MPs voice concern over powers of proposed 'Animal Sentience Committee'

The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill had its Second reading in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon.

MPs agreed that some animals should be regarded as sentient and that their welfare was important. There was less agreement as to how far recognition of sentience should go. The Bill extends to non-human vertebrates and, since a Government amendment in the Lords, animals such as the octopus, lobster, and crab. It was also pointed out that Parliament and government already recognised sentience, having passed animal welfare legislation on that basis for at least 200 years.

The Bill would establish an Animal Sentience Committee to report to Parliament as to whether, in the process of making and formulating policy, all due regard had been had to the welfare of animals as sentient beings. It was described by the Minister as an accountability mechanism. However, the draft Terms of Reference seem to envisage a much wider role for the Committee. The problem is the Bill is silent on who will sit on the Committee and the detail of its powers and functions.

Some MPs to used the debate to list their personal animal welfare concerns. Inevitably the first Opposition contribution was about hunting and Opposition MPs lost no opportunity to reference it at every opportunity. The Labour MP Kerry McCarthy was characteristically unrestrained in her condemnation of grouse shooting, with her customary disregard for fact or evidence. This is, after all, the same MP who stated during the passage of the Agriculture Act that millions of grouse were imported into the UK, apparently unaware that they are a native species. There is clearly a strong push inside Parliament, and elsewhere, by those who want a Sentience Committee dominated by animal rights proponents pushing an anti-hunting, anti-shooting and anti-farming agenda. As Deidre Brock of the SNP stated: "The more we understand animals' sentience, capabilities and emotions, the more the idea of granting rights to animals is worth taking seriously, urgently".

As Conservative MP Richard Drax said: "This is a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill, and a Trojan horse for those who have no understanding and sadly in some cases despise the countryside and all that goes on in it." He continued: "I and many others fear that those with different agendas, often partisan and politically motivated, will hijack this committee and its role to attack activities like shooting and fishing." His concerns were echoed by Conservative MPs Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, who was concerned that the Bill could give animal rights' groups "another weapon" to "damage both government and those who live and work with animals"; and Jonathan Djanogly, a former Conservative minister who saw the Bill as "fraught with problems" and could be used against minority religious practices, as well as enabling more judicial review challenges against game shooting. Sir Bill Wiggin also questioned the necessity of the Bill, noting that taking account of sentience and animal welfare did not need yet another 'quango' at tax payers' expense.

The Sentience Committee could be established and operate as a truly objective expert body, ensuring all due consideration to animal welfare is had in the process of policy making. It could equally become, or be used as, a mechanism to advance agendas that are not about welfare. The Bill is silent and Terms of Reference can be changed at the stroke of a pen. The debate confirmed our fears about the risk the Bill poses and what the animal rights groups would like to see this Committee doing. Under a future set of ministers the animal rights lobby could get its wish, and currently the Bill provides no safeguards. Ministers' good intentions should not blind them to the future.

There was no vote and the Bill will now go to a committee for more detailed scrutiny. The Committee Stage is due to conclude by 10 February.