Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.