let us put that into practice, and let us do it now.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He made a comprehensive speech, and, not for the first time, I agreed with the colossal majority of what he said. It is also a huge honour to follow the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who spoke earlier. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech—I know it is customary for us to say that, but it genuinely was an excellent maiden speech. He represents a beautiful part of the country, which he described very well. I had no idea that Kate Bush owed something to his constituency, but that is massively in its favour from my perspective.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke fondly about his predecessor, the late James Brokenshire, who entered the House on the same day as me, and of whom I was always fond. People speak fondly of James because of the way he conducted himself. It is sometimes very easy to say, “I like X”—a member of another party—“because we agree on certain issues”, but it was not that I considered James to be a particularly liberal Tory, although he may have been. That was not the point; it was how he conducted himself in this place, in meetings, and in all that he did. He showed grace and decency, he treated people as he found them, he was utterly honourable and trustworthy, and he was a very competent Minister. We miss him hugely.
We also welcome the hon. Gentleman massively, and I look forward to hearing many more speeches from him. He spoke today with great knowledge of the subject of the debate and with great insight, and, for what it is worth, I agreed with what he said. I think we may have reached a stage at which the number of Conservative Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill matches the number who have spoken against it, which is good to know .
I am broadly in favour of the Bill, because I think that how we treat animals is a moral indicator of how we are as a culture and as a society. It is a measure of our own humanity, so it is right that we as a country are proud of being a nation of animal lovers. Often the way to get any group of people to behave well is to remind them of how good they are, so it is important that we cling to this self-definition; but it is also important that our legislation follows that, so we will of course support the Bill’s Second Reading.
As a member of the European Union, this country, through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, enshrined the acknowledgement of animal sentience in legislation. I welcome the fact that—following an unnecessary delay that has been mentioned by a number of Members on both sides of the House—we are now closing that gap. However, I think that the Bill represents a missed opportunity. Members do not need me to remind them of my views on whether it was wise to leave the European Union, but in the case of a number of aspects of our departure, we have opportunities to go one better than how the EU left us. In respect of the legislation at least, we have ensured that in theory we will now be no worse than we were in the EU. In practice, though, as several Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, if we sign trade deals with countries whose animal welfare standards are poorer than ours, we will put ourselves into a position where we are worse than we were before.
The most recent example is our trade deal with Australia. It is important to recognise that the Animal Sentience Committee will have no powers, as far as we can tell, to ensure that those deals—and further deals in the future—do not undermine animal welfare. It is not just a question of the treatment of animals and recognition of their sentience within the borders of this country; it is also a question of how countries that we deal with, in our name, treat those animals. If sovereignty means anything, it means our ability to affect other countries in so far as they relate to us; in the trade deal with Australia, we have failed to do that. This is true on three counts. When it comes to husbandry, I do not need to explain much about how the geography and the nature of farming in Australia differ from ours in the United Kingdom. The vast plains and the ranch-style farming in Australia mean that, to a large degree, there is no husbandry there.
Dr Hudson
I gently disagree with the hon. Member. Although he and I agree on many aspects of what we are discussing, as a vet who has worked on farms in Australia, I think he is making a very sweeping statement about the calibre and nature of farmers across Australia. He is correct that the geography and environment there is very different, but I can tell him from personal experience that many, many farmers out there farm to the highest standards, including when it comes to animal husbandry. To say that Australia has no animal husbandry is, frankly, incorrect.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He will recognise, particularly having been in Australia, the nature of that husbandry. In Cumbria, the welfare of livestock is tended to week in, week out. As many of my constituents who have farmed in Australia have informed me directly, the first time that someone in Australia knows that one of their animals might be ill is when they find its sun-bleached bones on the plains the following season. That is a different form of farming. Australians are not instinctively cruel people; that is not the point I am making—[Interruption.] I am sure that Members on both sides of the House understand that. I am saying, however, that lower standards are cheaper, including standards that do not require mandatory closed circuit television coverage in abattoirs, which we have here, or the restrictions that we have here on the transportation of live animals.
Given that we know that poorer welfare standards are cheaper, these trade deals—particularly the one with Australia—offer a financial and economic market advantage to countries with poorer standards than ours that export to us. That not only undermines the morality of the UK’s commitment to high animal welfare, but massively undermines our farmers. Every farmer in Cumbria and the rest of the United Kingdom suffers because the UK Government have chosen to do a deal with a country that we have much in common with, but that does not acknowledge the animal welfare issues there. That is why the Animal Sentience Committee and the recognition of sentience in the Bill, which I support, will not have an effect on all the animals affected by decisions taken in this place. This is an abuse of an opportunity—a missed opportunity—and a waste of our sovereignty, but the Bill is good in so far as it goes, so I welcome it and will vote for it.
I do criticise those Members—not my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but some of his colleagues—who have been critical of the Bill not because it does not go far enough, but because it goes as far as it does. They are wrong in that. People have said that the Bill is a threat to farming, but it is no such thing. I speak to farmers throughout my communities and further afield, and they welcome the Bill. They are committed to animal welfare—it is in their DNA.
We should recognise, however, the threat to farmers from trade deals, and from the Government’s dogged insistence on phasing out the basic payment scheme before the arrival of the new environmental land management scheme. Just last month, farmers lost between 5% and 25% of their basic payment, and there is no sign, even slightly over the horizon, of anything to replace it. That will put small British family farms out of business, and there will be a knock-on effect on animal welfare, because part of the reason for our animal welfare culture and why our standards are as high as they are in this country is that they are based on the model and example of the British family farm.
Although I welcome and will support the Bill, and think that there is much to be said for it, I want to rush through some areas where things need to be improved. First, I hope that the fact that the duty to enforce recognition of animal sentience falls on the committee and not primarily the Secretary of State will be changed during the passage of the Bill. That is not right; it gives less responsibility and power to the Secretary of State.
I am also very concerned that clause 3 requires the Secretary of State only to lodge before Parliament a response to reports from the Animal Sentience Committee. That could be a two-line dismissal, and then what would we do? I guess the Opposition could call an Opposition day debate, and we could ask questions at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, but as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, the opportunities for scrutiny are minimised. The task of initiating these things is all put on Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers. Set pieces will not be a part of the process, and it would be entirely possible for the Secretary of State effectively to dismiss any report pretty perfunctorily.
As has been said by a number of colleagues from across the House, we should not treat this matter purely in the negative, although unfortunately at the moment the Bill does that. If we are so proud of our heritage and our high animal welfare standards, why is the committee and its work not about promoting good practice around the country, and in every aspect of our life in so far as it impacts animals, as well as about trying to stamp out bad practice? Again, that feels like a missed opportunity to have gone further and done better. As I have strongly implied, the Animal Sentience Committee should have the power to comment on trade deals. My fear is that, on those matters, it could end up—a bit like the Trade and Agriculture Commission—being a watchdog that may bark occasionally but does not have very much bite. The Government are certainly under no compulsion or obligation to take any notice of it whatsoever.
Many animal welfare charities have expressed concerns to me about the lack of resource for the Animal Sentience Committee. I acknowledge that point, as it goes with our concern about the absence of parliamentary scrutiny and the relegation of these serious issues to a body that is one place removed from this place. The committee chair will be “hired”, for want of a better word, for 20 days a year, and members of the committee for 15. There is no dedicated secretariat—I understand that will be provided by DEFRA staff—and no obvious independent budget. All that adds up to just about ticking the box, and just about copying what the EU did, but without anybody watching over our shoulder. Meanwhile, we are not doing anything. We are meant to be a global trading nation whose footprint and impact is felt around the world. What a missed opportunity to make that impact and do something good when it comes to animal welfare. So this is not three cheers; it is perhaps two, or more likely one, but it is better than nothing, and I will vote for the Bill.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. The Secretary of State’s speech was reasonable, moderate and balanced, and I congratulate him on bringing forward the Bill. I appreciate the strong views highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope he will get the clarity he requires as the Bill proceeds through the House.
We have had a good debate covering wide aspects of the Bill, but I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). He made an excellent maiden speech, and we look forward to more of his speeches in the coming weeks and months. Personally, I look forward to working closely with him in Bexley on behalf of all residents of the borough, and to continuing the work that James, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and I have done to promote our borough as one of the best in the country. I wish my hon. Friend well in his parliamentary career, and congratulate him on being elected to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Britain is, of course, a nation of animal lovers, whether those animals be pets or wild. I have had a number of pets over the years. I got interested in animal welfare because I had a beagle called Skipper, and they were doing tests on beagles to do with smoking—a dreadful situation—in appalling laboratories. Now we do not have that, but there are still areas of animal welfare in which we need to do more. It is therefore good that we have such a Bill and are able to put forward our views.
Many of my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford are pet owners and are passionate about animals and animal welfare. Pressure from public opinion has resulted in this measure coming forward and being in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, and I welcome those things. Britain has a proud history of animal welfare, and has always been a global leader, and I very much hope that, being outside the EU, we can go much, much further. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) about his expertise as a vet, and I learned a lot listening to his excellent speech. I am sure the Government will continue to improve the lives and welfare of animals. They launched the action plan for animal welfare to ensure that we go further, and I welcome that passionately.
I have read the enlightening debates on the Bill in the other place. I have great interest in the Bill’s many issues, and very much hope to participate further in Committee and as the Bill makes its passage through the House.
The Bill will formally recognise animals as sentient beings—a scientific fact—in domestic law. I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that we have some of the strongest protections in the world for pets, livestock and wild animals. Following excellent research from the London School of Economics and Political Science—the university that I attended—the Government rightly extended the scope of the Bill so that it recognises that decapods and cephalopods can feel pain. They are therefore covered by this vital legislation.
The scientific community is always conducting research to improve our knowledge and understanding of animal sentience, so the Bill allows the Secretary of State to extend protections to any invertebrate species in the future, should it become apparent that they are sentient beings. That, again, is sensible. The debate has shown the House, and even those who have considerable concerns about aspects of the Bill, at their best; we can go forward, talk about the issues, and advance the interest of animals.
The sentience committee was mentioned. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and I am sure that it will be made up of experts in the animal field. The committee will not be allowed to change legislation; it will be required to report on whether central Government policy decisions have considered the effect on animal welfare. The findings will, quite rightly, be made public, for transparency. The committee will not result in legislation through the back door, as recommendations will be only advisory. However, Ministers will be required to update Parliament on the committee’s recommendations and the Government’s response. We will therefore have opportunities to raise and debate issues as the Department and Secretary of State give responses. It is important that we continue to monitor animal welfare issues closely, so I welcome what the Government are doing.
We always like our pets, but we also like to go into the countryside and see a wide variety of animals; it is part of the country scene. Although I am an urban man, having grown up in suburbia and representing a suburban seat, I none the less appreciate the importance of animals for all manner of reasons, and from all manner of experiences in life. Many people are keen on their pets, and never more so than during the covid-19 pandemic, when people were often on their own and relied on their pets for company, love and affection, and to sustain their mental health.
Animals are important across the whole field—that is why the Bill is so important. I strongly recognise how passionate the Ministers are about this subject, as well as those who represent rural constituencies. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) is making sedentary comments, as usual. I support the Bill, and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and implementing a manifesto commitment.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
First, let me draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I farm. What a delight it was to listen to such a full tribute to my friend James Brokenshire. He was a lovely man and a good friend, and we miss him very much. He has a worthy successor in my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). What large shoes he has to fill. I am sure that he will do his very best.
Concern for animal welfare is, as everyone has said, something on which we pride ourselves in this country, and on which we already lead globally. The sentience of animals has long been recognised in this country, as is evidenced by the animal welfare legislation passed by Parliaments over the last 200 years. My great-great-grandfather was the MP for somewhere in Birmingham—I think it was Yardley. I asked the Library to look up any speeches he made in 1885, and all it could find was a speech on rabbits and hares. Here I am, 137 years later, still on animal welfare. Nothing has changed because we care about sentience in animals. That is not going to make the Bill necessary. The Bill is completely unnecessary.
Every Member who has spoken in the debate has listed things that they think are more important than the Bill when it comes to animal welfare. They are right. There are so many things on which we could do a better job. Parliamentary time is not an endless opportunity. This is the place for Governments to bring in changes and improvements to the lives we and our constituents lead. We are elected for fixed periods of time, so every day is precious, and every opportunity to improve, simplify or even tweak our legislation is both a privilege and an obligation. That is why unnecessary tokenism and gestures, although they might feel nice, are a missed opportunity. The Bill is one of the best examples of that—glittering with good intentions, just like the road to hell, but absolutely and completely unnecessary.
First, the Bill creates an open goal for prevention. If someone wants to prevent a planning application, they can refer it to a quango and get a three-month report. There are questions about the proposed committee that will be formed to determine whether the sentience of animals has been considered by Government policy. What happened to the bonfire of quangos? DEFRA has already created a quango in the Environment Act 2021, and now it thinks we need another one. It is not so much a bonfire of quangos as a breeding ground for quangos. While most life forms fall under the scope of the Bill, the taxpayer, that most undervalued of vertebrates, would appear not to do so.
Parliament has always proceeded on the basis that animals are sentient, and has legislated for animal welfare as a result. The definition, or lack thereof, in the Bill is somewhat irrelevant. What animals are considered to be sentient can be changed to suit. All this will do is prevent things. Want to plant more trees, build more houses, improve infrastructure or open a new power station? None of that will be straightforward, just in case we might hurt the feelings of a mouse or a cuttlefish in the process. [Interruption.] Yes, cuttlefish are cephalopods.
The Bill directly contradicts our pledge to level up this nation. My constituency has a moratorium on house building because of phosphate pollution in the River Wye. House building is proven to contribute only a tiny fraction of that pollution, but house builders and aspiring homeowners are being punished. The Bill will be terrible news for those people, as undoubtedly, in the wildest, most natural and beautiful of constituencies, some lovely creature will be discovered in situ. Its sentience will now need to be considered and more unelected bodies will have the power to subvert the building of those much-needed homes. What is conservative about that?
The core aspect of the Bill is to embed consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process, as if we could not manage that by ourselves. That consideration will be made by the Animal Sentience Committee, an opaque body. To the naive, that will appear a noble stance for the Government to take. However, there are serious misgivings about what the committee will set out to achieve. The role of the committee is apparently to scrutinise not the substance of the policy decisions, but the process by which the decisions were reached and whether all due regard has been paid to animal welfare. However, the draft terms of reference suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising policies. That would be at odds with the very legislation bringing it into existence.
My question to the Minister, therefore, is who the membership of the committee will report to. Will it be at arm’s length? Most importantly, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that the committee will not act as a vessel by which farming, wildlife management and the rural economy are attacked? If anyone has any doubts that that might happen, they should listen to the contributions of Opposition Members. The way in which the Bill has been greeted should fire off the alarm bells in everybody’s minds. Greater detail is needed on what this committee is truly being set up for and what its aims are. We already have thousands of quangos in this country, and if we are not careful we will descend into the quagmire of anti-democratic legislation.
This is a crucial time for agriculture and rural life in the UK. As we leave the common agricultural policy and move to the environmental land management scheme, many farmers will be concerned about what the future holds. The Conservative party is a party of the farmer, for the farmer, so let us ensure that future animal policy recognises the calibre of our farmers, their land management practices and the deep care they have for their animals. They have not asked for this Bill, and they do not need it. This Bill is a waste of time and utterly unnecessary—
Sir Bill Wiggin
Yes. I am about to go into one, so I will happily give way.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman outlines what he thinks are threats to farmers, but I do not agree that the Bill is a threat to British farmers. However, he alluded to the transition from basic payments to ELMS being a threat, and in that case I think he is right. Would he recommend that the Secretary of State pegs basic payments at their current level and keeps them there until ELMS is available for every farmer?
Sir Bill Wiggin
It is difficult for me to answer that, because I am a member of the ELMS pilot scheme, so I am deeply involved in the formation of ELMS. What I would say is that public money for public goods is the right way forward, with carbon captured in the soil and a corresponding payment made to farmers so that we can balance up the subsidy deficit that British farmers will face compared with their European competitors. At the end of the day I do not believe in subsidy for anything other than agriculture, and we subsidise only in order that our goods are competitive globally—if do not pay our farmers enough, our produce will not compete internationally and our farmers will be at a huge disadvantage.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the committee’s work will be retrospective. Any citizen could suggest to the committee that the Government should change policy in a certain area. The committee would then look into that and make a recommendation to the Minister. That is a real gift to lobbying groups to achieve what they want, and the Government would be under difficulty to withhold it.
Sir Bill Wiggin
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The real shame about this legislation is that here we are at Second Reading and every single colleague on both sides of the House has thought of better things for the Government to deal with, whether it is ELMS, as suggested by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), or any of the other suggestions I have heard from Opposition Members. This Bill is a waste of time; it is utterly unnecessary and therefore wrong. We should not pass Bills that state the obvious and that are hostages to fortune, we should not create more quangos, we should not vote for unnecessary legislation —and we certainly should not vote for this Bill.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Fear not, Secretary of State and Minister—the voice of the modern Conservative is bringing up the rear of the debate. May I start by paying tribute to the newest member of the bunny-hugging wing of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and congratulate him on using the debate to make his maiden speech? Many of our constituents care passionately about animal welfare issues, and my hon. Friend has done an amazing job in representing them today.
As a long-time advocate on animal welfare issues, and in the past sometimes a lone voice on issues such as the badger cull, I have found it encouraging to see more Members joining the Government side of the House speaking out about the wellbeing of animals. I think that that has been helped by the fact that, over the last 10 years, Conservative-led Governments, and particularly this Secretary of State, have delivered enormous progress on these matters. We now have tougher sentences for animal cruelty offences, the world’s strongest ivory trade ban, bans on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens and on the use of wild animals in circuses, and much more.
At present, we also have two key pieces of legislation progressing through Parliament—the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which we are debating today, and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Both will make good on various manifesto commitments and help to improve the lives of millions of animals. However, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to press for the immediate introduction of new legislation to ban the import of horrific hunting trophies—I do not think that is more important than this debate, but I do think it is equally important.
For this debate, I read through House of Lords Hansard, and I am enormously proud of Lords Benyon and Goldsmith, previously of this parish, who were often comrades on similar matters in previous Parliaments. They have done a phenomenal job in introducing this legislation and amending it where needed.
One such amendment related to decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. I warmly welcome the inclusion of those species within the scope of the Bill and pay tribute to the numerous charities and campaigners, such as Crustacean Compassion, who worked so hard to have this included in the Bill. I am pleased that the Government listened; I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers, who took notice of what was said and acted on the overwhelming scientific evidence proving that those species can feel pain. The UK will join just a handful of countries in the world, including Australia and Switzerland, in recognising decapod crustaceans as sentient beings and will introduce steps to further improve their welfare, such as pre-slaughter stunning and a ban on ice storage while alive.
Contrary to some on the Government side of the House, I welcome the establishment of an Animal Sentience Committee and am encouraged that it will work to consider the ways in which policy across Government can have an impact on animal welfare. I hope Government Departments will work effectively with the committee, including those responsible for policy areas less obviously associated with animals and animal welfare. I also welcome the terms of reference and the fact that the committee may consider how Ministers have had a positive effect on animals as sentient beings in the policy- making process.
However, I fear the ASC may lack the operational freedom to look at different areas of policy that could be improved further; as it stands, the central focus on adverse effects suggests a minimal effort at reducing potential harms to animals. I would welcome reassurance that the committee will be able to suggest positive and proactive steps to improve animal wellbeing, as advocated by the British Veterinary Association. A dedicated budget and the inclusion of appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise would remove the burden on civil servants, ensure that Ministers were provided with independent, scientifically backed recommendations and help to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of best practice in animal welfare legislation.
While I welcome the fact that it will continue to be up to Ministers to assess how certain legislation may impact animal welfare and to weigh up the costs and benefits in relation to other important considerations such as social, environmental and economic matters, I do not believe it is unreasonable that the committee be able to consider other ways in which Ministers can improve regulation further. We have previously expressed a desire for the UK to go further than any other country on animal welfare legislation, improving on article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which still allows for cultural activities that cause unimaginable animal suffering. I hope we do not lose sight of that commitment.
There is much more to be done, ranging from reviewing the use of snares and glue traps—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) has a ten-minute rule Bill on that going into Committee tomorrow—to looking again at scents in trail hunting, considering the welfare of hens, protecting seals from intentional disturbance and coming good on ending the badger cull. There is more that we can do, but I welcome the Bill we are discussing today.
Finally, I repeat my thanks to Ministers and officials in DEFRA who have worked on this important Bill, which ensures that there is no loss of legal protections for animals following our departure from the European Union. I look forward to supporting this Bill wholeheartedly and following the rest of its progress through Parliament.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
This is an important Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this Second Reading debate. There have been some thoughtful and engaging contributions—some very interesting ones—and I think we saw a House willing to work together to deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose.
It was fascinating to hear from the Government’s Back Benchers, in particular from the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), and I look forward to some great debates with them on the Bill Committee. It is a shame we are not dividing today, because I am sure we would have had some rebels voting with us this evening.
I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his specific and forensic action on the wording and for his helpful comments throughout the speech he made. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her action to provide legislation for the Government in the past, and particularly for her amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2017.
I of course welcome the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to his place, and I thank him for his maiden speech. As one by-election winner to another who has succeeded after the sad passing of their predecessor, I understand the difficulty he has felt, but I pay tribute to him for his moving and thoughtful speech today. I welcome him to this place, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I share her love of cats, and I will now be seeking out the site she mentioned on Twitter. More seriously, her wish to see the Bill strengthened and improved as it progresses is very welcome. Obviously, the expertise as a vet of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) is very welcome, especially on this Bill, and I welcome the input from the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
As the House heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—my new boss, whom I welcome to the shadow DEFRA team—the Opposition welcome this Bill, but, as ever, we want it to go further, be stronger and do more. Labour is the party of animal welfare, and a special mention again goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for all his work on these issues when he was in the shadow Cabinet. From bringing forward the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to protecting the treatment of domestic animals under the Animal Welfare Act, Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda.
There is growing consensus among scientists and policy makers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. A UK parliamentary petition run by the Better Deal for Animals campaign calling for an animal sentience law recently received over 100,000 signatures, and it was debated in this place on 16 March 2020—it seems like another lifetime ago.
Colleagues who thought that unravelling our membership of the European Union would be sorted by putting a border down the Irish sea will be surprised that we are here because of our decision to leave the European Union. Our departure means that this country no longer has legislation that recognises animals as sentient beings. That is why the Opposition welcome the Bill and the opportunity to strengthen our country’s approach to animal welfare that it provides.
As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman said in the other place:
“The formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that we are committed as a country to protecting the welfare of animals, but for this to be meaningful, any commitment on paper must be followed up in practice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1942.]
The noble Baroness is correct, as ever, and that is exactly where we will pick up. Colleagues in the other place have continued to raise concerns about the current state and reach of this Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), whom I welcome to her first Bill in her new position, needs to be very clear about who will sit on the Animal Sentience Committee, how it will be funded, what engagement there will be with the devolved Administrations and how we can be sure that Ministers abide by the reports that come from this independent committee. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there will be “expertise and experience” on this committee. Can she outline exactly how this will be brought together?
We have the chance to make this Bill fit for purpose now and our responsibilities as Members of this House require us to do the best by our constituents, but we also have a responsibility to our natural world, our wildlife and animals. To honour that responsibility, we must be ever vigilant. That is why this Bill is so important: it provides us with another opportunity to look at our approach to animal welfare and what we can do to keep our animals safe.
That is also why we must take this Bill seriously, and we must work together to strengthen it and show that, on some key issues, this House can unite and deliver real change. When this Bill moves to Committee, as it will do when it passes Second Reading today, I hope to work constructively with the Minister, the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and others to deliver a Bill that is really fit for purpose.
A number of colleagues have touched on the views of some of the important stakeholders out there in the real world, and I want to do so, too. First, I want to thank all those campaigners and organisations that have been in touch and provided such helpful briefings. The Better Deal for Animals coalition has expressed its support for the Bill, but it says:
“Whilst we welcome the Bill in its current form, we acknowledge that the Bill could be further improved by the addition of a new duty to require ministers to proactively and strategically engage with sentience issues, including through a requirement for the government to maintain a cross-Whitehall Animal Sentience Strategy.”
The Opposition agree.
The Countryside Alliance is clear that it fully supports legal recognition of the sentience of animals, as we do. The British Veterinary Association is clear that the committee must include appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise and that this House must pass legislation that enshrines animal sentience in UK law; we agree on those points, too.
We will ask Ministers to work with us to strengthen the Bill and tackle the loopholes used by those who go hunting every Boxing day and the outsourcing of animal cruelty triggered by the trade deals negotiated by this Government. Baroness Hayman rightly pushed for
“guarantees that the Government will consult on membership; that there will be an open, transparent recruitment process; that wide-ranging expertise will be ensured; and that the committee will have genuine independence and not be incorporated as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, as we believe this could potentially damage its ability to hold the Government to account.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1943.]
I agree, and I want the Minister to provide that reassurance.
The Bill is about an issue that we all take seriously and want to address. The Opposition will approach the Bill in a constructive manner that improves it and makes it fit for purpose. Our natural environment and animals deserve nothing less, and that is what Labour will deliver in Committee, on Report and back in the other place until the Bill reaches Her Majesty’s desk. I look forward to working with Members on this important Bill in Committee; I hope that the Government will listen to our reasoned amendments to strengthen and improve this long-awaited Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to our lively and wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for his excellent maiden speech; I am delighted to have his support. As he said, animal welfare is important to his and all our constituents.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) are all upholders of animal welfare who care for their own animals. Indeed, I often look fondly at Christmas cards from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire; they are signed by him and his wife but often bear a picture of him with a cow from his herd, which is quite interesting.
I am pleased to associate myself with the comments about our former colleague the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, with whom I worked to try to ensure that more cancer nurse specialists are there when people need them. We miss his wise counsel, but we welcome wholeheartedly our new hon. Friend.
The Bill is the latest in a series of steps that the Government are taking to develop and strengthen animal welfare protections. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it builds on the UK’s proud tradition of protecting pets, livestock and wildlife. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid out, our nation has a long and proud history in the area, and our action plan for animal welfare is making positive progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) pointed out, the Bill has been well discussed in the other place. She also alluded to other Bills. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 came into force in June, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty, and has been welcomed by hon. Members. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill is currently going through the House. We are supporting private Members’ Bills: the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill and the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which we will debate in Committee tomorrow. We introduced a Government amendment, which I know many right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed, to tackle illegal hare coursing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We are progressing a range of other commitments in the action plan, including on cat microchipping, and are moving forward on many other things.
Members asked many questions; I aim to answer them all, but if I do not, my door is always open. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that we had not yet had a conversation; I am keen to work to deliver good legislation not only for the countryside that I represent but for all our constituents. Our primary job is to make sure we get it right.
I was asked how sentience is defined in the Bill. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years, but it is well defined and continues to evolve. Baroness Hayman’s work included the reviewing of 300 pieces of research to bring forward the definition of decapods and cephalopods. The situation will carry on evolving, so it would seem to be counter-intuitive to have a fixed definition, because the definition itself is not fixed. We therefore do not deem it necessary to define sentience for the work going forward. We can all recognise that animals are sentient and their welfare should be considered in any decisions we make.
As we have said, the public feel strongly about this issue, which is why we have introduced this legislation. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) who, with this vast experience and strong expertise, highlighted the point that the committee will need to cover those areas of expertise. It is for that reason that we are not over-prescriptive. Indeed, as I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), somebody in one of the devolved nations could have the key expertise and we should look throughout the United Kingdom to ensure we have the right people on the committee to draw on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border also mentioned constituents who lose dogs and horses. I agree that there are other things we should be doing in the animal space, but we are moving forward with them. The Bill is tightly drafted for a distinct reason, which is why it merely has simple clauses to make sure we get it right.
I thank the EFRA Committee for all its work to get the Bill into a much better place. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is now in his place.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I apologise to the House for not being here for the debate; I have been chairing the EFRA Committee. The advisory committee will need members with good practical animal welfare experience and an independent chair. It will also need to be given the proper resources and we will need more transparency in respect of the process of advising the Government. I really hope we can have a strong animal welfare process that is actually workable.
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the letter that he recently wrote to me. We intend to do exactly that and I shall come to that in a moment.
The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment and provides legal recognition that animals are sentient beings. As I have said, it is a tight, short Bill that establishes an animal sentience committee to consider how individual central Government policies and decision making take account of animal welfare. The Bill contains provisions to ensure that Ministers respond to Parliament in respect of reports published by the animal sentience committee. It establishes that committee and empowers it to scrutinise Minister’s policy formation and implementation decisions, with a view to publishing reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid all due regard to animals’ welfare needs as sentient beings.
The Bill places a duty on Ministers to respond to the reports by means of a written statement to Parliament within three months’ sitting time and confirms that non-human vertebrates such as dogs, birds, decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs and invertebrates such as lobsters and octopuses are sentient—that is, capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Together, these measures constitute a targeted, timely and proportionate accountability mechanism, as so aptly described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett).
The hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) asked why the Bill talks only of adverse effects. It is because the Animal Sentience Committee’s role will be to encourage policy decision makers to think about the positive improvements they could make to animal welfare, rather than just minimising adverse effects. Meeting the welfare needs of animals means avoiding those negative impacts, as well as providing for positive experiences. The reference to an adverse effect allows the committee to consider whether a policy might restrict an animal’s positive experience.
I was asked whether the Animal Sentience Committee will produce an animal welfare strategy, and the answer is no. The Government’s current and future work on animal welfare and conservation is set out clearly in the action plan for animal welfare, and the role of the Animal Sentience Committee is not to devise future policy or strategy.
I was asked whether the committee could produce an annual report. That task is not established by the Bill, although that would not be necessary. There is nothing to prevent the committee from assessing improvements annually, if that fulfils its legislative purposes, or from issuing a report should it so wish.
Luke Pollard
The Minister slightly misunderstands the point. It is not that Members want the Animal Sentience Committee to produce an annual report but that we want the Secretary of State to have an annual parliamentary moment when the findings of those reports can be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. Rather than being buried in a report in the House of Commons Library, will it be debated by parliamentarians?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that there are plenty of other devices for ensuring plenty of parliamentary time. I am sure that we will unpick that in Committee.
Ministers will remain responsible for balancing animal welfare against other important matters of public interest. We are and will remain fully accountable to Parliament for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spent some time asking whether the Bill increases the risk of judicial review, and it has been carefully considered and worded to ensure there are only two areas in which we could instigate grounds for judicial review if Ministers fail to fulfil them: by not appointing a committee or by not bringing forward a report in a timely fashion.
I was also asked how the Animal Sentience Committee differs from the Animal Welfare Committee. The latter offers substantive expert advice, whereas the former is a scrutinising body—that is the essential difference. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to give another line of evidence and to help Ministers make decisions, but policy decisions are and will remain a matter for Ministers, for which they are accountable to this House.
Ministers are under no legal obligation to follow the committee’s recommendations. However, there is no point in having a committee that brings forward evidence unless we take it seriously. As I say, it will be balanced in the round to make sure competing interests such as the rural economy or a particular enjoyment, angling or whatever—all those things that are good for people’s mental wellbeing—are considered when we make our decisions.
The key point about the terms of reference is that the Animal Sentience Committee will be classified as an expert committee. It will be funded from within DEFRA’s existing budget and supported by a small secretariat. This will not run and run and be an unsupported Government quango, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. The Bill is drafted to keep sentience at the forefront of policy making and implementation, in line with its statutory functions.
Wide-ranging points were made by colleagues, which flowed into medical research and respect for people’s religious needs. The Bill is tight, and the reason it is a small, tight Bill is that it is important that we are aware that it does not change existing legislation. The committee does not make value judgments.
Hon. Members asked about the inclusion of decapod crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, molluscs, octopus and squid. I want to be absolutely clear about the reasoning behind the effects of that decision. At every point, it is about respecting and recognising animal sentience, and being scientifically led.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I sense the Minister is coming to a conclusion, but she has not answered one of my questions about the composition of the committee. Will she give an assurance that it will take into account rural and agricultural interests?
Jo Churchill
As I represent the constituency that I do, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I will give him that assurance. The Opposition made the point that breadth of expertise is extremely important in order to have confidence in this Committee.
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to push on as the Chamber is full and it is only fair that I conclude, but I will take her intervention in a second.
It was originally thought that only vertebrates could feel pain, but decapods and cephalopods are invertebrates with complex nervous systems, and I welcome their inclusion. In 2020, DEFRA commissioned the external review of the available scientific evidence, and evaluated the findings of over 300 pieces of peer-reviewed evidence. We carefully considered the recommendations, as we added that measure to the Bill. I reassure hon. Members that the Bill does not and will not change any existing legislation, or place any additional burdens on any part of industry or individuals.
Emma Hardy
The Minister is always kind at taking interventions. Before she concludes, can she comment on the use of testing on primates that was raised by the SNP spokesperson?
Jo Churchill
With respect, as the Chamber is full, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and talk further about that. It was largely to do with medical testing and military work with animals, and I would be happy to talk to her about medical animal testing, to which it is vital that we have a proportionate approach.
In summary, the Bill offers a proportionate and evidence-led recognition of animal sentience in UK law. There is over whelming public demand for sentience legislation. We committed to introduce it in our manifesto, and similar pledges were made by parties represented on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House to deliver on our promises, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 10 February 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Charities Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]
Thursday 10th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 February 2022 - (10 Feb 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Colleagues, before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available and that all of you have flights and trains to catch, I hope we can take these matters without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 10 February) meet at 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 February;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 10 February.—(Jo Churchill.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jo Churchill.)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Members wishing to press an amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it whether that is what they wish to do.
Clause 1
Animal Sentience Committee
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The clause requires the Government to create and maintain the Animal Sentience Committee. The committee will be at the core of the Bill’s targeted, proportionate and timely mechanism for holding the Government to account on the consideration of animal welfare.
On Second Reading, it was asked why the committee needs to be established in legislation and why the Animal Welfare Committee could not fulfil the function outlined in the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Animal Sentience Committee is to support Parliament’s scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision-making process. The committee is not there to advise or make decisions for Ministers. Instead, it will perform a valuable role in encouraging us to make sure we have properly considered the effect of policy on the welfare of animals. Creating the committee and placing it on a statutory footing is the best way of ensuring that the Bill’s recognition of animal sentience is given meaningful but proportionate effect.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I think the Committee is at one in wanting to ensure that we have adequate protections for animals. That has been supported in the petitions and the written evidence. Will the Minister clarify one point on human-relevant science? I am involved with the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, which was established to ensure that alternatives are provided to testing on live animals, particularly in vitro, using cell cultures and so on. Does that fall within the purview of the Bill?
Jo Churchill
The point of the new committee is not to make value judgments. It is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that all due regard is taken of the welfare of animals. Such decisions are for the committee to determine, supported by the secretariat.
Creating the committee on a statutory footing will mean that it must act within the legal parameters set by the Bill. The Bill is clear that the committee has no power to make value judgments—these decisions are for Ministers. At the same time, the obligation placed on Ministers to respond to the committee’s report is essential for transparency and for the scrutiny of the Government’s policy decision making. Ministers do not have to accept the committee’s findings and recommendations, but they have an obligation under the Bill to respond to them promptly and openly.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The written evidence submitted by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation asks about membership of the committee and notes
“the importance of using a wide range of leading animal sentience experts”.
It also wants affiliations to, and past involvement with, non-governmental organisations to be made transparent, and states that previous involvement with NGOs should not be a barrier to membership. Does the Minister accept all the recommendations from the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation?
Jo Churchill
I refer the hon. Lady to the terms of reference, which lay out that the Secretary of State will request that those who are on the committee will be from a broad spectrum. We will ensure that we have the chance to make use of the best expertise in order to advise Ministers, but we will not be overly prescriptive. However, the final arbiter of that will be the Secretary of State.
It is not possible to impose an obligation on Ministers without first establishing a committee in statute. A legislative basis for the committee will therefore help to ensure it is effective while ensuring that it is tightly defined. As outlined on pages 5 and 19 to 21 in the terms of reference, we want the Animal Sentience Committee to have a constructive relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee, while recognising that they have different functions: the Animal Welfare Committee will sit in an advisory capacity, while the Animal Sentience Committee will sit in a scrutinising capacity. It is important to remember that the two committees have very distinct roles.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and am very proud to be sitting on this Public Bill Committee. The Bill is proportionate, timely and targeted. It is important, because the public believe passionately in animal welfare. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that their justified outpouring of revulsion at the recent video of the West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma suggests that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should consider inviting him to animal welfare training in order to prove animal sentience?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I join her in being appalled at what we have seen. I agree that the public care greatly about animal welfare, but the Bill is science led and we are looking at the evidence base. It is for other bodies to choose the direction in which they might take restorative action so that people can learn and be called to account for their behaviour.
The Animal Welfare Committee is a well-respected source of advice on animal welfare issues, but it is not designed to assess policy. Allowing committees to specialise in their separate functions, and ensuring that those who sit on them have the expertise, is the best way to ensure that the objectives are delivered well. I urge that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I appreciate your calling me this early in the debate.
I will just say a few words, because clearly the Bill applies only to England. We have our own measures, as animal welfare is devolved to Scotland, but it might be useful for colleagues to hear a little more about the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, on which the English committee is partly modelled. The Scottish Government often act on the scientific and ethical advice provided by the commission, which was established in 2020. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues, such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer, have been taken forward following the commission’s advice. The commission has welcomed and contributed to legislation on penalties for animal welfare offences and the licensing of activities involving animals, and a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets is also under way. If England’s Animal Sentience Committee is to be similarly effective, there should be mechanisms to ensure that its scrutiny of policy-making processes is taken seriously by the Government.
The Secretary of State was keen to stress that the committee’s reports will not bind the Government to any particular course of action—we have heard the same from the Minister today—and that Ministers will be free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other considerations. While it could be argued that that is appropriate and, perhaps, understandable, it is important that Ministers fully engage with the committee’s assessments, as the Scottish Government have done by incorporating many of SAWC’s recommendations into legislation.
I would like to highlight the Scottish Government’s plans, following SAWC’s recommendations, to introduce legislation to end the harmful practice of setting glue traps—a particularly revolting form of animal abuse. The Scottish Government intend to ban the sale and use of glue traps. However, implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 present an obstacle, despite animal welfare being a devolved area.
The UK Government have backed the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which would ban the use of glue traps by the public in England, except by licensed professionals. However, some stakeholders remain concerned that the licensing regime is too weak and would allow continued liberal use of glue traps. The new market access regime whereby goods sold in one part of the UK—
The Chair
You are, but as Chair of the Committee I must say that it has to be relevant to this Bill. We are not here to talk about a market access Bill. We are talking about the Bill in front of us.
Deidre Brock
Okay, Sir Charles. Further to that, the Scottish Government hope to work through those issues, but it demonstrates how that Act can undermine devolution.
In closing, I commend those who have written in with their views, raising distressing issues such as puppy farming and unregulated microchipping and very sad cases of animal abuse. We hope that the Bill will go some way to address those issues. I also commend submissions from organisations such as the RSPCA, which, in particular, impressed me as adopting a very measured but rigorous approach to the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to be able to address the issues in the Bill. I have to say, we have already strayed on to other areas. As I walked into the Committee Room this morning, I saw that the notice on the door has the wrong wording, which rather sums up this Government’s muddled approach to animal welfare. Many people get confused by the various pieces of legislation, with Friday mornings spent discussing each other’s pet animals and so on.
My concern about clause 1 relates to exactly what it says: it sets up a committee. It does not enshrine sentience in law. That is the key point. The Government had the opportunity to put sentience into law when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and other Members across the House tabled a very sensible amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will address that. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster briefly referenced that poor cat. I am not sure what the status of sentience is in our law at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could address that. The hiatus over the past two years has left us in a curious position.
In the sense that it is better than nothing, we welcome the Bill. However, it is pretty close to nothing. As the Minister said, the committee has no power to make value judgments. She might as well have paused in the middle of that sentence—the committee has no power. It is a talking shop.
We will support the Bill in so far as it goes. However, let us be clear: it is a complete betrayal of the Conservatives’ promise to pursue animal welfare issues. We do it; they talk about it.
Kerry McCarthy
I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) tabled that amendment, which I seconded, to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. I lose track of what year it was, but I think it was late 2018. We have been doing this an awful long time.
We have discussed this on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also proposed a ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team at the time, told me that the Department wanted to legislate but that it was just looking for the right legislative vehicle. That is why I came up with my ten-minute rule Bill: “Here you are, you just need to back this.”
It was disappointing that the first three Government Back Benchers to speak on Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill were very much against it and the doors it might open. Let us be frank: that was because they fear a cracking down on blood sports and hunting and shooting. That is why we do not have a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, and that is why we have all these little bits of legislation that are doing the rounds at the moment. The Government do not want scope to bring one in. That is what setting up a committee with limited powers is about. If we did truly recognise sentience in law, we would be questioning driven grouse shooting and all the loopholes allowing foxhunting to proceed. The Bill is a paper exercise that will do little to improve animal welfare.
Jo Churchill
To respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, it is important that Ministers take the report seriously. That is why this small Bill places on us a duty to report formally. There is a time limit for reporting formally. The committee will have the freedom to choose how it looks at how Government policy affects animals, and that reporting mechanism is what the Bill is about. That is important.
The hon. Member for Cambridge also spoke. The EFRA Committee said that there was a need for us to carefully draft the Bill. It was formerly drafted in 2017. Judicially reviewing it across the piece would mean that the committee would no longer be able to perform its function, which is to give the Minister they need in order to make a judgment, while being cognisant of all the other things that Ministers have to take into account.
I am sure that we will come on to the definition of sentience when we debate amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East. I gently say, however, that it is not necessary to define sentience in statute in order for the Bill to work. If we accept that animals are sentient, we also accept the principle, supported by the Bill, that their needs must be properly considered in Government decision making. Providing anything more complex than that would tie the hands of the committee and make it a paper exercise—which is not what it is—so there is little reason to do that. Keeping it in this more open form means that it can look across Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Reports of the Committee
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, leave out “adverse”.
This amendment would change the prescriptive wording of the question clause 2 requires the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) to consider, which allows that only “adverse effects” should be considered, and would enable the ASC to be free to consider positive effects which may otherwise be overlooked.
I hope to deal with this amendment pretty quickly. As I said on Second Reading, I do not subscribe to the idea that this country is wonderful on animal welfare. Would action have been taken against a very well-known footballer for kicking his cat had he not videoed himself doing so? There are far too many examples of people with aggressive dogs. Everywhere we see examples of people treating them badly and training them to be angry, aggressive and dangerous creatures. It is clear that the RSPCA does not have the teeth—that is not a pun—to address this. We will later discuss farm animal welfare, where there are many examples of how we could do better.
The amendment would remove the word “adverse” from clause 2. As it stands, the Animal Sentience Committee can only consider the adverse effects of legislation or whatever is put in front of it. I understand that, and I understand that this is meant to be about raising the bar and making sure that future legislation does not worsen animal welfare, but I do not think there would be anything lost if it considered all the effects, rather than just the adverse effects. If the committee were to say of legislation that came before it, “We actually think this is good for improving animal welfare”, where is the harm in that? That would set down a marker to do better in other respects. If that were flagged up, other Departments—and even other Governments in devolved Administrations or, indeed, our former EU partners—might think that it had consequences for them.
The committee should be able to identify the positive effects as well as the adverse effects. Any positive effects would strengthen the case for the legislation. If the Government were having trouble getting their Back Benchers to support a Bill, I would hope that if the Animal Sentience Committee said that it was good for animal welfare, that would strengthen support for it.
The amendment is supported by groups such as Compassion in World Farming. As I have said, animal welfare really is the big forgotten element. We talk about pets—I lose track of how many debates we have about puppies, for example. It is good to be nice to puppies, but far more animals live on farms than live as pets, and I would welcome any move to try to improve their welfare, too.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to improve transparency in policy making. The committee’s ultimate success will be felt in ongoing improvements to the way the Government make decisions affecting animals, and seeing improvements is the hon. Lady’s underlying argument. We agree that sentience is about both the positive and negative experiences that animals might have. Clearly, an adverse effect of a policy would include aspects that restrict positive experiences.
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I think the issue is one of drafting, not of misunderstanding. By way of explanation, the committee would be free to assess policy decision making for its consideration of adverse effects. A nice explanation would be in the area of nutrition for pets, for example. Whereas the negative outcomes of poor nutrition are obvious, the positive outcomes, such as ability to play, cannot be realised if pets suffer from poor nutrition. The committee is not required to limit its consideration purely to the adverse effect. By definition, it will consider both sides, but it is not necessary, for the avoidance of doubt, that the point that positive effects can be considered is reinforced in the committee’s draft terms of reference.
I sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Lady’s point that good exemplars may well be a stimulus to others to behave.
Kerry McCarthy
I just do not understand, from what the Minister has said, why the Bill cannot say “effects”. She seems to be saying that the committee would look at positive effects—all effects and adverse effects—so I do not understand why the word “adverse” has to be there, based on what she has just said.
Jo Churchill
With respect, this is about semantics. It is a matter of drafting, as I have said, and not about misunderstanding. It is simply not necessary to include anything other than that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) In preparing its reports, the Animal Sentience Committee may consult or request information from government departments and other public bodies.
(4B) Public bodies and government departments must cooperate with requests from the Animal Sentience Committee under paragraph (4A).”
This amendment would require Government departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to move amendment 2 to this important piece of legislation. I wish the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster a belated happy birthday for last week, especially since she was born in Wales and us Welsh sisters have to stick together—a little plea there.
I rise to move the amendment in the names of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and for Bristol East. I thank House staff, the teams supporting us as Members, the Clerks and the Public Bill Office in particular for their work helping us to get here today. It is important to say that at the beginning because we tend to forget at the end, and it is important to note their work.
As we discuss another important piece of legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill—not the sentencing Bill as it says on the door—it is important for us to think about the scope and reach of our actions and the effectiveness of legislation that passes through the House. That is why we are moving amendment 2 and will press it to a vote. The Bill is one of a number of major pieces of animal welfare legislation that either has gone through the House, is before the House or will come back before us in the weeks ahead.
In short, amendment 2 would require Departments to respond constructively to requests for information from the Animal Sentience Committee. That is important to ensure the committee receives the information it needs to prepare its reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was an excellent and energetic shadow Secretary of State, and I enjoyed working with him. Amendment 2 is very much a reflection of the points he raised during Second Reading on 18 January 2022. In his excellent speech, he quite reasonably suggested that a large Department that has been historically removed from animal welfare issues could feel empowered to ignore committee requests for information, and it could do so because there is currently no legally binding obligation on Departments to engage with the committee. That is why the amendment is so important and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
I am sure the Minister would want to ensure the Animal Sentience Committee, in the words of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, is not “toothless”—sorry, I get told off for my pronunciation. I urge the Minister to let Labour help her. Amendment 2 provides the perfect opportunity to ensure the Bill is not a toothless piece of legislation and that the Animal Sentience Committee is a body that will deliver. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Select Committee, is right to want a strong Bill and a strong Animal Sentience Committee. We all eagerly await to hear what the Minister thinks about that. I agree with the EFRA Committee that we want the Bill to be strong. We want the scope and reach of the committee to be strong, and the amendment would do exactly that. Does the Minister agree with us?
In preparing to move amendment 2, I caught sight of the written evidence from the campaigners Better Deal for Animals, and I ask the Minister to take a moment to reflect on it and in doing so, to give her support to amendment 2. The evidence makes the point that
“the Bill does have a weakness. The delegation of animal sentience responsibilities to the ASC, a body adjacent to rather than part of Government, creates the risk that the ASC (and with it, animal sentience issues) could be effectively ignored by decision makers. This risk was highlighted in the letter from the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of second reading in the Commons, which warned that ‘the ASC risks becoming simply another toothless Whitehall committee whose reports gather dust, while critical issues of animal welfare within policy-making go largely unaddressed.’”
It says that while the terms of reference
“provide some assurance that the ASC will have the independence and powers it needs to do its job, amendments to the face of the Bill would go further in ensuring that the ASC and its work is closely tied into government operations and Parliamentary business, to such an extent as to make it difficult to ignore.”
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to follow my hon Friend, who made an important set of points about this amendment. I would like to move from crocodiles to pigs because, frankly, what is happening across the fields of the country is ghastly. While there may be questions over the size of a crocodile’s brain, I think we all know that pigs are intelligent creatures.
My point in raising that is that, with this amendment, a range of Government Departments would be driven to have to respond in a crisis like this. It has an awful effect on the people having to kill pigs in fields—we think possibly some 35,000 so far. I must also say, there was a dreadful response from DEFRA to a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, just on DEFRA’s basic knowledge of the numbers—“We don’t know; we don’t ask”.
A much stronger piece of legislation like this, driving the committee, would have forced Government Departments to have actually acted. I notice that the Minister did not respond to my earlier question about the current situation of sentience. We in the Opposition all know that pigs are sentient, but the hiatus in the legal setup means that it is very hard to hold the Government to account for the awful set of circumstances that are unfolding.
Jo Churchill
I agree that this is an important piece of legislation and, like the hon. Member for Newport West, I hope it will go forward in a timely way. I thank the EFRA Committee for the work that it has done in helping to guide us in ensuring that the Bill is as precise as it is. It is important to understand that there are two duties here.
The hon. Lady argued that the Animal Sentience Committee needs the power to compel Government Departments and public bodies to provide any information that the committee requests. While I would agree that it is key for the committee to have the necessary information to do its job, placing an additional duty on Departments to provide the committee with documents would just create additional grounds for judicial reviews. If a Department or public body was seen not to fully comply with the requests made by the Animal Sentience Committee, there would be grounds for a challenge.
The Bill has been carefully considered and worded to give meaningful effect to the principle of animal sentience without getting tied up in legal challenges. We want the committee to focus on current and future policy. Its aim is to improve transparency in decision making and in the policy-making process. The committee will build on and improve the evidence base, which I have referred to, that informs Government policy.
Ruth Jones
The Minister talks about the evidence base, but how can the committee develop an evidence base if it submits a request to another Department, but that Department sees fit to ignore it?
Jo Churchill
I will come on to that in my answer because, arguably, the one thing the committee does have up its sleeve is the ability to name and shame if it is not responded to. That is the key thing to keep there.
The scope of the Bill covers all central Government policy decisions, from formulation to implementation. It aims to support the policy-making decision process, rather than operational decisions made by public bodies outside of those Departments. We have kept the scope to Ministerial Departments because we want the committee to focus its scrutiny on the key policy decisions affecting animal welfare.
That is why, as set out in the terms of reference, which the hon. Lady referred to, the committee’s secretariat will assist in raising awareness of the committee’s role and in forming an overview of relevant policy decisions. That work has already started in the Department to ensure that other Departments, at an official level, are ready, and there, to establish effective communication—which arguably was the underlying ask of the amendment—with the Committee. Guidance will also be provided to Departments on their responsibilities under the Bill. We believe that to be the most effective way in which to ensure that the committee has all the information that it needs to do its role. There are two powers in the Bill, not just one: we establish the committee and, crucially, that responsibility on a Minister—the duty to reply.
I am sure that Governments will provide the committee with relevant information, if requested, and if the committee struggles to engage with a particular Department or to receive information, it will be free to highlight that in its response. Ministers will then have their duty to respond to those reports. I am confident that no Minister will want their Department to be highlighted as unco-operative in the area of animal welfare. I therefore believe that the Bill, and the functions and the powers that it confers on the Animal Sentience Committee, are sufficient as drafted.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. We are still not satisfied, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the commencement of this Act, set out a timetabled plan for the extension of Animal Sentience Committee scope to any other public bodies deemed relevant.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies.
The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West, for North Tyneside, for Cambridge, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol East, for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and my hon. Friend the Labour Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), among others listed on the amendment paper.
The amendment is self-explanatory, but I will take the opportunity to speak to it briefly and, I hope, to persuade Conservative colleagues in Committee to support it. I gently remind the Minister that the Bill has the support of the Opposition, but we want to make it even better, stronger and go further. Like the excellent amendment 3, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, amendment 4 proposes a realistic and pragmatic addition to the Bill. All things being equal, it should be welcomed by all colleagues in Committee.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider extending the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is no longer on the Bill Committee—we all wish him well in his new role—but I wish to quote him. In a strong speech on Second Reading, he said,
“on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA…to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 255.]
How could anyone disagree with that?
The Minister would do us all a favour by making it clear that extending the Animal Sentience Committee to public bodies would be really effective. If she will not support the amendment, I hope she will explain why. The amendment would bring some common sense to the Bill, and it would make for a joined-up approach that will deliver real results. That is what the Bill must be about—it must be about results, delivery and making the committee fit for purpose.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her co-operation; I know that she is merely trying to assist. At this point, I would like to associate myself with her comments on Her Majesty the Queen.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Animal Sentience Committee’s scope and public bodies, because we gave a great deal of consideration to both the scope and appropriateness. We expect the committee to focus on Government policy decisions that could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As we have previously indicated, that is expected to be in the region of six individual policy decisions per year. Given the breadth of government, the committee will need to be selective in what it scrutinises. It is unlikely that these kinds of decisions will be made outside ministerial Departments, because the vast majority of policy decisions with a significant bearing on animal welfare will be made within the Departments themselves.
The Bill is designed to create timely, proportionate and targeted mechanisms for holding Ministers to account. By their nature, and relative to core Departments, non-departmental public bodies operate at arm’s length from Ministers. Extending this committee’s remit beyond central Government Departments would not be targeted and so would not be in line with the aims of what we are trying to achieve. By the same token, we will not ask the committee to scrutinise policy decisions that may be made at local authority level, for example, because that would impose an unnecessary workload on the committee and, arguably, on our hard-working local authorities. It is unclear who would then answer in Parliament to any reports that came forward—that might be issued by, say, a local authority or a body—because Ministers cannot answer for a report and decisions that they did not make. For those reasons, the Government consider that the current scope of the Bill is the right one.
Ruth Jones
Given the NGOs’ comments and encouragement to the Opposition to lay this amendment, we will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jo Churchill
Clause 2 tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with publishing reports that give its opinion on whether, or to what extent, Ministers have had all due regard to the needs of animals as sentient beings when formulating and implementing Government policy. The clause allows the committee to include recommendations on how this might be done in the future development of a policy in question. Lastly, the clause requires that the committee’s reports are published.
These measures sit at the heart of our proposals to create a proportionate and timely accountability mechanism that rests with Parliament, rather than the courts. The committee will have the powers to publish reports—importantly, including critical reports—on the Government policy decision-making process. However, the committee’s powers are well defined so as to ensure that it complements that decision-making process by giving additional evidence. The clause and the wider Bill do not authorise the committee to dictate or advocate a particular policy position, or critique how a Minister might decide to balance competing policy considerations. Ministers will continue to decide the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other important considerations when making decisions.
In the event that a committee report was critical of Government performance, Parliament would be able to consider the report and the Government’s written response that must be laid before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. After considering them, the decision would rest with hon. Members in this House and noble Lords in the other place on whether to make further inquiries on the subject using the mechanisms available.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Response to reports
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, 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.
Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay a response to reports produced by the Animal Sentience Committee before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication, as the Minister has outlined. We absolutely accept that it is right that the Secretary of State should be tasked with that responsibility. The reports will consider, as laid out in clause 2(2),
“whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect”—
despite our attempts—
“on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
The committee may, therefore, criticise the Government’s policy-making processes. I noticed that the Minister acknowledged the possibility that the Government could be criticised in some circumstances, and I welcome that possibility. The committee could applaud the Government, or provide recommendations for improvements.
It is right that the Secretary of State responds to the findings. Where shortcomings have been identified, the Government absolutely should explain what went wrong; where there are recommendations, the Government must inform the House of their response. However, those of us who have been here a little while know how the House works. There are many opportunities for things to be made not exactly immediately obvious to the wider world, or even to Members of the House.
I have not been in Parliament that long, but I remember consideration of the Agriculture Bill. There was a lengthy discussion on the food security report. The matter went to the House of Lords. There was an argument about when the report should be produced—every three years, or annually, or every five years, and all the rest of it. Lo and behold, the Government produced that report on the very last day that they were permitted to do so, just before Christmas—as Governments do, of course—when people were rushing to get their planes and trains. It was a massive report of 300 pages, and obviously there was little opportunity just before Christmas for the wider world to consider it properly. What were the opportunities to consider that report? We found that it took a Westminster Hall debate, with a Minister reluctantly responding to criticisms at the end of the debate. The fact that the Secretary of State said one thing on one occasion and the Minister, when challenged, said something else, shows that there was not really any great opportunity for scrutiny.
This is a governance question. We know that, in the real world, a lot of this does not work. Given that some of the responses will be written, we know that there will not be much opportunity for scrutiny. We in the Opposition think that animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals is too important to fall into that trap and we think that, without an opportunity for the House to properly scrutinise and discuss reports, the Committee’s findings will simply not be given the attention they merit.
The amendment would require a Minister to make a motion in both Houses of Parliament, which would provide a genuine opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. For the committee to have any heft, the Government cannot simply disregard its reports if they are politically or otherwise inconvenient. We think that it is right that “all due regard” be given to a range of factors and that the Government must explain how they have weighed up the competing demands.
We fully acknowledge that there are competing demands. This is not simple stuff. We also absolutely accept that the Bill does not change any existing legislation; it simply specifies that the Government must give “all due regard” to the ways in which policy may impact the welfare of animals. What we have heard from the discussions in the other place, and on Second Reading, is that that is open to a considerable amount of interpretation. It is right that both Houses debate and discuss the extent to which they believe “all due regard” has been met. I would think the Government would welcome the amendment, since it would actually give them further opportunity on their media grid to drip out some good news stories about the wonderful things they are doing. Actually, we think the opposite is the case. We do not think they want genuine scrutiny. The amendment could attract some interesting cross-party support as we goes forward.
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, Mr Walker. I believe, Sir Charles, that you were part of the Procedure Committee which created opportunities for Commons Select Committees to make statements and answer questions in the House, which is a welcome development. The amendment is sensible, as are all of the suggestions from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration; I think there is a lot to commend it.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. By definition, all Opposition Front-Bench amendments are sensible—I will tell you the ones that are not later. My hon. Friend, too, brings great experience on this, and he makes an important point. Those of us who have gradually begun to understand parliamentary procedure over the process of being here know that he is right; proper consideration of Select Committee reports in the Chamber does make a real difference. That is what we are trying to get at with the amendment.
I hope, despite the nature of this debate, that Ministers will go away and think about this point. We have noticed that there are very real differences of opinion on the Conservative Benches on this issue. I think the amendment would give voice to some of the staunch critics of the Bill. I do not think some of them understand it entirely, but I think it might settle some of their concerns if they knew they had the opportunity to raise them in this way. As the Better Deal for Animals coalition said in their briefing to parliamentarians:
“Criticisms of the Bill during its passage to date appear to have been based on a misunderstanding of the role of the Animal Sentience Committee.”
Members will be surprised to hear that I am on the side of the Minister on this point, because I agree that it should be reiterated that the new Committee will not have the power to amend or bring about new legislation. It cannot compel the Government to take any particular course of action. I understand the points the Minister is making, and I am not sure that everyone who has taken part in this debate has fully appreciated that.
The amendment would provide an opportunity for Members of both Houses to provide input and scrutinise the Government’s success in weighing up competing demands and, crucially, their success in considering the sentience of animals. For the Bill to have any real impact, we believe that Members must have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response to the Animal Sentience Committee’s reports. Going back to my opening points, this could so easily be just another committee. Unless it has power, it will not work, and that would mean that sentience had not been carried across in the way that many people believed it to have been.
The amendment would only strengthen and further the claimed aims of the Bill. If the Government oppose it, I have to say that they will reveal their true intent.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for raising the matter of responses to the Animal Sentience Committee report with the amendment. I agree that the committee’s report warrants parliamentary attention. That is why Ministers will be required to lay a written response before Parliament within three months of a report’s publication. This is central to the targeted, timely and proportionate mechanism we are seeking to establish. However, the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe it would be proportionate to clog up the parliamentary timetable with an automatic debate on every single report.
Hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place should decide for themselves the extent to which each report needs more discussion. They will have the usual means at their disposal to bring in Ministers to answer questions: parliamentary questions, Select Committee hearings, Westminster Hall debates and business questions. The EFRA Committee, when looking at this particular subject, asked my noble Friend Lord Benyon to come in front of it, in order to probe him more. We should also allow for the possibility that the committee, in some of its reports, may be satisfied that the Department in question has had all due regard to animal welfare and as such makes no recommendations. I am sure that Ministers would be delighted, as the hon. Member for Cambridge slightly alluded to, to have the platform to speak about such success on the Floor of the House, but I gently say that that is not the best use of parliamentary time.
Daniel Zeichner
That was pretty much the answer I expected, but I gently observe that, in a couple of years’ time, when the position is reversed, I suspect the Minister might not think that it clogs up the parliamentary timetable to challenge the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jo Churchill
The clause requires a Minister whose Department has been subject to an Animal Sentience Committee report to lay a written report before Parliament. The response must be submitted within three months of the publication of the report, excluding periods in which Parliament is not sitting. This will give weight to the committee reports. Ministers will not be able to ignore them. There may be occasions when Ministers do not agree with the findings and recommendations of the committee. The clause gives those Ministers the opportunity to explain their views and the reasons therein. If Members or peers are dissatisfied with the Minister’s explanation, they have the usual means at their disposal to pursue their concerns, as we discussed.
Kerry McCarthy
I have a genuine question about the timing of introducing legislation. I think we all know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed in and is imperfect. There is obviously much to be said for taking time and seeking advice. I am concerned that the Government will propose something, then the committee has to look at it, then the Secretary of State has three months to reply. If the Government were seeking to legislate or change policy quite quickly, could this mechanism be used to drag things out far longer than they should be?
Jo Churchill
I would say no. The formulation and thought process of legislation feels like it takes considerable time, as we all know. This mechanism would not, in any circumstance I can envisage, be used to slow down the passage of anything.
Crucially, the committee supports Parliament’s scrutiny of Ministers without creating an undue risk of legal challenge. We learned from the EFRA Committee’s valuable feedback on the earlier version of the Bill how this is the case. Our approach means that Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, as is right and proper, and not to the courts. We feel that this creates a balanced, timely, proportionate accountability mechanism, allowing Ministers to make their own judgments on the best policy decisions to take and giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise those issues based on expert advice that comes forward, hence the reason for the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jo Churchill
The clause provides for the inclusion of the Animal Sentience Committee in the list of organisations subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Animal Sentience Committee is designed to support Parliament in scrutinising the policy decision making, and it is therefore right that the committee is transparent and accountable in the way that it operates.
We have sought to balance the transparency of the committee with its effectiveness by ensuring that Government Departments can disclose information to it at early stages of policy decision making. The same checks and balances apply to the disclosure of sensitive information via the committee as to the Department with which it will work. The committee will receive dedicated secretariat support from my Department, which will assist in processing any of those Freedom of Information Act requests.
In addition to the transparency provisions in the Bill, we will ensure that the committee’s supporting documents and the minutes of the meeting are published online to aid that transparency and scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Interpretation
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(6) For the purposes of section 2 (2) in this Act, “sentient beings” means a being capable of sentience, where “sentience” means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.’
This amendment would insert a definition of sentience into the Bill for purposes of reference, based on the definition included in research commissioned by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”.
The amendment would basically insert a definition of “sentient beings”, which is the phrase used in the legislation. That definition, as I have put it, is:
“‘sentient beings’ means a being capable of sentience, where ‘sentience’ means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.”
I know that other definitions might be proposed, but that definition was lifted from London School of Economics research entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”, which was commissioned by DEFRA and was part of the discussions about whether they should be included in the legislation. I am very pleased that they are now included. That is the definition that I have used.
The Minister said in speaking to clause 1 stand part that it was not usual to include definitions in the Bill, but in my experience, it is pretty common. The “Interpretation” clause states:
“In this Act ‘animal’ means”,
and goes on to define what an animal is, and it also defines “vertebrate” and “invertebrate” by referring to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, so I think it is quite common to include definitions. On Second Reading, some quite spurious points were made, and from my recollection of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, when we talked about sentience, people threw around slightly silly things. I think it would be helpful to have a definition in the Bill, and I cannot quite see what the argument against that would be.
A definition of “sentience” would give the Animal Sentience Committee an official reference point when considering the effects of legislation, and that is a good framework to work within. Without a definition, justifying decisions could prove problematic. A definition would shorten the process because the committee would not have to argue about whether an issue related to animal sentience.
I worry that sentience is sometimes seen as being just about feeling pain. Obviously, a lot of animal welfare discussions are about cruelty to animals, and that is what the public tend to focus on most, but as I have said, feeling pleasure comes back to the idea of the positive effects of things. We know from debates about caged birds and sow crates, or just about the way farm animals are kept, that animals—particularly intelligent animals such as pigs—need stimulation. It is actually very cruel to keep them somewhere where they cannot exhibit their natural behaviour.
Defining “sentience” would make it clear that the legislation is not just about stopping animals suffering pain. It is an apolitical expert decision, sourced from Government-commissioned research. The Government accepted that research when agreeing to include crustaceans, molluscs and so on in the Bill. The amendment would help the Bill and make it a better piece of legislation. I am interested to hear why the Minister does not agree.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving the amendment, by which she asks the important question of why we are not putting in a fixed definition of “sentience”. I reiterate that this is about the positive and the negative.
Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years—the hon. Lady referred to the LSE report—and will continue to evolve. The Government approach will be led by the science. We therefore decided that we would not include a fixed definition of “sentience” in the Bill because, in the course of time, it will become out of date. As I said, for the Bill to work, it is not necessary to define “sentience” in statute. If we accept that those animals are sentient, we accept the principle supported by the Bill that their welfare needs should be properly considered in Government policy decision making, so there is no need to increase the complexity.
This is the nub of the matter: if the Animal Sentience Committee wishes to adopt a working definition of “sentience”, it will be absolutely free to do so. One of the first acts of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—a similar body, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded earlier—was to prepare its own working definition of “sentience”. So, should the committee wish to do the same, that would be a discussion for the experts to have, rather than for us in Government. I do not think that any of us would say that we are experts in defining; it is for the committee to choose.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for mentioning the SAWC’s definition of “sentience”. She is correct that that happened in the early days after its formation. Will she require that of the committee? Will that be something to be discussed and required of the committee when it sits in future?
Jo Churchill
I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Scottish Government determined that that should be one of the SAWC’s first acts. I reiterate: it should be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to do the same and to have a working definition. The whole tenor of the Bill is to be future-proofed.
Grahame Morris
I was caught on the horns of a dilemma there, because the Minister was answering the earlier intervention. I apologise if I missed this in the explanatory notes, but do we have any information on the composition of the committee, on the nature of the people, individuals or expert opinions who will make up the committee?
Jo Churchill
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of reference. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about its make-up, nor do we want to be over-prescriptive in case, for example, experts were to come from the devolved nations. This is an expert committee to give sound scientific advice on which Ministers will make a decision. That is referred to clearly in the terms of reference.
Kerry McCarthy
That is an illogical argument. If we were to follow that through, there would be no point having amended the Bill to incorporate the recommendations of the report. It would have been easy to say, “The committee are the experts, they can decide whether molluscs and crustaceans are sentient beings.” We put things in legislation to steer the agenda of the committee. That is the very point.
I worry that the committee will be open to challenge. We saw misinformed hostility from many quarters on Second Reading, and I would have thought that the Government could solidify the fact that the committee is there to look at things other than just overt instances of animal cruelty. It would really help the experts on the committee to do their job if we were to define sentience in the Bill, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
And we will get to that, but before we do, I think the official Opposition would like to comment briefly.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir Charles. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who made an excellent speech that clearly and articulately explained how important the definition is and why the amendment is so important. The definition is the key to understanding the whole Bill and how the committee will work. I vividly remember the proceedings on the Environment Bill, when we were told, “Don’t worry; the explanatory notes will explain all.” However, that is not the same as legislation. Explanatory notes are separate, which is why the Opposition are so keen to have the definition enshrined in the legislation. That is why we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Grahame Morris
On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am sorry if I am asking an obvious question, but when the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith says “no vote”, is that recorded as a positive abstention?
The Chair
It is recorded as exactly what it is. The hon. Lady could say “abstention”, for example, but it is not recorded. It does not appear in the record.
Thank you, Mr Morris, for the point of order—it was a genuine point of order and required an answer. That was actually the first one I have had in 11 years, so thank you, Ms Brock, as well.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jo Churchill
The clause sets out what types of animals are covered by the provisions of the Bill and are thus subject to consideration by the Animal Sentience Committee. It covers any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. The science is clear that vertebrate animals—those with a spine—can experience pain and suffering.
Furthermore, in 2020, my Department commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters, and in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. There has been much scientific interest in the sentience of such creatures for a number of years, because they are unusual among invertebrates in having complex nervous systems—one of the prerequisites of sentience. The review considered some 300 pieces of research, applying a robust set of criteria to reach its conclusions. On publishing the review’s findings last October, we accepted its central recommendation that, given the strong evidence of such creatures’ sentience, they should be included in the legislation.
We tabled an amendment to the clause in the other place, and we are pleased that it enjoyed cross-party support. However, we know that there is new scientific evidence emerging all the time, which is why we have sought to future-proof the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add species to the definition of animals by regulations, using an affirmative statutory instrument. Such a measure would be based on scientific evidence that particular species of invertebrates are sentient.
We have no plans to use the delegated power in the near future. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was the subject of considerable scientific research over many years, and we are not expecting compelling evidence on other species to emerge overnight. However, it is important to be able to keep the Bill’s scope up to date, in line with scientific developments.
Ministers will not be able to amend the Bill’s scope on a whim. Regulations laid under the delegated power would be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, and Parliament would rightly expect more compelling scientific evidence to be brought forward to justify any extension. If it were not convinced, Parliament would be able to vote down the regulations.
The clause therefore sets the scope of the Bill to cover creatures for which there is strong scientific evidence of sentience, and it includes a delegated power to keep the scope up to date with emerging evidence, subject to sensible checks and balances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (5).—(Jo Churchill.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Jo Churchill
The clause sets out the territorial extent and the commencement provisions for the Bill following Royal Assent. Clause 2(6) provides that the Animal Sentience Committee may only issue reports on policy decisions of the UK Government. That means that the committee may issue a report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible. The committee cannot issue a report on any policy that relates to a legislative provision falling within a devolved competence. Animal welfare policy is devolved. The Bill’s provisions will come into force on such days as the Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, appoint.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
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 ask 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 a revised Animal Sentience Strategy at the start of each parliament.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
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.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is tabled in my name and those of many of my colleagues. In many ways, I will go back to where I started, by referring to the comments by my colleague in the other place, Baroness Hayman. She explained very lucidly that the Bill in its current form provides
“a weaker set of responsibilities”
than provided for in EU law and
“effectively outsources the bulk of animal sentience responsibility to the committee, which can make recommendations to decision-makers but sits outside the decision-making process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC285.]
That is an important point, which we have already referenced, and I believe that it should be heard loud and clear—put up in lights, in fact. The Conservatives have weakened the law on animal sentience. [Interruption.] They may not like it, but it is the truth.
Now, there is a solution—there is salvation, and I am going to offer it. The amendment tabled by Labour in the other place goes some way towards rectifying that problem. Again, as Baroness Hayman explained,
“Article 13 imposed a direct legal obligation on the EU and its member states to pay full regard to animal sentience. It was a direct responsibility on decision-makers, in the form of government Ministers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2021; Vol. 813, c. GC284.]
I have already described how the Bill is weakened by the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide written responses to Animal Sentience Committee reports rather than oral responses. The Government chose not to take that opportunity.
The Bill places indirect responsibilities on Ministers; 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. This is clearly an inadequate replacement for the duties and responsibilities enshrined in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and that is what we seek to address through the new clause.
The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an animal sentience strategy and to provide annual updates to Parliament on progress against it. It would significantly improve the Bill by increasing the heft given to the Animal Sentience Committee and ensuring that its work does not, as I fear it might, end up being merely symbolic.
Jo Churchill
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for proposing new clause 1, that while I agree that the Bill should be science-led, he will not be surprised that I disagree entirely that we are watering down anything. Given that we are robustly discussing animal sentience, how seriously the issue is taken in this place could not be plainer to the outside word.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman might want to require the Secretary of State to publish an animal sentience strategy and undertake the actions associated with it, but the Bill underpins the action plan for animal welfare published in May last year. Of course the Government want the new committee to perform its role to the best of its ability, and we will work with Members to ensure that it does just that, but the independence of that committee is vital. A strategy in which Ministers set out policies that they want the committee to consider would limit its ability to set its own agenda. It is vital to make sure that the committee is led by science and by experts, and that it has its own ability to define sentience, if it wishes to, and to set its own agenda.
The committee’s reports will be publicly available and will provide a record of policies that it has considered. As is usual, the committee will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act, as laid out in clause 4. Rather than prescribe a list of tasks for the committee, we want to ensure that it can shape its role in an independent manner, and that its influence in highlighting the impact on animal welfare of key policy decisions is maximised and determined by its own evaluation of where it could add value. DEFRA will support the committee in identifying such opportunities, but it is important that experts have that scope.
We do not propose to require Government Departments to produce animal welfare impact assessments, but my Department is committed to working with its counterparts across the Government to develop the right tools to assess the effect of policy decisions on animal welfare so that there is a cohesive look at that matter. Departments will have good reason to engage with the process as that will help to prevent the committee from producing negative reports, as well as aiding learning across the Government. The Bill as drafted, alongside the action plan for animal welfare, will achieve many of the intentions of the new clause while retaining the committee’s flexibility and discretion to focus on the areas that it deems most important.
Daniel Zeichner
I will respond briefly, as you would encourage me to do, Sir Charles.
I listened closely to the Minister’s response, and while I struggled with some of the civil service gobbledegook, I think she said that some of the things that we are looking to achieve will happen, which we welcome. In the end, however, I can come to no conclusion but that this is a weak proposition. I have asked the Minister three times why the Government did not choose to bring across the stronger version of the legislation—goodness me, they brought plenty of other legislation across—but that has not been explained, and there must be a reason. The Minister also has not been able to answer the question of where sentience currently stands, so the only conclusion we can come to is that the Bill needs to be beefed up and made much stronger. I can assure you, Sir Charles, that in a couple of years’ time, it will be.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
I just want to tell new colleagues what the Clerk’s note reads: “At this point, Members may wish to raise bogus points of order or debate the Question in order to raise issues concerning proceedings of the Bill, to thank officials, etc. This is permissible within reason as long as the final Question on report is put and agreed to.”
Would anyone like to say nice things about officials? I will thank my Clerk, the Hansard writers and, of course, the Doorkeepers for their outstanding service.
Nickie Aiken
May I share your sentiments, Sir Charles, and say thank you to our parliamentary staff here and across the estate?
Jo Churchill
I add my voice to that, but I would also like to thank my Bill team and members of my private office, who are nothing but always by my side, for which I thank them.
Deidre Brock
Many thanks to the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, and to Hansard for taking down our words today.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir Charles; I am not going to miss this opportunity.
I echo the thanks that have been given, and I would also like to place on record our thanks to our staff. The Bill has been interestingly timetabled, and we have been working under pressure, so it has been useful to have our staff so on board. I also thank you, Sir Charles, for your excellent chairing.
The Chair
Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - large print - (14 Mar 2022)
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
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.
Jim McMahon
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 (Ruth Jones) 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 (Daniel Zeichner) 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.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (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.
Tim Farron (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.
Jim Shannon (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?
Tim Farron
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.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), 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.
Alex Davies-Jones (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 (Jim McMahon), 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 (Luke Pollard), as well as the former Member for Redcar, Anna Turley, 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 (Chris Elmore), 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.
Neil Parish (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 (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). 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.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
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.
Neil Parish
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.
Sir Roger Gale (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.
Neil Parish
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.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), 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 (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) 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.
Matt Rodda (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.
Kerry McCarthy
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 gas, 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 (Greg Smith) wrote a rather amusing article for ConservativeHome recently, saying that he had rumbled my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) 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.
Sir Roger Gale
According to the hon. Lady’s analysis, would that also mean that any member of the Countryside Alliance would have to be excluded?
Kerry McCarthy
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.
Dr Neil Hudson (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 (Alex Davies-Jones) 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.
Sir Roger Gale
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.
Alex Davies-Jones
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.
Neil Parish
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 (Neil Parish). 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.
Kerry McCarthy
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 (Sir Graham Brady), 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.
Jim Shannon
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 (Victoria Prentis) 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 (Jo Churchill) 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 (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) 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.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
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.
Jim Shannon
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 (Tim Farron), 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 (Kerry McCarthy) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), 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.
Carla Lockhart (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?
Jim Shannon
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.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We heard again, in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), 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 (Alex Davies-Jones)—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 (Tim Farron), 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 (Sir Roger Gale) 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 (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), 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 (Kerry McCarthy) 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.
Sir Roger Gale
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.
David Simmonds
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 (Greg Smith) 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.
Deidre Brock (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 (Kerry McCarthy) 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 (Jo Churchill)
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 (Neil Parish) 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 (Jim McMahon), 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 (Deidre Brock) 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 (Tim Farron) 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.
Deidre Brock
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?
Jo Churchill
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 (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), 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.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
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.
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.
Jo Churchill
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 (Ruth Jones), 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.
Jim McMahon
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
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.”—(Tim Farron.)
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.
Jo Churchill
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 (Dame Eleanor Laing)
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!
Jo Churchill
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 (Neil Parish) 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 (Sir Charles Walker). I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for their engagement. Special thanks are due to my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) 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.
Ruth Jones (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 (Jim McMahon) 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 (Daniel Zeichner), alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), 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 Baroness Hayman. She is a fierce champion of the strongest animal welfare protections, and it has been a pleasure to work with her and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
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 (Mary Glindon), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Easington (Grahame Morris).
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.
Deidre Brock
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.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, the motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to Adjournment of the House (Today) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the motion on the Adjournment of the House. This is not the Question that the House do now adjourn—[Interruption.] I must inform the enthusiastic group sitting on my right that this is in fact the motion entitled “Adjournment of the House (Today)”.
Adjournment of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until
(1) any Messages from the Lords relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill shall have been received and disposed of; and
(2) he shall have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) agreed upon by both Houses.— (Mark Spencer.)
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]
Thursday 7th April 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 March 2022 - large print - (14 Mar 2022)
Lord Benyon
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2
“(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.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2. Amendment 1 would require any recommendations produced by the animal sentience committee to respect
“religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”.
We have carefully considered representations made by noble Lords in debate on a similar amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. Honourable Members in the other place raised many of the same concerns. We recognise the strength of feeling in both Houses. We have listened, and we have accepted the amendment.
The Government have always sought to create a targeted, balanced and proportionate accountability mechanism within this Bill. We want the animal sentience committee to be led by science and to comprise members who are experts in sentience and animal welfare. Religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage will be neither their area of expertise nor their focus. This is a role for Ministers. We expect the committee to respect provisions and customs relating to these areas when they make recommendations under Clause 2(3) of the Bill.
We have always been clear that it is not the role of the committee to make value judgments about policy or to provide recommendations that do not reflect its expertise or its remit. This amendment will provide additional reassurance on this point. I hope that noble Lords will be content to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as in the register. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I thank the Minister for useful discussions during the passage of this Bill, and I hope that he is a very happy grandfather this afternoon.
I accept these amendments, particularly Amendment 1, but, as a vet and a veterinary scientist, I have to say that I do not condone some of the activities covered under the amendment in terms of,
“religious rites, cultural traditions and historical heritage.”
Some of those activities are not consistent with best practice in animal welfare science or indeed regulation, and I will take this opportunity to make a plea to those directly involved to consider very carefully and to reflect on whether practices which had some historical relevance in ancient times are relevant, necessary or at all acceptable in the 21st century. Having said that, I respect national and international laws pertaining to freedoms—in particular, Article 9 of the Human Rights Act on religious freedoms.
I will make one further point. During prolonged discussions about the Bill in this House, a number of noble Lords raised the potential threat to the use of animals in medical research. That was a fair concern, but one which could be countered—I spoke to that effect, as did others at the time—by the fact that the rigorous application and implementation of our Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was a sufficient response to the requirement for government departments to have due regard to animal welfare and the development of policies. We have thorough, world-leading regulations around the controlled use of animals in medical research.
Recently, it has come to my notice that there are changes afoot in the Home Office with regard to the implementation of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act. It is not yet clear to me what the effect of those changes might be on the welfare protection of animals used in medical research. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that any changes with regard to the implementation of the law pertaining to the use of animals in medical research should not weaken—or be perceived to weaken—that regulation, which could lead to increased legal challenge to the use of animals in medical research when the Bill becomes an Act. I support the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill to this stage. My concerns about it have not changed, but we are where we are. I want to lend my support to and associate myself in particular with Amendment 1. In doing so, I repeat that I am a fellow of the British Veterinary Association and share some of the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding its practice.
I seek reassurance from my noble friend as to the response of the devolved Parliaments to the amendments. Have the Government had the chance to square the amendments with them? I further seek reassurance that in the operation of the Bill the Government, particularly my noble friend’s department, will be mindful of the role that farmers and especially livestock producers play in rearing our farm animals, and perhaps recognise that they are best placed to respect animal welfare and are masters in their own right of animal husbandry.
I hope that, in light of the short debate we had elsewhere in Questions this week, the Government will be mindful of the fact that there is still a severe shortage of seasonal workers which is impacting on abattoirs and the slaughter of animals. I hope that there will not be any undue concern over potential animal welfare consequences of that. I realise that it is not entirely within the scope of the Bill, but I wish to draw it to my noble friend’s attention. I congratulate him on accepting the two amendments before us today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I had thought that the Government had completely forgotten this Bill, because it has been so long threading its way through both Houses. Anyway, I am glad that it is happening. It is not the Bill that I would like to have seen passed, but I guess that we have to accept it, since it is better than nothing—although that is not exactly glowing praise. I hope that we can see some effectiveness coming from the Bill and real action, so I say well done for bringing it back and getting us to this point.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I want first to thank my noble friend the Minister, who has put an inordinate amount of effort into discussing concerns about this Bill with those of us who have them. I congratulate him not only on becoming a grandfather but on landing this Bill, as he does today.
However, it remains a very bad Bill and I think it is worth repeating why. It is not because it entails a huge administrative reorganisation; in this House, we take huge administrative reorganisations in our stride. We have been reorganising the National Health Service over the past few weeks, which is possibly the largest organisation in the world, certainly in Europe. The Government’s defence of the measure is essentially that it is administratively very minor: it just sets up a committee; it is an advisory committee, and Ministers will make final decisions—“There is nothing to see here; move on”. But the important part of the Bill is not its administrative effects but the fact that it is a declaratory Bill. It declares something in the law of the United Kingdom for the first time to be true—that is, that animals, vertebrates and certain non-vertebrates, are sentient. I know that this appeared previously in a treaty that we were party to, but it moves it on a considerable step to incorporate it into domestic law in this way.
It is worth asking why that declaration matters. It matters because it is very much part of the agenda of the animal rights movement to achieve agreement on three things. The first is that animals are sentient; the second is that sentience is the sole basis for judging moral conduct; and the third, as a consequence of that, is that humans and animals are to be treated on the same basis in moral terms. That is a complete upturning of our established view of moral conduct; it is a completely new anthropology. This Bill is therefore profoundly anti-human. It opens the door to a moral calculus in which people can ask the question: how much chimpanzee suffering is equivalent to a human baby suffering? That is why it remains a very bad Bill. It is a Bill that we will come to regret.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register. I thank my noble friend the Minister for indicating that the Government wish to agree with these sensible amendments, which merely import principles which previously existed in relation to sentience provisions in the Lisbon treaty and will create a better balance in the Bill and in the operation of the sentience committee.
I fear that I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan that this remains a bad Bill and it stores up trouble for the future, but we have made all those points before. Even if the Government came to this late, they are wise to have accepted the view of the Commons that some balance needed to be injected into the measures, so we are doing the right thing by agreeing with them. I thank my noble friend for everything that he has done to get us to this place.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I endorse thoroughly the remarks of my noble friends Lord Herbert and Lord Moylan. I congratulate the Minister on entering this whole discussion with great good humour and with a certain amount of patience as well, because we have certainly asked him many questions and put him under quite a lot of pressure, but I hope that at all times we have been courteous to him, too.
My starting point was exactly the same as that of my noble friend. This Bill really was not necessary. If one looks at the raft of legislation in this country that protects and stands up for animals, one sees that it is one of the most effective legal frameworks anywhere in the world. Some of those laws date back to the start of the last century. Flowing from those different Acts of Parliament have been numerous regulations, such as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, which are pretty comprehensive.
So the Bill was not necessary, but in the context of realpolitik, I understand why the Government decided that they had to move down this route. The Bill has certainly been improved by the Commons amendments, which I welcome. I once again thank the Minister for what he has done to help improve the Bill substantially from where it was when it started out.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Commons amendments to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. This was a very small Bill which was trailed in the Conservative Party’s manifesto. I am not usually an advocate of following another party’s manifesto, but, on this occasion, it was necessary to bring forward the Bill in this parliamentary Session. I would have wished the Bill to have had more detail in it and perhaps to have had more support from the Government Benches, but to have amended it further would have delayed it, and it could possibly have been lost in the welter of other legislation we are dealing with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the shortcomings in the Bill, as have others. It is nevertheless long overdue that animal sentience should be recognised in law and on the face of legislation. This Bill fulfils that need.
The Bill, although short, received minor amendments in the other place. The first, to Clause 2, inserts the provision around religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. It seems sensible that those who have strongly held religious beliefs should be able to have those rites and cultural traditions respected; this is the correct way to proceed. However, insertion of the provision is not necessary, as the Bill already gives the ASC the right to consider non-welfare factors, but we are content to let it stand.
The other amendment made in the other place was to Clause 6. A clause inserted in the Lords prevented any charge being placed on the people—on public funds—but it was removed in the other place. We do not oppose the removal of that amendment and hope that others similarly do not oppose its removal.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the amendments that have come forward from the Commons and for his explanation of the Government’s acceptance and the changes to the Bill.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will not be at all surprised when I say that I completely disagreed with absolutely everything he said. I think the debates we had in Committee and at Third Reading will have shown him exactly where I stand on the Bill and my support for animal welfare.
On these Benches, we very much welcome the Bill, which we believe will be important. It may not be perfect, but we will be very pleased to see it on the statute book. We are also very pleased that the Government earlier accepted the amendment to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods; we believe that is an important addition to animal welfare sentience. I thank the Minister in particular for all his hard work on that particular area of the Bill.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support on the Bill. We have done important cross-Bench work to get to this stage. I am fully aware that not all noble Lords agreed with us, particularly on the Benches opposite, but we have got the Bill to the place where we think it needs to be and it is good to see that it will move forward and provide more protection for animals in the future.
On the further government promises on animal welfare that we have yet to see, does the Minister have any kind of update on the situation is with the animals abroad Bill, which seems to have hit the buffers? Obviously, we are very pleased that the kept animals Bill has a carry-over Motion but it would be useful if he had any further information on that.
Finally, I give the Minister my very warm congratulations on becoming a grandfather, if that is true—will he confirm it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When it is true, it is absolutely delightful to be a grandparent—I highly recommend it to all noble Lords.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their somewhat premature congratulations. I am waiting for a call on that particular matter—which is not a matter of state.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate, which are very much in keeping with the very interesting and at times enthralling conversations we have had during the progress of the Bill. I had not expected to be standing here talking about it again but the Commons have made the right call, and I am glad that most noble Lords think that we have made the right call in accepting their amendments.
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trees, whose wisdom and understanding on this and other issues are of enormous value to me and to the department. I hope to continue to have discussions on this and other issues. He raised some important points. As he knows, the Bill is about the government policy-making process. It does not change existing law or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses. The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but we respect the rights of Muslims and Jews to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. Strict rules are already in place which govern these slaughter methods. Official vets from the Food Standards Agency are present in approved slaughterhouses to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements.
The noble Lord raised an important additional point about medical research. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work in both health and disease. Such use is crucial for the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies. Central to any decision to use animals in research is the need for robust scientific evidence to justify the use of animals. As the noble Lord is well aware, the use of animals in science is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which is implemented by the Home Office. His concerns are noted and have been passed on to my colleagues in the Home Office.
I am also extremely grateful to other noble Lords who spoke in this debate. My noble friend Lady McIntosh is right to make sure that what we are talking about is shared with our devolved colleagues. As was apparent during the progress of the Bill, Scotland already has a similar committee and others are either being formed or talked about. We regularly discuss this with our devolved colleagues to make sure that we are learning from the best from them, and they, I hope, are learning from us.
My noble friend is right to raise the issue of farmers. It is important for us to say that the vast majority of farmers are invested in the care of their animals. It makes economic sense for them, but they feel this personally, and the vast majority of farmers, who look after their animals to the highest standards of animal welfare, are wounded by those who do not. They want everyone to know that they are doing their best to care for their animals and for them to have the highest welfare standards of anywhere on this planet.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, contributed at many stages of the Bill and I thank her for it. I too share her wish that this will be an effective piece of legislation. Ministers will have at their call the best evidence they need to make the right decisions across government, not just in Defra. I hope that she will continue to take an interest in thism and I am sure that she will inform me if she thinks that we are in any way not being effective.
I very much enjoyed the discussions I had with my noble friend Lord Moylan. We delved into realms of philosophy at times, which is always fun, if testing on the Hansard scribes. My noble friend had a different opinion to me about the importance of the Bill, and I understand his concerns and those of my noble friends Lord Herbert, Lord Bellingham and others on our Benches. However, after the processes we went through, the Bill is better for their challenge. As a relative newcomer to the House, I recognise the value of being challenged and trying to make sure that we are doing the best we can.
My great thanks go to the two Front-Bench spokesmen from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Hayman of Ullock. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised a point about the other amendment, and she is absolutely right. Amendment 2 and the text it removes are both procedural formalities, but we must recognise that money-raising powers should remain in the other place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked me about the animals abroad Bill. She would seem to have the better of me with knowledge that there is some possibility that it should not happen. That quite possibly means she is better informed than me because, as far as I am concerned, we can expect to see it—in the words that irritate most people on all Benches of this House—in the relatively near future.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has been an enormous support to me in taking this Bill through, and the Bill team, Katherine Yeşilirmak, Kalyani Franklin, Jack Darrant, Tess Hanneman, Hannah Edwins, Phoebe Harris and, from my private office, Lucy Skelton and Adam Diep.
This Bill provides recognition of animal sentience in UK law and will see Ministers held to account on considering the animal welfare implications of their decisions. These are both outcomes for which there is overwhelming public support. I look forward to seeing this Bill become law. I beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 28th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text