Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Viscount Trenchard]

17: Clause 2, page 1, line 9, leave out “or has been”

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move Amendment 17, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean had intended to move, but he is unable to be in his place today. I was unable to speak at Second Reading due to my incompetence in failing to put my name on the speakers’ list on time.

I was able to take the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act through your Lordships’ House in spring 2019, rightly removing the argument of self-defence from those who attempted to escape arrest by attacking and harming police dogs and horses. Finn’s law received unqualified support from all sides of the House, and I think it is highly desirable that, in this field, the Government should support legislation which is similarly supported by all parties.

Her Majesty set out the animal welfare programme in her gracious Speech with these words:

“Legislation will also be brought forward to ensure the United Kingdom has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]


I fear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, this Bill will add nothing to our excellent standards and is likely to be counterproductive.

My Amendment 17 seeks to restrict the activities of the committee to policies that are in course of formulation, or at least have not been formulated. I support Amendments 18 and 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to ensure that the committee is not required to review policies that are already being lawfully implemented. I also support his Amendment 29, which ensures that on any further formulation of a policy already being applied the committee is not expected to report. All these amendments are designed to remove retrospectivity from the workings of the committee and its reports and recommendations.

Retrospective laws which upset legally compliant settled patterns of life and expectations are not good policy. They undermine the security and continuity of a way of life consistent with the values of the community and a sense of its continuity. Legislation which retrospectively changes a legal activity into an illegal one is likely to have adverse repercussions on decisions made reasonably and in good faith by citizens in the past. In the context of this Bill, that might cover farming or other business plans and investment or the purchase of property in order to carry on a particular activity or country sport.

I also support Amendment 35A in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Measures which support conservation or biodiversity may very well not support crop protection or indeed human health. How to balance these conflicting policy areas while having to have regard to animal welfare for reasons different from those for which we look after animals so well in this country is an extremely complicated subject. Indeed, most policies that the Government might develop may well have negative consequences for at least one of the excluded areas in my noble friend’s amendment.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I commented earlier in Committee on the potential problem which would be created if existing policy could be reviewed by the committee. The trouble that could be caused by reviewing existing policies is as nothing compared to the turmoil which could come from the ability to go backwards and review existing law. This would be an enormous power which very easily could, and almost probably would, get out of hand. It would require almost unlimited resources and place intolerable burdens on other departments of state.

In addition to that, unlike European countries, Britain has had animal welfare laws for 200 years. Allowing the committee to recommend repealing or amending already implemented law would be a recipe for unimaginable chaos and expense. I cannot believe that this is what this Bill intends. If the Bill is to have any sensible purpose, it must be limited to recommending on future policy and legislation which, by itself, would be a monumental task, without the potential of causing almost unlimited trouble by going back historically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If my noble friend is referring to the article that I read at the weekend, it was full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, which is not what this Bill is about. At a later stage in this afternoon’s proceedings, we shall move on to talk about decapods and cephalopods. In relation to the amendments concerned, if the government Minister in the future felt obliged to include some of those species within the terms of the Bill, they could be looked at by the committee, which could advise a future Minister what they could or should be doing in terms of how different animals are treated at end of life. However, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that there are gradations in unpleasantness involved for the animal, whether it is a pig or a lobster. The point is that the Bill does not dictate how a lobster is killed at the time of cooking or how a pig is killed at the time of slaughter. This is about informing policy using experts who can guide a Minister to take the right position. But that Minister, when considering all the factors that my noble friend mentioned, can take into account other matters, such as the value of sustainably produced seafood in a diet or the importance of the rural economy or the Government’s balance of payments in terms of rearing pigs. This Bill does not affect that, and so my noble friend can be quite relaxed about his concerns.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I am heartened that both my Amendment 17 and the other amendments in the group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard, have received such unqualified support.

I totally understand my noble friend the Minister’s response that legislation does not stand still, and it is of course reasonable that, where the Government propose a new policy that requires changes to existing legislation, the committee or the Animal Welfare Committee might be tasked with looking at how the policy impacted on the welfare of animals, including having regard to their sentience, which any look at animal welfare automatically does anyway. Nevertheless, I find his answer unconvincing because I think that there is a real danger, especially since we know nothing about any requirements for the composition of the committee, that a huge amount of public time and public money would be spent looking at all past legislation that affects animal welfare. I worry that this would be counterproductive.

However, having heard my noble friend’s response, I will at least for now withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. I was not here—because I was at a previous engagement—when the debate was held in this Room about merging the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. My noble friend the Minister made the point that the two committees did two different jobs and therefore there had be two different committees. That was really accepted rather too glibly. There is no reason why we should not keep one committee and give it two different jobs to do. It is a pity that we seem to be so dedicated to the spread of bureaucracy and quangos in this way, when the Government have made it clear that they do not really agree with that.

However, let us leave that and move on to the fact that there is obviously potential for conflict between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness. We have to do everything we can to avoid that and ensure that they work together—not in opposition to each other, which seems highly likely knowing the way that Whitehall works. I therefore sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will look hard at this amendment, because it has great value.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that the committee should look at policy in the round, I regret that I cannot support Amendment 20 in her name and that of my noble friend Lady Fookes. I also strongly support the objective of my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Hamilton of Epsom in their Amendment 2, previously debated, that the duties of the animal sentience committee could better be given to the existing Animal Welfare Committee.

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on 6 July:

“It feels as if this is just a bit of window dressing, a bit of virtue-signalling, which is actually going to create great problems for the Government.”


My noble friend the Minister told the Committee that the Government

“want the animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee to have a constructive relationship, but it is not quite as simple as saying that we could hand over the ASC’s responsibilities to the AWC with no legal powers to back them up.”

That would of course have been far better.

I have the highest regard for my noble friend Lord Benyon, but I found his explanation as to why we need two committees completely unconvincing. It is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to the Government’s manifesto commitment. Those animal rights activists who support the Bill claim that the public want it. If you tell the man or woman on the street that there is an Animal Welfare Committee already and ask if he or she thinks we should have a second committee, you will get a different answer. My noble friend said:

“It is important to remember that the two committees have distinct roles. The Animal Welfare Committee exists to provide advice to Defra and the devolved Administrations, whereas we are establishing the animal sentience committee to scrutinise policy decision-making across the whole of government. Any relationship between the two would need to support these two distinct functions.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; cols. GC 337-8.]


I do not think these functions are distinct in any way. Without exception, noble Lords who spoke on 6 July asked him to come back with at least some definition of the committee on Report.

I also support Amendment 16, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, which stated that the new requirements to consider animals as sentient beings in the formulation of policy should be limited to those areas covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty. UK Parliaments have recognised the sentience of animals since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and our animal welfare standards go far beyond what we were required to do under EU law. If the Government really think that they must establish a new quango of such dubious merit and opaque purpose, the four amendments in this group will at least restrict that quango’s activities to examining new policies under consideration rather than opening up the entire existing statute book to reconsideration at great expense.

Although I was unable to speak in the earlier debate, let me say that I also support Amendment 31, which would provide exceptions for religious rites and cultural traditions. Without that, a large part of Japanese cuisine —to which I am partial, having lived in that country for many years—would probably be deemed illegal.

I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 22 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Amendment 21 could have been grouped with amendments that we have debated previously, which also sought to prohibit the committee reporting on established government policy. Amendment 22 would require the committee to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before committing taxpayers’ funds.

I cannot support Amendments 27 and 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because they assume that the committee’s answer to the question is binary—that is, yes or no. The existing draft at least raises the question of the extent to which the Government are having due regard to animal welfare in the formulation of policy. Surely this is an instance where the proportionality principle should be applied.

I strongly support Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. If we must have two overlapping committees, at least the animal sentience committee should consult the Animal Welfare Committee and publish a note explaining its opinion on any report.

In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lord Mancroft seeks to find out what the Government might do in cases where the committee finds that they have not had due regard to the animal welfare consequences of any policy. Earlier, we debated the incorrect assumption of the Bill that any effect would be adverse. Obviously, any policy designed to make it easier for gamekeepers to cull predators has positive effects for the prey of those predators. I support my noble friend and look forward to the answer from my noble friend the Minister on this question.

I cannot support Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because subsection 2(b) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that she intends that the committee’s remit should extend across government, whereas I believe that it should be limited to those areas that were previously covered by Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty, as I mentioned. Furthermore, the amendment raises the question of the other activities that the committee may have undertaken during any financial year.

There seems to be no limit to the scope and remit of the Bill. Unless it is appropriately restricted, the committee will need huge resources.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 27 and 41, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fookes; they also carry my name.

These two amendments are linked. Amendment 27 asks the animal sentience committee to answer the question asked in Clause 2(2)

“in the affirmative, or … in the negative.”

For example, if the animal sentience committee states that the Government have had all due regard to animal welfare in the formulation and implementation of policy, Amendment 41 would remove the requirement in Clause 3(1) for the Secretary of State to lay a response before Parliament. This seems to be a common-sense reduction in the obligation of the Secretary of State while retaining the fact that the report of the animal sentience committee, whatever it concludes, remains a matter of public record. It removes the burden of work on the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It brings us back to the concern expressed on previous amendments about the committee’s composition—that people who feel very strongly about this will not necessarily share the broad spectrum of views on this whole issue. I have nothing against people being vegetarians or vegans but the reason why they are is because they cannot bear the thought of animals being killed to feed human beings. If we were to have a significant number of vegetarians and vegans on this committee, it might start producing rather strange judgments about animal sentience.

My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to express concern about this. This committee will have enormous power and its composition will be critical to the judgments it will come out with; that is why it is very important that it gets subjected to peer review and that others can comment about the judgments made by it. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that he is determined to set this committee up in a way in which it is sensibly and broadly based and reflects all people who might have an interest in this matter, but of course it will be set up by statute and I have no doubt that subsequent Governments might have different views about its composition. That is why I think that we need some form of academic peer review so that this can be subjected to expert opinion from outside and have a bit more balance in some of its judgments. I support this amendment.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 28 and 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan; I have added my name to Amendment 28. As my noble friend pointed out in his impressive speech at Second Reading, and again today, our animal welfare legislation to date has not been based on any animals rights deriving from our recognition of their sentience; it has been based on our moral obligations as rational human beings endowed with conscience. I agree with my noble friend that the scientific basis for the recognition of sentience needs to be examined. I do not believe that sentience is something that one species has and another does not. I am sure that all forms of life possess a degree of sentience—perhaps even trees and plants. It is not the reason why we should look after animals well.

This Bill could become a Trojan horse and be used by activist groups to attack proper wildlife management, farming and the economic well-being and way of life of our rural communities. Throughout my life, I have noticed that those who genuinely care for wildlife are often the same people who engage in country pursuits and field sports. They are often the people who understand animals, birds and fish better than most. They are prominent among people who perform acts of kindness towards animals and are most determined to spare animals suffering. I worry that the Bill will be used against them and that our rich and diverse wildlife will suffer.

These amendments will ensure that the committee’s work is underpinned by robust academic findings. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the Government will accept them.