Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [ Lords ]

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to respond, Ms McCarthy has caught my eye.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.