As I have had many write to me about the recent vote on animal sentience - otherwise known as "New Clause 30" of the EU Withdrawal Bill - I thought it best to post a full, nuanced response below:
I am afraid that there has been a great deal of misinformation spread about the vote. You may have seen a headline in "The Independent" entitled "The Tories have voted that animals can't feel pain as part of the EU bill, marking the beginning of our anti-science Brexit."
This is worse than a sloppy headline. It is simply untrue - and I will explain why.
Before I do so, let me be clear: of course I care about animals, and of course I know that they have feelings. I have had pets for most of my life, and I am the proud owner of a cat; I value their feelings and it is obviously the case that they can feel pain.
The most important thing to stress is that as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, MPs did not vote that animals do not have feelings. There is no argument over this: animals are self-evidently sentient. No MP, from any party, thinks otherwise. In fact, the Conservative Minister in the debate made this crystal clear, and explained the reason for the Government's position with care and in detail. You can read his comments for yourself online at: www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15a.475.0#g499.7
So please understand - what MPs were dealing with was a piece of legal drafting, not making a moral or ethical statement. Last week's vote was simply the rejection of a faulty amendment, which would not have achieved its stated aims of providing appropriate protection for animals.
So what happened?
The Green Party laid an amendment seeking to preserve a particular EU rule in British law, indefinitely. They did this because they wanted to make a political point. This is entirely fair - but you should understand what they were trying to achieve.
Why did the Government, and I, not agree?
Firstly, because a specific amendment to the Withdrawal Bill was unnecessary and is the wrong way to go about increasing animal welfare protection - the Government will deliver the same outcome using a different route. Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient under domestic law. There is no argument about this principle and an amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was not only unnecessary – because this is already recognised in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 – but having duplicate legislation could actually lead to legal uncertainty in this area.
Secondly, the UK already has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world - and these have increased substantially under this Conservative government. The UK has banned the ivory trade, is increasing sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years, has banned insecticides that may be harmful to bees, made CCTV mandatory in abattoirs, banned microplastics, and is proposing to introduce an independent, statutory body to uphold environmental standards. It is simply objectively impossible to say that UK law is inadequate, that we need the EU to hand down laws on animal welfare, or that the Conservatives have not acted on this issue.
Moreover, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has been crystal clear that he intends these standards to remain world-leading in the future and to strengthen our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU.
We also need to have some perspective on this issue. The Animal Protection Index, maintained by World Animal Protection, rates the UK's recognition of animal sentience as grade A. Other Lisbon Treaty signatories such as France, Italy and Spain have each received grade C.
EU law is no panacea. It is not automatically "the best." The truth is that the EU protocol on animals as sentient beings allows for bullfighting, foie gras 'production' and cruel fur product imports. None of that happens in the UK - but it does in the EU. Why? Because UK laws are far more robust than those on the continent and are the highest anywhere in the world. And moreover, after Brexit we will have the opportunity to strengthen them further still, by taking action on practices where EU rules currently prevent us from acting, such as restricting or banning the live export of animals for slaughter, or from cracking down on puppy smuggling.
May I end by addressing two specific points that some have raised.
Firstly, the suggestion that the vote was in some way contrary to an assurance given in the House by Michael Gove. What he has said was "Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings". If you want to see what Michael Gove himself says on this issue, you can do so here: https://tinyurl.com/y8tt5qv7
The second point raised is that the principle of animal sentience is not covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006. RSPCA Head of Public Affairs has made this point. Whilst it is correct that the phrase "animal sentience" is not mentioned, to make that point is to misunderstand the legal basis behind the Act, which refers to "suffering." If an animal can suffer, then it is sentient. It is self-evident. The Act does not need to say so in terms. That would be like needing to say that a human being was capable of suffering bodily harm, before the offence of "grievous bodily harm" could be established. You would think it bizarre to spell out something that is so obviously the case - and it is no different with animals.
I hope you will accept my assurances as someone who has prosecuted animal welfare cases as a barrister and understands the existing legislation in detail. The RSPCA are neither lawyers nor experts in Parliamentary procedure - and this is fundamentally a matter of legal and Parliamentary drafting.
It is a great shame that recent headlines have spread misinformation on this issue and caused distress to decent people who simply care about animal welfare. In any event, I hope that the above has been helpful in clarifying the current situation. I can assure you that animal welfare matters are a priority not only for me in Parliament, but for this Conservative government, and I will continue to work to strengthen our protections in this area, as I have done on the issue of sentences for animal cruelty.
I hope that has helped explain things. Do feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this further.
