Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] - Report (Continued)

House of Lords, 6 December 2021.

Amendment 2

Lord Marland (Conservative)

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who, sadly, has fallen to the Covid virus, and we of course wish him well. It falls to me to take on the challenge of trying to persuade the Government, who so far have been pretty unpersuadable, to take this Bill more seriously and put it into better shape. For the record, I do not consider myself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, a right-wing Tory, even though some of my colleagues do. This has nothing to do with right or left. I think that the general feeling in the House was that this is a badly constructed Bill. I know that some of the government amendments have the support of the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which means that it is not a well-supported Bill.

For those who have just joined this debate, I say the following: I do not farm, and I rarely fish. I am not an industrial fisherman or commercial farmer; occasionally I shoot—but what I really enjoy is our green and pleasant land, and living in the countryside. As far as I am concerned, it has been under responsible stewardship for a very long time, or it would not still be a green and pleasant land. If I am a Tory, which I am, I believe the well-known Conservative Party tenet that people do better when the Government do least. Here we have a Bill that seeks to interfere with people and how they run their lives. It is not just this Bill on its own, in isolation; we should look at the general onslaught of change that is happening to farmers in the countryside.

How do we arrive at this place? It is extraordinary. I may be totally wrong, but I can count four animal welfare-related Bills, three of which come under a new umbrella of animal welfare created by Defra. Ministers say that they want experts to advise them on sentience, but they are getting loads of advice. They could just come to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and get terrific advice from him, or the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and get fantastic advice from her, because they are well-known experts. It is why they have been appointed to this House—among many other reasons, I hastily add. It just demonstrates another way of Defra interfering with farming, the countryside and fishing. It is setting down standards and definitions of standards that many other countries do not support. Not even the European Union has gone this far in setting out standards, insisting that our farmers and fishermen adhere to a certain group of standards.

Yet on the other hand, the Government are signing trade deals with these countries and allowing imports of various goods from countries that will not adhere to the same welfare sentiments that we do. We will still get lobsters from Canada—we will be able to get lobsters from Scotland, by the way, as this relates to the United Kingdom. We will still be able to get octopus from Spain not killed in the same way as we think it should be. We will get langoustines from Scotland and France killed totally differently than the ones that we have—and prawns, as we know, come from Thailand and other countries like that.

There is no civilised way of killing animals, or anybody, for that matter—whether it is slitting their throat, catching them in nets and leaving them out of air on fishing boats, hooking them and shooting them, stunning them or boiling them. They are all terrible ways to die. We should bear in mind that that is the case. Yet Defra is going to appoint a committee that sits as judge and jury on how these animals and sentient beings should be killed—in the animals’ case, but also it will give the description of sentient beings. This will destroy the livelihoods of our fishing industry, which will not be able to compete on the same level field, and it will make farming very difficult.

Most people I know are welfare inclined towards animals. I certainly am, and I have not yet met any who are not. There are, I freely admit, 10% who are not—but this legislation will never protect us from the 10%; it just hurts the 90%. We will never stop illegal trapping, poaching or illegal netting, yet this Government seek to impose standards on us. One argument that has been used by Ministers is that social media is urging them to carry out these sorts of commitments, but social media is not the way in which to govern the country. Governing the country must be for the benefit of everybody, not those who decide to describe their views and impose them on Ministers. It is Ministers who are elected to opine rather than committees to tell them. In short, we end up with a series of new quangos, from a Government who in theory have been against quangos, another layer of costs on our farming and fishing communities, and an imposition on those who try to live in the countryside in an honest and fair way. I am sorry to spend more time on the general subject, but I see some new faces in this debate, and I wanted to alert them to the fallacy of large parts of this Bill.

In speaking to Amendment 2, I shall speak also to Amendment 48, which would give effect to Amendments 3 and 5, leaving out subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 consequentially. The amendments would clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which current policy is being formulated, and that it is not concerned with policy decisions or policy changes, whether proposing new policy or changes to existing policy. The amendment also seeks to clarify that it remains for Ministers—amazingly—to undertake the balancing exercise between animal welfare and other public interest considerations. This also limits the likelihood of ministerial decisions being challenged in court. We have heard from a former Master of the Rolls that there will be umpteen challenges to these decisions, yet our current Government do not listen to those wise words from such eminent people.

The outstanding issue remains of whether a Minister can be said to have reached the appropriate policy decision when the Animal Sentience Committee reports that all due regard has not been had to animal welfare in reaching its decision. It is hard to see how a policy decision can be properly taken when the process by which that decision has been reached has been judged deficient. I fear that the result will be many uncomfortable appearances before Parliament by Ministers.

The proposed Schedule, which is given effect by the amendment, simply suggests some statutory structure for the committee—and how badly it needs statutory structure. Everybody has spoken about the importance of that, and I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response on it. There is also no current requirement for departments to co-operate with the sentience committee; we are merely told that Defra expects government departments to do so. A department that fails to co-operate will simply be reported as having not co-operated. What use would that be in advancing animal welfare, having one department not co-operating but told, “Sorry, you haven’t co-operated, but it does not matter”?

Schedule 1 also sets certain criteria for appointments to the committee to ensure the necessary expertise and to exclude persons who are not independent or may have other agendas. Most of us are terrified of someone like Chris Packham, for example. The other day he took a petition supported by 10,000 schoolchildren to Her Majesty the Queen, which said that she must rewild her entire estate so that we can have bears and wolves back on it. Imagine going out of Balmoral with your corgis and being confronted by a bear and a wolf. I mean, what sort of people are we listening to?

There are so many holes in this, and there is such a lack of clarity, that I thoroughly despair for the countryside in the future. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister—who, of course, is a practitioner, as a farmer and landowner himself, and a practical man—can give us assurances that we are not being overrun by an endless flurry of legislation where the countryside is being penalised every time it turns up and that actually the status quo can still be maintained.

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27, to which I have added my name. In short, these amendments seek to restore so-called Lisbon treaty provisions, or balancing considerations, to our laws on animal welfare, old and new. The arguments in favour are substantial, relating to practices in this country, and legal, relating to the avoidance of judicial review—on which I hope the House will listen to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which was apparently inserted by reason of pressure from this country, says:

“In formulating and implementing the Union’s … policies”,

et cetera,

“the Union and the Member States shall … pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”

Far be it from me to want to continue any European law, but this particular provision did in fact mirror what was already the situation in this country. My concerns if it is not enacted relate to medical research and religious traditions in killing animals.

The Lisbon provision successfully kept issues out of court, and religious minorities were content with it. Not to include this amendment is to open the door to vigorous disagreements over traditional practices and to more judicial review—and if there is one thing this Bill was supposed to do, it was to corral the committee and the Minister in policy issues. Muslim spokespersons are likely to be as worried about halal as are the representatives of the far smaller religious Jewish community. In the past, they have lived comfortably with the Lisbon balancing factors, and we want this to continue.

The committee might decide a particular point on this, but a Minister will have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form a view in accordance with them. Without the balancing factors that this amendment would introduce, both sides are wide open to judicial review.

The last time I spoke on this, I criticised the Bill as unnecessary and I worried about restrictions on medical research, inter alia. Living in Oxford as I do has meant witnessing protests by so-called animal liberationists. As recently as April this year, they were protesting just two miles away from the laboratory where the esteemed scientist Sarah Gilbert was working on the AstraZeneca vaccine—which, no doubt, some of them would be happy to take, and if not they would selfishly put others at risk. I hope that medical research is included in the term “public interest” in Amendment 2. The reference to legislative provisions in Amendment 27 is certainly meant to include the many laws we have about research on animals.

All our talk about inclusivity and diversity demands due respect for what is important to minorities and to others who have for centuries had a special relationship with animals and wildlife. We do not want today’s cancel culture extending to interference with medical research and peaceful coexistence, and Article 13 would be a safeguard. Moreover, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights could, through the Lisbon treaty, be brought to bear in this amendment.

On religious rites, particularly at issue in the present context is religious animal slaughter. The importance of expressly preserving in the Bill the right of citizens to adhere to their religious practices is perfectly clear. That right falls within Article 9 of the European convention and is reflected in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has highlighted in many cases the importance of the rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Our own Human Rights Act 1998, which enabled disputes on convention rights to be resolved in our own courts, contains a specific provision, in Section 13, that:

“If a court’s determination of any question … under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation … of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.”

It is not necessary for present purposes to go into the nature of religious animal slaughter in the form of shechita or its Muslim equivalent. There is scientific evidence on both sides of the debate about the humanity of this. In fact, when one reads about the terrible cruelty, referred to earlier in this debate, that we routinely inflict deliberately or by accident—in the electrocution of chickens, the killing of pigs, the decapitation of rabbits, the suffocation of fish, the boiling alive of lobsters, et cetera, which we will get to—we really have nothing to be proud of in all our practices of killing animals.

It is clear that the protection of the right to manifest religious belief is enshrined in the treaty obligations we already have and our own domestic legislation. Therefore, there can be no good reason why, as in the case of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, the considerations and recommendations of the sentience committee should not be made expressly subject to respect for religious rites and medical research.

On 6 July, the Minister gave an assurance about respect for halal and kosher traditional killing, but in the same breath he reminded the House that anything could be changed. Therefore, it behoves the Government to proactively accept Amendment 27—and indeed Amendment 2—both to safeguard religious rites and medical research and to minimise judicial review challenges. I cannot think of any good reason why the amendment should be rejected.

We hope to change the Minister’s mind before Third Reading, and I shall continue to press for this safeguard today and later. As the Bill stands, the committee is not required to respect medical research and rites and traditions, yet the Minister will be bound to consider them when receiving the committee’s recommendations. Without this amendment, his decision and legal position will be much more vulnerable and difficult. I therefore urge him most strongly to accept the amendments which place the Lisbon treaty back where it should be in this country.

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

My Lords, I intervene very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just said, particularly with respect to medical research. I have looked up which kinds of animals were used in the development of treatments and vaccines for Covid-19 in the last couple of years. They include humanised mice bred to have human ACE2 genes in them. Experiments on SARS-like viruses were being done on these mice in one city in particular for many years before the pandemic: Wuhan. The animals also included Syrian hamsters, because they have similar symptoms to human beings; monkeys, because vaccine safety always has to be tested in non-human primates; ferrets, because they have very similar symptoms when they get respiratory diseases; pigs, on which vaccines were tested; and sheep, which were used for plasma for purifying antibodies. All of these were vital to the extraordinary speed with which treatments and preventions for Covid-19 were pursued in the last year.

Nobody is suggesting that the existence of this committee will result in the banning of such research or anything like that. But it is possible that, in formulating a research proposal of this kind, you might find you run up against legislation that, in deference to the sentience committee, says that an extra step needs to be taken to check that it is really necessary to use animals in this way. Be in no doubt: all of these animals suffered, and they suffered deliberately from diseases that we gave them as a result of this work. I would hate to think that this Bill would result in anything that slowed down the urgency of medical research in a situation like this.

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 27, to which I have put my name. I have the great privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in doing so. This amendment goes to the heart of what I see, perhaps eccentrically, as the problem with the Bill. The Bill seems to be about animals and their welfare, and it seems to be based on science, but really it is a Bill about humans and our moral standing. It is not about our moral obligations—all animal welfare legislation for the last 200 years either articulates or creates moral and legal obligations on us; that is what law does—but rather it is about our moral standing. It is the ambition of the people who are promoting the concept of animal sentience that it should be a common moral measure, putting humans and animals on the same moral plane, differenced only by the degree of sentience that they evince.

I find this a really false anthropology. So it is absolutely right that the Bill, which actually makes no reference to humans, should say something about them, if only to try to achieve a better balance in the moral architecture that the Bill seeks to create. Amendment 27 does that. It says that there are some things about human beings that should not be trampled on by this Bill, by the principle behind it, or by the animal sentience committee it creates. Those are quite basic things: they are to do with religion and religious practice, culture and your local region or locality—the place where you belong. All Amendment 27 does is ask that those things should be carved out and specially protected—not in an innovative way, because in fact they are already protected in the European Union treaty, in the language that we adopted before. It is simply about incorporating that language back, not in a copy-and-paste way but because we genuinely believe that those things about human life are important and should be protected. That is why I support Amendment 27.

While I am on my feet, I am going to make a comment on Amendment 48, in the same group. It is a slightly more procedural comment—it is really a question to my noble friend. We have been told since Committee, through the issuance of the terms of reference of the new committee—which are not statutory as I understand it, but of course I am always happy to be corrected—that it is to be set inside and corralled by, so to speak, a new Defra centre of excellence on animal welfare. Other committees that already exist will also be brought within that nest, but the other birds in this nest are not statutory committees—they are creatures or creations of Defra, whereas this new committee is a statutory committee. I simply do not understand—this may be because I am relatively new—how it is that, through some non-statutory terms of reference, a committee that we are today being asked to give statutory independence to, can be reliably told that it will be part of this centre. What if it decided not to be? It is going to have an independent board; what if the board decided that the centre trammelled it or interfered with its work? My question to my noble friend is this: if this committee is going to be on the basis he says, corralled inside the new centre for excellence, should that not be in the Bill?

Baroness Fookes (Conservative)

My Lords, I understand the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about including or not including matters that relate to medical science and the slaughter of animals by ritual, religious methods. But unless I am much mistaken—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the Act that deals with the slaughter of animals specifically exempts ritual slaughter from what would otherwise be illegal. By the same token, we have legislation that deals with medical experiments which already tightly controls what may or may not be done. I cannot see, therefore, that the amendment being advocated can have any real substance to it, given those restrictions, and also bearing in mind that the committee that is being set up, although it is being set up by statute, does not have legal powers of any kind whatever. It will be entirely up to the relevant Ministers whether or not they accept any recommendations from that committee. In order to change the rules about medical science or the slaughter of animals, I believe there would have to be primary legislation. I hope my noble friend can confirm this.

Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)

My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland. I also wish my noble friend a speedy recovery from Covid. As my noble friend Lord Marland, who spoke so convincingly to the amendment, said, the animal sentience committee will be both judge and jury. My worry is that it will also be legislator, since it seems to me almost certain that, in the way the Bill is currently drafted, it is likely to stray into the area of scrutinising policy as well as process.

I remain worried that the committee will also overlap with the work of the Animal Welfare Committee, as the Countryside Alliance and other institutions that actually understand nature and animal behaviour have pointed out. This committee is likely to be comprised of people who may have a huge understanding of matters of science and parts of the countryside but lack the experience to really appreciate the relationship between the countryside and the animal kingdom.

What about this animal welfare centre of expertise? I understand it is supposed to settle points of dispute with other committees. Which other committees is the new committee likely to be in dispute with? Obviously, it will be the Animal Welfare Committee. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would wish to create an animal sentience committee which is obviously going to cover points that are already covered by the Animal Welfare Committee. I thought that, under this Government, we were likely to see some rationalisation and reduction of the number of committees and quangos being established. I regret very much that it looks as though we are likely to see the reverse.

I would also like to comment on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoken to very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My noble friend Lady Fookes has just pointed out, quite correctly, that there are already exemptions for medical science in some legislation, but I think those exemptions are very much narrower than the exemptions that would be achieved by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl. The amendment is quite welcome, and I strongly support it, particularly as, having spent many years in Japan, I came to be very partial to Japanese cuisine. I fear that most methods used, including in this country by Japanese restaurants, to kill fish might fall foul of the opinions of the animal sentience committee. I think it could easily lead to a lot of unwelcome interference.

I also very much welcome the speech by my noble friend Lord Moylan, who explained so well that the sentience of animals is different from that of us. It is relative, and nobody would argue that the sentience of a dog is the same as that of a lobster.

I also strongly support Amendment 48, because to set up a statutory committee of this kind without including a schedule clearly setting out the committee’s role and functions is bound to lead to trouble.

Lord Etherton (Crossbench)

I express my support for Amendment 27, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness have covered much of the ground that I wished to cover, and I agree with everything that they said.

Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon treaty was not only binding on the UK before Brexit but—as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself stated in a letter to Members on 13 May—the UK was one of the key EU members that lobbied for it, and it has not been suggested at any stage of the Bill that prior to Brexit the UK had any objection to the balancing factors in Article 13.

As I pointed out in Committee, the balancing factors mirror rights under the human rights convention. There is a powerful argument that the right to sporting and other recreational activity that are part of cultural traditions and regional heritage are protected by Article 8 of the convention as an aspect of the right to respect for private and family life. Like a number of other convention rights, it is a qualified right and is subject to interference if, among other things, it

“is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

None of those grounds has been identified by the Government as potentially applicable.

Most perplexing of all, however, is the Government’s failure to exclude religious rights from the purview of the sentience committee. This ground has been substantially covered by what my noble friend Lady Deech said. She referred to Article 9 of the convention, which expressly provides for freedom of thought, conscience or religion; that article expressly states that the right to manifest one’s religious belief is a right protected in practice and in religious observance.

The European Court of Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, has highlighted the importance of rights protected by Article 9 in a pluralist democratic society. Like Article 8, Article 9 of the convention confers a qualified right and is subject to many of the limitations that I have just listed with regard to Article 8. Again, none of those limitations has been suggested by the Government at any stage of the passage of this Bill.

Why, then, is the provision in this amendment, which simply seeks to incorporate the balancing factors in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty in the Bill, not accepted? As far as I can see and have heard, only two explanations have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. The first, which was stated most clearly, I think, in Committee, is that it is for the Government to decide on policy, and that in doing so they will take into account all relevant considerations.

The second explanation came today, when the Minister, when asked expressly why these balancing factors under Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty had been added to with bells, replied: “Well, we now have a sentience committee.” I say to the Minister that, with respect, that does not make much sense to me because all these balancing factors are matters of policy and are reserved to the Government. The three factors that are specified as balancing factors here are matters for the Government to decide, not the sentience committee, and it is therefore entirely appropriate for them to be in the Bill.

In fact, certainly in relation to religious slaughter of animals, the Government’s policy is to permit such slaughter. Jews and Muslims are exempt from the scope of domestic regulations concerning the stunning of animals, though I should add—so that there is no doubt about the matter—that the organisation with oversight of Jewish religious slaughter, Shechita UK, maintains that shechita conforms with the EU definition of stunning, as supported by scientific evidence.

Moreover, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in Committee, the Minister is recorded in Hansard as saying:

“this Bill is about the government policy-making process. It is not about some method of changing the slaughter of animals for religious belief. I want to make that absolutely clear.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 5.]

That is a statement about policy and the balancing factor of preserving religious rites.

I respectfully suggest that all this shows that there is no reason whatsoever why the Government should not exclude from the remit of the committee, as policy matters, customs relating to religious rites. Indeed, as proposed by Amendment 27, the same balancing factors that were accepted by the UK under the Lisbon treaty should be inserted in Clause 2.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. There is no statutory restriction to what the committee may consider, advise and make recommendations on. The committee could take it upon itself to consider matters that are subject to the balancing factors—and could reach a different view to that of the Government. If the Government decided not to implement the recommendations, on the basis that they were policy matters, not infringements of these balancing factors, it seems almost inevitable that somebody would institute a judicial review against the Government for failing to follow whatever the sentience committee had decided.

What would those proceedings be about? They would be about three matters. The first question is whether the committee had acted within its remit. Secondly, had the committee reached a decision consistent with scientific and other evidence? Thirdly, were the Government justified, taking into account all other considerations, in rejecting the recommendations and advice of the committee?

It is unrealistic to expect that leave would not be given to bring such proceedings, which would be expensive and time-consuming. All of this could be resolved in a way offered by the Lisbon treaty, by having these policy balancing factors in the Bill. This is also the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. The advisory committee—the sentience committee—may decide to take on a matter that currently falls within the exemption—such as religious slaughter—and come to a decision that is different to that accepted by the Government. If the Government wished to deviate from—not accept—those recommendations, judicial review would follow as night follows day. We should support this amendment.

Lord Trees (Crossbench)

My Lords, I support Amendment 27, which carries my name. I have some difficulties with parts of it, which I will come to in a minute, but first I will make some remarks about medical research and the threat to it. The concern is very understandable, but in this case probably unwarranted. The question is not whether medical research will be exempted; there is very specific and substantial regulatory legislation in place to control medical research precisely. If there was a challenge as to whether the Government had considered the implications of their policy on medical research, they could answer, perfectly honestly, “Yes, we have the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which is extremely detailed and requires persons involved in medical research to be licensed, the place in which that research is being carried out to be licensed, and each and every specific project, of a particular nature, to be subject to scrutiny and licensed”. I was a Home Office licence holder under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act for something like 25 years; one can argue very persuasively that due consideration and regard have been paid to medical research.

It is a great honour to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who exquisitely explained the reasons for incorporating these exemptions, which are included in Article 13. My noble friend Lady Deech knows that I differ with her in that I wish all animals to be stunned and rendered unconscious before slaughter. There is a huge weight of scientific evidence to support that. That is why it is illegal for most people, except those of particular religious persuasions—it is illegal for me as a veterinary surgeon—to cut the throat of a conscious animal without rendering it unconscious first.

However, I am a realist. I recognise all the points that my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and my noble friend Lady Deech have made; religious freedoms are enshrined in our laws and internationally. That reflects current government policy to respect religious freedoms. I accept that point and am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Earl of Kinnoull (Non-affiliated)

My Lords, I apologise to the House for having been detained in the Moses Room earlier in another debate. Much of what I might have said has been put far better by my colleagues who have signed this amendment, in the shape of my noble friend Lord Trees, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lady Deech, who has been incredibly helpful. I thank them very much. I also found the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton very persuasive on the basic and essential point.

I remind the House of a question I put directly to the Minister in Committee, right at the end, about what happens next. He said:

“I do not want to create a feeding frenzy for lawyers by putting anything in legislation that will increase opportunities for judicial review or any other legal measure.”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 294.]

That is what set me thinking about whether or not, in the true construction, this provision increased or decreased the possibility for judicial review. We just heard from my noble and learned friend about that, and about how the European Convention on Human Rights would work. I will not rehearse all the arguments or restate what others have said but it is my settled view that, if we do not restore something that was the law of the land until midnight of 31 December last year and then stopped, there is a strong probability—particularly with the arrival of this committee—of increased action in judicial review and increased action under the ECHR. That seems to me to trip the very test the Minister set himself in Committee. That is why I put the amendment down again and why I strongly believe we need to accept it.

A very interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I need to think about it, but in my bones I do not feel it is a problem and, obviously, nor do my colleagues. I am annoyed with myself for not having had the time to talk to colleagues on the Labour Front Bench to explain more carefully why this is not some sort of attempt to wreck anything but is a genuine point; we are trying to make sure that the Government can govern and are not dragged to the courts the whole time on what are, after all, a series of very emotive issues. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about that in Committee.

My simple hope, having discussed this at length yesterday—I am very grateful for the Minister’s time—is that we can have a meeting after Report, and I very much hope the Labour Front Bench will be there, where we can discuss this carefully, including taking into account the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and come to some sort of resolution. As I said, the advice from people who care about this and genuinely know about it is that the very test the Minister set himself in Committee would be tripped if we did not accept this amendment. I hope that, if he cannot accept it immediately today, we will not have a messy vote but agree that this is the one issue to be taken away and discussed between now and Third Reading.

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)

My Lords, I support very much my noble friend Lord Marland in his amendment, both the principles behind it and its detail, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which was extremely well argued by her and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Trees—modestly—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

It strikes me that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a muddle on all this. The more I have listened to noble Lords behind me who obviously think the Government have got it wrong, the more I wonder why they are legislating in this way. If he had wished to do so, could the Secretary of State not simply have set up a committee by declaration, to do everything the Government want it to and try out some of these extremely complicated and difficult issues which have been raised not just today but in Committee? I feel it would have been a much better way to progress thinking and policy on this Bill and would not have made the sort of mistakes which I have a horrible feeling the Government are heading into by putting forward primary legislation in this manner, when we all know that changing primary legislation is incredibly difficult.

I hope my noble friend the Minister has listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who made a very fair offer of discussion on this extremely complicated policy matter, with the aim of coming forward with some rationally thought through amendments at Third Reading, which I would very much support.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Can I just add to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s remarks? The Government certainly have the capacity to create this committee, but why are they bothering to create a new one? I raised this in Committee and was told, “Oh no; the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee are doing two totally different things.” If you took that outside and asked people in the street, “Do you think there’s an enormous difference between animal welfare and animal sentience?”, they would slightly wonder what you were talking about. It is extraordinary that, as a Conservative Government, we did not take a well-respected committee—the Animal Welfare Committee—and extend its remit to include animal sentience. Surely that would have been the most sensible, straightforward way, without creating new bureaucracy, as well as massive expense and giving it a statutory basis.

Let us consider what this committee will do. We are told that it will be independent, so it can produce reports on anything that it wants. My noble friend Lady Fookes says that it cannot produce a report on the whole question of ritual slaughter, basically because that has already been taken care of in legislation. Is that true? If the committee is completely independent, presumably it can produce a report on anything that it wants. It could put pressure on the Government to say, “Actually, the existing legislation that covers ritual slaughter is inadequate, therefore something should be done about it.” This committee is either independent or it is not. Presumably, it can produce a report on the poisoning of rats. They are sentient creatures—the Bill covers both animals in the wild and domestic animals. Their poisoning is not very pleasant in the absence of terriers which, let us face it, kill rats rather more cleanly and humanely than any other way. Nowadays they invariably get poisoned; presumably, a report could be produced on that. We are creating a monster here and in the long term we will live to regret it.

Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)

My Lords, can I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has just said? I remind those in the House who have not looked closely at the terms of reference of the relationship that is anticipated between this new committee and the excellent existing Animal Welfare Committee. They are to have a joint secretariat with Defra, a joint website, a joint point of contact and the same Defra budget. Both will give views and advice about the effects on animal welfare of policy decisions, including prospective future policy and policy currently being formulated, and they will consult one another. The same people can be members of both committees and on occasions give joint advice and attend one another’s meetings. I repeat: I still do not understand why, with a powerful and excellent committee already in existence, we are spending time on the Bill in this House today.

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

My Lords, I have listened with care to what has been said and find the arguments convincing. However, I am slightly concerned about the proposition put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. As I understand the procedure now, if the Minister agrees to such a meeting but then decides to do nothing, we can do nothing at Third Reading. I would like clarification that we could not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading unless there was an indication from the Government today that it would be accepted. I think that is the new procedure.

I have two questions for my noble friend that are relevant. Does he agree with the situation north of the border and the attitude taken by NatureScot that:

“The death of an animal, at an individual level, is not a welfare issue but the manner in which an animal dies is”?

If he agrees with that, will he give an instruction to the committee to follow that same principle? Does he also agree with the thoughts of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, which distinguishes between societal ethical values and public opinion? Again, if he agrees with that animal sentience committee’s thoughts, would he give the same instruction to the committee that he proposes to set up?

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, this small group of amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, deals with the work of the animal sentience committee and touches on the issue of religious rites in Amendment 27, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is obvious from the contributions made that everybody feels very passionately about this.

Medical science is important and should be confirmed wherever possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, lots of safeguards around licensing of medical science are already in place. There is obviously a need to ensure that those for whom religious rites are an important part of their lifestyle are respected, as set out in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. Despite the fact that this was before Brexit, I believe the Government should and do respect this right, upholding the values of those for whom the method of slaughter of those animals which form part of their staple diet is protected.

Amendment 48, which has not had a huge amount of debate this evening, is consequential on Amendment 2 and sets out the detail of the way in which the committee will be constituted and work. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, has just set out a bit about that and there is detail in the amendment. However, I am afraid I do not agree with either him or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on parts of the amendment.

Limiting the term of office to four years could lead to a loss of expertise on the committee, especially if all members were appointed at the same time—which could happen, since it will be a new committee—and, therefore, rotated off at the same time. Further, I find the list of who may not sit on the committee very restrictive. It could lead to someone with the necessary expertise and knowledge being excluded from being a committee member. However, I agree with this amendment in that there should be transparency and independence. That is the direct opposite of the first group of amendments, which sought to fetter the committee’s independence.

The detail in Amendment 48 is extensive. However, the draft terms of reference document is also comprehensive and indicates that Defra has thought carefully about how the committee is to be constructed and how it will carry out its functions. On balance, I am inclined to go with the Defra guidance on this issue but will be interested in what the Minister has to say on this subject and on the knotty issues around Amendment 27.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

My Lords, I will talk first about the first part of Amendment 2, which looks at committee remit and policy. That has not really been discussed much in this debate so far. I draw attention to the terms of reference, because they include a lot of information about the role of the committee and policy. I put on record that we welcome a number of formal recognitions that the committee will have. It will: consider positive effects on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process; report on any policy for which UK Government Ministers are responsible; examine policy decision-making by previous Governments where this has a significant bearing on ongoing policy-making. It is also important that the selection of the policy decisions it will choose to scrutinise will lie within the committee. I will make a final point on policy before moving on. I draw attention to the fact that it is not for the committee to reach a value judgment on whether a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest.

On Amendment 48, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has pretty well covered all the areas I wish to draw attention to, so I will move on. The second part of Amendment 2 and Amendment 27 refer to having regard to cultural and religious considerations, as we have heard. Clearly, this is extremely important; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in particular, demonstrated that passionately in her speech. As we have seen, Amendment 27 seeks to sustain an aspect of the sentience responsibility that applied when we were EU members: the derogation to Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which exempts cultural practices from animal welfare considerations.

Again, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that this derogation was negotiated during the Lisbon treaty by a very small number of EU Governments particularly looking to preserve practices such as bullfighting. I believe that we now have the freedom to widen our ambitions for animal welfare while still respecting cultural and religious practices. Indeed, the restrictions in Article 13 have frequently been cited as one of the key flaws in EU sentience policy that post-Brexit UK sentience policy can improve on. In fact, the then Secretary of State at Defra Michael Gove said in 2017:

“The current EU instrument—Article 13—has not delivered the progress we want to see. It does not have direct effect in law—in practice its effect is very unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.”

Article 13 has not stopped any of those practices, but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. This matter was discussed at length in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, made some good points about existing legislation. In Committee, in response to noble Lords’ concerns, many of which were exactly the same as those expressed today, the Minister assured us that any Minister would have to take into account the wider considerations of cultural and religious organisations and form views in accordance with them. I hope that he can similarly reassure noble Lords today.

Finally, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I am always happy to meet to discuss policy and legislation with anybody.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I start by wishing my noble friend Lord Mancroft a speedy recovery, and I am sorry he is not here. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marland for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others for speaking to it.

The amendment seeks to clarify the role and detail of the animal sentience committee. I reassure my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Bill already makes it absolutely clear that the only role of the committee is to provide an assessment of the extent to which policy decision-making has considered whether a policy may

“have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”

We are sure that the Bill already makes it clear that the committee will not be authorised to stray into making value judgments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, just said, on how well a given policy decision balanced the welfare of animals with other matters of public interest. There is no need to specify explicitly in the Bill that it is for Ministers to take other public considerations into account when formulating and implementing policy, because this requirement applies as a matter of course.

Amendment 48 concerns the structure of the committee, criteria for appointments to it and how it is to operate. My noble friend’s amendment raises a number of points about the design of the committee, which I will address in turn. I agree with him about the optimal size of the committee. That is why we have already made it clear that there will be eight to 12 members, working part-time. We want the committee to have everything it needs to do its job well, and its members will be its most important asset. We are committed to ensuring that the committee is large enough to have a suitable breadth of expertise among its members, while not making it so large as to be unwieldy. Of course, the committee will always be able to consult outside experts when needed. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated to the animal welfare centre of expertise and, as I have said, this means there will be enhanced liaison and co-operation between experts.

The committee has the statutory power to issue reports giving its opinion on whether, or to what extent, the Government are having, or 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. The Bill already places a legal duty on Ministers to respond to the committee’s reports within three months of their publication. Once established, it will be for the committee to determine how it fulfils its statutory functions. The draft terms of reference set out how we expect it to work.

Our approach strikes the right balance between offering clarity about the committee’s role and powers in legislation and allowing it sufficient flexibility. It provides flexibility to update the terms of reference when needed without the need to take up parliamentary time unnecessarily. Our other animal welfare expert committees, including the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee, have provided valuable advice to the Government for years without the need to set out their terms of reference in legislation.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 27 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I am grateful to him for his explanation and the conversations we have had about this. This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to have regard to certain other matters of public interest, such as cultural traditions. It bears repeating that the purpose of the committee is not to make value judgments on the weight that animal welfare should be given in relation to other matters of public interest. That is for Ministers, who are rightly held to account in Parliament. I listened very closely to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He is obviously well practised in the law and someone to whom I defer, but the balancing factor that existed in European legislation now lies with Ministers. They have the right to say, “We hear what the committee says, but we are going to take other factors into account”, and they could be exactly the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

The reference to certain factors in Article 13 reflects the particular legal order of the European Union, with its complex division of Union and member state competence. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to this. There is simply no need to make reference to the same factors in the Bill. The committee would have to make a value judgment on what it is or is not, and that is not the job of the committee and the Bill does not give the committee such powers. Ministers are responsible for determining the weight to be given to competing considerations when formulating policy in accordance with the rule of law. Nothing in the Bill will affect their ability to do so in the future. The Bill will not require Ministers to give greater weight to animal welfare considerations over other considerations in the public interest.

My noble friend Lord Marland referred to this somehow damaging the livelihoods of fishermen or farmers. It absolutely will not. Ministers are determined to make sure that there are good livelihoods for fishermen and farmers. We listen to noble Lords, and the Bill has been the subject of detailed consideration in this House and outside it. I tried to listen to as many noble Lords giving as many opinions on this as possible. I say to my noble friend absolutely clearly that the Bill does not set standards. I repeat for the third time that it does not make a value judgment. If farmers, fishermen or any other practitioner of rural or marine employment or livelihood are conforming to the norms and good behaviours that lie within their professional activity, they have nothing to fear.

I have never said in this House, in Committee or wherever that the Bill somehow came about as a result of social media. We are concerned about limiting the chance of the legal feeding frenzy that I referred to in Committee. That is why there are only two duties on Ministers: first, to create the committee, and secondly, for Ministers in the departments to which the committee reports to provide an answer within a reasonable period. We will come on to talk about that on a government amendment later.

I say to my noble friend that when I came into Defra in the coalition Government in 2010 there were 93 arm’s-length bodies. When I left in 2013, there were around 33. I absolutely believe in streamlining government wherever possible, but I also believe in good policy, and Ministers are not experts. They require the right advice and the right support at any time.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that I absolutely understand her concerns and those that were so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, in Committee. However, the rights that she talks about are not going to be decided by the animal sentience committee; they will remain within the policy-making of this and future Governments and it will be the job of Ministers, scrutinised by Parliament, to change any of those forms of slaughter or access to the measures that are of concern to her.

I state clearly for the record that the Bill is about the government policy-making process. It does not change existing law or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses. The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but we respect the rights of members of the Muslim and Jewish communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. That is the Government’s policy and it will remain so.

I am concerned that this matter is resolved today. The Government will not be moving any further on this issue or have any more to say ahead of Third Reading. If the noble Earl wishes to test the opinion of the House, it is absolutely his right to do so, but I say to him, regarding the offer of a meeting involving the Front Benches and my officials to try to resolve this issue, that this is only half the process of this Bill; there is of course the other place for it to go to. I will certainly work with his expertise and the concerns that he and others have brought to try to find a way forward, but I want to resolve this matter today. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)

My noble friend repeatedly emphasised during the course of his reply that the decision on these matters would be made by Ministers, but he will know, as we all do, that the decisions of Ministers are subject to judicial review. We have heard from no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that, without the language contained in Amendment 27 in particular, the risk of judicial review of those decisions by Ministers is increased, not reduced. What is my noble friend’s answer to that point?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

My learned noble friend will know that there will be attempts to judicially review Governments at every stage of a process of policy, particularly in areas that are emotive and that carry great weights of public opinion in one way or the other. The question is not whether judicial review will be attempted but whether it will be successful. Last week Defra won a court case—as we do many times—against an attempt to take things to judicial review because the judge said it was not permissible to take the matter any further. That is why we have strictly limited the duties on Ministers that lie behind the Bill to only two areas. So I am not saying at all that there will not be attempts to judicially review, but I hope I can convince my noble friend that those attempts will not be successful because we have been so careful to limit the scope of the Bill.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Would the attempt at judicial review not be more likely to be successful if there had been a report from the animal sentience committee saying that there was something illegal about ritual slaughter?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

With respect to my noble friend, no. As long as the Minister has set out that, “We have received this report and here is our response; we hear what you say but there are wider cultural and religious factors that I have to consider in taking my decision”, that will be absolutely within the terms of this legislation and will not be able to be successfully judicially reviewed.

Lord Marland (Conservative)

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken so eloquently, including those who have supported my amendments.

The Government really are in a mess on this subject. They cannot defend the reason for the committee. They do not know who is actually running these decisions—whether it is Ministers or the Government. Most people, once torpedoed beneath the bows by the very eloquent and eminent noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would have given up and said yes, especially when followed by my noble friend Lord Howard, who underlined the terrible mess that the Government are in. The very fact that Defra has defended itself from legal disputes shows us the onslaught that is going to happen. If that were not enough, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a brilliant intervention showing that committees are already in place to help them.

We on our Benches want to help the Government, not to hinder them—we want to make this better for them. But I fear they have lit a long fuse that is going to explode in our faces in five to 10 years’ time, and there will be nothing that we can do about it. It will traipse through the courts, there will be no defence to it and all the warnings that we have given will have been to no avail.

I am a loyal member of our party, so I am not going to invite the opinion of the House, but I sense that there is a strength of opinion in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, so I would certainly not want to interfere on any decision that she might make on her amendments—but I hereby withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I have been asked to introduce this amendment. I think he is either on his sick bed or on a horse; I am not quite sure which.

Before I start, I will pay tribute to the Minister. He is making a pretty good fist of what is almost indefensible. I congratulate him but gently remind him that, although this may not be the result of social media, if memory serves me right he told us in Committee that, while still a Member of the House of Commons, he had had something like 200 messages—probably mostly from Liberal Democrat opponents—saying that the Government had to introduce an animal sentience Bill. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he told me that.

Amendment 3 and other amendments wish to introduce some clarity regarding the Government’s intentions about appointments to the committee and the committee’s own role in those appointments. For instance, should the Secretary of State appoint people; if so, what qualifications should they have and for how long should they be appointed; and, to quote from subsection (3), what “terms” will determine the appointments? I know my noble friend Lady McIntosh, a fellow “extremist right-winger”, will speak on later amendments on this subject.

One of the concerns expressed repeatedly as the Bill has made progress is the lack of clarity about the role of the committee, how members will be appointed and how the committee will operate. In response, the Minister agreed to publish the draft terms of reference, which has now been done, but the draft terms provide little additional clarity, and there is little if anything binding current or future Ministers. Indeed, the shortcomings of the terms of reference seem to confirm the concerns expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages. The terms indicate the establishment of this animal welfare centre of expertise, bringing together the various animal welfare advisory committees already in existence, as well as the new committee. This seems to be a recognition of the potential overlap and conflict between the various committees yet, unlike other committees, the sentience committee will enjoy statutory status and a reporting function to Parliament.

Perhaps most concerning is the ongoing lack of clarity as to whether the committee will be looking at and advising on the process of making and implementing policy, or indeed of policy itself. The terms of reference state that once established, it will be for the committee to formally ratify its objectives and responsibilities. As a committee established by statute, its objectives and responsibilities should be found in the establishing Act of Parliament, which we are discussing now. It should not be for the committee to ratify its “objectives and responsibilities”. These amendments, together with proposed new Schedule 1, seek to give some clarity and certainty where this is currently lacking.

I do not wish to repeat things that have already been said or detain the House unnecessarily, but I believe that the terms of reference leave unresolved a great many issues.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group.

I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means.

As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states:

“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”

This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case.

I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category.

In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes “an act” for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case?

In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be

“for a period of three years”.

I argue in Amendment 6:

“The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses”.

Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill.

Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening.

The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill.

I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says:

“Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review.”

I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable.

I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments seeking to specify the membership of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have set out the rationale for their amendments and there are some contradictions. Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether, whereas Amendment 8 would leave the power to appoint with the Secretary of State. Amendment 6 would ensure that certain levels of expertise were included in the committee’s membership.

I agree that certain skills and level of expertise are important, and can see immediately from the list that a single person can have more than one skill level and fulfil more than one function. For instance, the law currently requires that a veterinary surgeon must be present in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, he or she will have knowledge of the way a slaughterhouse operates.

However, whether such people will have time to sit on the animal sentience committee remains to be seen. A veterinary surgeon who no longer works in a slaughterhouse might do, depending on their current workload, but setting the membership in legislation could be something of a millstone around the neck of the chair or the Secretary of State, whoever is recruiting the membership.

The list of what the animal sentience committee can and cannot do under the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is extensive and somewhat cumbersome. I believe it could be streamlined. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these issues.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

My Lords, this block of amendments goes to the heart of what is wrong with the proposal. We all have an idea of who “the expert” is and what kind of person will give us the answers we want, whether that is a vet, someone banned from being a member of an animal rights movement, or whatever. The idea that there is some disinterested, impartial, patriotic expert who can somehow rise above the rest of us and be the only objective person is one of the most pernicious ideas in modern politics. We all have our opinions and starting assumptions, the “expert” more than anybody, if by “expert” we mean someone has spent his or her career in one field. They are the last person to whom we should contract out our decisions as a parliamentary assembly.

I totally understand that the Minister will want some flexibility, but a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising proposes a sunset clause. Maybe we could see whether the committee works out with the experts as proposed in the way the Minister assures us. If it does there will be no problem, and, if not, we will have another go at it. Perhaps that would be the wise amendment for the Government to accept.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

My Lords, the amendments in this group all refer to the make-up of the membership of the committee and how it is appointed. Noble Lords who were with us in Committee may remember that when we debated membership of the committee, a number of us, including me, put forward amendments about its make-up and who should be on it. By the end of that debate, I felt that it had become absurd to prescribe exactly what kind of expert we should have and what area they should come from, because by the time we had finished it looked like the animal sentience committee would have a membership of around 170. We have to be practical and make sure we get the right kind of people on the committee without being specific in the Bill about exactly what job or experience they should have, because where do you end? At what point do you draw the line?

So it is important that within the terms of reference we have a clear understanding of what the committee’s role is; that is, to underpin and enhance a fundamental constitutional principle—namely, ministerial accountability. It is also important that the terms of reference make it clear that the committee is expected to operate and promote a culture of openness. It is therefore important that we have the right and proper people on it.

I am sure the Minister will point it out when he speaks, but the terms of reference clearly state that appointees will be experts—I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is of the same opinion as Michael Gove that, we “have had enough of experts”, but there we are. Appointees will be experts with the appropriate experience relating to policy decision-making and the welfare of animals and the Secretary of State may seek to promote a diversity of expertise—which is important, as we need a proper diversity of expertise—so that the committee can offer high-quality advice on policy decision-making and its animal welfare implications.

From my perspective, and that of these Benches, the concerns that we raised in Committee about what the committee should look like and who should be appointed as a member have been answered by the terms of reference, and we are happy with what we see in that document.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny of the Bill, and the envisaged structure and operation of the animal sentience committee. I will address the points raised in turn.

I start with Amendments 3 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Robathan, concerning the membership of the committee. These amendments would limit the power of the Defra Secretary of State in appointing members to the committee. We believe that the Defra Secretary of State is very well placed to be responsible for those appointments.

Defra has a long track record of recruiting expert advisers to give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and this is important. The aim of the code is to ensure the best applicants are appointed. Anybody suitably qualified and wishing to apply would need to be assessed alongside other candidates according to a rigorous selection procedure. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. Your Lordships can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members to the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed for the committee to perform its role.

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her Amendment 4, concerning term limits for members of the committee. Before I get into the meat of her point, I will say that our commitment to supporting farmers is total. I ask her to read, if she has not already, a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State on Thursday; it sets out our commitment to support farming and farmers, particularly in the upland areas that I know I know are dear to her.

I agree with my noble friend that the committee should benefit from fresh thinking and new perspectives, but this should be balanced against the risk of unnecessary churn and loss of talent. Setting inflexible term limits could prove disruptive to the committee’s work. It would be regrettable if a member’s term ended mid-report, for example.

Additionally, we should allow some room for manoeuvre in exceptional circumstances; for example, the ongoing pandemic. This was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who may not have been referring to the pandemic, but her point was right. The pandemic disrupted recruitment to several organisations, and I would not want to take away the ability of the Secretary of State to apply short extensions to members’ terms if necessary.

We have sought to strike a sensible balance in the approach outlined in the draft terms of reference—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her points about that. Members would, in general, be appointed for terms of four years, renewable once. This is the standard approach for public appointments of this nature. These are the same terms on which we appoint members of other animal welfare expert bodies such as the Animal Welfare Committee and the Zoos Expert Committee. It is tried and tested.

Of course, there will be safeguards. As set out in the terms of reference, the Secretary of State reserves the right to terminate appointments if he or she considers that a committee member’s performance, attendance or conduct has been unsatisfactory, or if there is a conflict of interest which threatens the integrity of the committee. I hope my noble friend will agree that our proposed approach strikes the right balance.

I turn to Amendment 6, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, concerning the membership of the committee. I agree with my noble friend that vets and livestock farmers have a lot to contribute when considering animal welfare. We recognise the importance of having experts with hands-on experience of working with animals on the committee. Anyone who is an expert in the fields of animal behaviour, animal welfare, neurophysiology, veterinary science, law and public administration who wished to apply would be assessed alongside other candidates via a rigorous selection procedure based on fair and open competition. We want to ensure that the committee benefits from a diversity of expertise, and we hope to encourage applications from a wide range of specialists.

That is one reason why we have sought to avoid being too prescriptive about the make-up of the committee, be that in the Bill or in the draft terms of reference. Also, the expertise required by the committee may change from time to time as the scientific understanding of the welfare needs of animals continues to evolve. It is important that the Bill leaves scope to adjust the committee’s membership as required. It is also important to avoid creating requirements in the Bill that are so specific that they lead to appropriate candidates being unable to fulfil the criteria. For these reasons, I would prefer an approach that encourages the recruitment of a diverse range of experts to the committee, rather than setting out too-rigid specifications in statute.

I turn to another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, Amendment 8, concerning the governance and operation of the committee. When we last discussed this amendment, my noble friend stressed that it is

“intended to be entirely helpful”,—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 298.]

and I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that she has offered. The draft terms of reference reflect many of the points raised in the amendment. As I have said, they make provision for the Secretary of State to remove underperforming members, and they also propose term lengths and performance management procedures.

My noble friend has said that her amendment is based on the text used in the Trade Act to describe the Trade Remedies Authority. I would argue that the committee’s role and remit is very different from the authority’s, and so provisions appropriate to the latter are not necessarily suitable for this committee. For example, there is no need to create executive and non-executive classes of membership for the committee. It will be the members themselves who prepare reports, with assistance from the committee’s secretariat. There is little need to codify any delegation of functions. In the committee’s case, it is the Secretary of State who should ultimately be responsible for its good governance and effective recruitment. The draft terms of reference make this responsibility clear. I would be reluctant to dilute this accountability by delegating such responsibilities as the amendment proposes.

We have proposed an approach that makes Ministers accountable for ensuring the committee is run well, while avoiding excessive red tape. We want a timely, targeted and proportionate accountability mechanism. This requires the committee to have sufficient confidence and independence to offer meaningful scrutiny, but without conferring legal powers and responsibilities on it which are not appropriate for a body of this size and remit.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I understand that my noble friend and other Peers have queries regarding the need for such a committee and suggest its functions could be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, earlier. The two committees have different roles. The animal sentience committee needs to be established in statute to provide for effective parliamentary accountability. The Animal Welfare Committee operates very effectively as a non-statutory body that provides expert advice on specific issues set out in remits issued by the Government. While both committees hold expertise in a similar area, their roles are distinct. For the legislation to require Ministers to publish a written response to a report by the committee, and to lay the response before Parliament, the committee must be referred to in the Bill. It is on this basis that the committee has a legal persona, and this role could not be undertaken by a completely non-statutory body such as the Animal Welfare Committee.

The animal sentience committee and the Animal Welfare Committee will be affiliates sitting within the animal welfare centre of excellence. We expect that, within the centre, the committee will have a particularly close working relationship with the Animal Welfare Committee. The two committees may refer issues to each other as required. However, the function to issue reports on how well central government policy decisions have taken the needs of sentient animals into account can be undertaken only by the animal sentience committee, in accordance with the parameters set out in the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will feel content not to press their amendments.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he has not explained why he argued so vigorously in Committee that, if the details that are now in the terms of reference appeared in the Bill, they might be subject to judicial review. His view must be that, because they are in the terms of reference, they are not subject to judicial review. In my view, they constitute an administrative act, so how is he going to get round this and avoid judicial reviews?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

If, as my noble friend suggests, we put details in the Bill that incorporated the types of people who had to be on the committee, and then if, for example, someone were off sick or had not been appointed or for whatever reason was not available at the point at which the committee wrote a report, that would leave the Government open to a successful judicial review. These are matters that we think sit absolutely in accordance with other committees that are set up across government, where the terms of reference are amendable without having to go back to legislation. This is a fast-moving area of policy and, in future, we may feel, after thinking about it for a while, that the terms of reference need to be amended. This allows, in an entirely normal way, the Secretary of State to make those amendments in consultation with others. I do not think that it would be wise to put it in the Bill because that would increase the risk of judicial review.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I have two questions for my noble friend before he sits down. Does he accept that the Animal Welfare Committee could have been put on a statutory basis and its remit expanded to take in animal sentience? Secondly, if there were a change in Government after the next election, could a Labour Secretary of State put totally new people on the sentience committee?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

Let us deal with the second question first, then I will see if I can remember the first. A future Government can bring in legislation, if they have a big enough majority to get it through, to do anything they like within the law. We are a sovereign nation and they could take those decisions—indeed, they could populate arm’s-length bodies and expert committees with who they like.

On the first question, no we could not, because the Animal Welfare Committee has a different remit. For starters, it is a UK-wide committee and it is not a creature of statute; it gives expert advice as and when required. We wanted to have a body that is a creature of statute, so that there is parliamentary accountability in the process of policy-making.

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

My Lords, for one glorious moment I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was going to support the amendment that I moved—she disappointed me, but then what do you expect?

I do not wish to detain my noble friend the Minister any longer. I will let him off the agony and let him go and have some dinner. Notwithstanding the fact that I remain convinced that there is very little clarity either in the Bill or the terms of reference, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.

Sitting suspended.

Amendment 7

Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)

I am the lucky recipient of yet another of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He did not indicate to me why he had decoupled it from the previous group. I think the Minister has, in effect, already replied by saying that he is not prepared to put in the Bill who should be on the committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, effectively sets out who should not be, and I assume that the same answer will come to me.

However, I would like to say, literally in a sentence, that one of the reasons for widespread disquiet about the Bill is concern about who may or may not find places on the committee. I come from an area where the animal rights movement has been particularly virulent, especially during the badger cull, with people with balaclavas damaging farm property, threatening people, letting livestock out and so on, and, more recently, damaging all the tents at the local country fair by painting Animal Liberation Front logos on everything. As a result of that, a lot of us are concerned that some well-known public figures who purport to be friends of animals and campaign on their behalf do not condemn this terrorism. We are concerned that, whoever comes on to this committee, they should be, as the Government have indicated is their intention, people with proper scientific experience and knowledge who can contribute—not from a neutral point of view, because that is impossible, but whose judgement can be relied on—rather than people who are merely from pressure groups. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

Very briefly, I think the concerns on this amendment were answered in the response to the previous group. As it is not necessary to have in the Bill who should be on the committee, it is not necessary to have in it who should not be on the committee.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. We have already debated this, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns regarding conflicts of interest and what they may mean for the committee.

We want the committee to succeed, and I am confident that the Bill and the draft terms of reference will ensure that that is the case. As has been said today, the Secretary of State for Defra will be responsible for appointments to the committee and appointments will be decided in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Applicants would, in line with best practice, be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the recruitment panel. The draft terms of reference set out that the Secretary of State may decline to consider an application from an individual whose conduct suggests that their membership could damage the reputation or credibility of the committee—for example, their membership of an extremist organisation. My noble friend’s amendment is simply not necessary. Defra has shown that this tried-and-tested approach works. There are a number of existing Defra-owned expert bodies which give balanced, reasonable advice on animal welfare issues. Few would ever accuse the Animal Welfare Committee, for example, of being made up of zealous activists.

I say again that noble Lords can be reassured that the process of recruitment of members of the committee will be rigorous and that members will be chosen on the merits of their expertise. This is what is needed in order for the committee to perform its role. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that, together with the reassurance given by my noble friend the Minister on the previous group, it will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

Before my noble friend sits down, could she reassure the House that, for instance, Chris Packham and Mark Avery of Wild Justice would not be eligible to be on the committee?

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

I am afraid I am not able to give that reassurance. All I can say is that they might not be considered to be experts.

Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)

I thank the Minister for her reply. I just hope that the reassurance she has given us will be followed by future Secretaries of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 9, 11, 33 and 37 in this group, which are in my name. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I have torn up three-quarters of my speech to speed things up. I declare my interest as a fortunate owner of farmland, woodland, moorland and river. I affect the welfare of sentient animals, both positively and negatively, from time to time.

Together, these amendments would cut some of the Gordian knots that we have wrestled with today, and would deliver an animal sentience committee that reported to Parliament but was independent of Defra. The role of the committee as proposed in this amendment must be understood together with the animal welfare strategy that it would be required to produce under Amendment 11. The committee would then be required to report to Parliament on the compliance of Ministers with this process, as in Amendment 33, to which Ministers must respond, as in Amendment 37.

If the sentience committee is to ensure that animal welfare is properly considered, and to act as an accountability mechanism to Parliament, to create it as a creature of Defra raises a number of problems. It may not be welcomed by other departments, which, as the draft terms of reference confirm, are under no obligation to co-operate with it. A committee within the Cabinet Office would have a clear, overarching remit, set a cross-departmental standard and be independent of other departments, whose Ministers would still be required to respond to the committee’s reports to Parliament. The other advantage of a statutory committee within the Cabinet Office is that it avoids the problems identified at earlier stages of the Bill around who should or should not sit on the committee, which we have just discussed.

A committee within the Cabinet Office that is not a Defra committee would be better placed, I would argue, to drive change across government, avoid inter-departmental resentments—as I said earlier—and ensure that all due regard to animal welfare was properly and consistently applied. Then, as with the current proposal, it would be for parliamentarians to hold Ministers to account.

Amendment 11 would ensure that there was a clear strategy setting out how, in the process of developing, deciding and implementing policies, the animal welfare implications of those policies must be considered.

Amendment 33 largely replicates the existing Bill but takes account of the animal welfare strategy, while still allowing the sentience committee to play a role where it feels that there has been a failure of process in compliance with the strategy before a policy decision has been made. This would seem a much more impactful approach to driving change across government than the current proposals.

Amendment 37 ensures that Ministers must explain to Parliament any failure to comply with the animal welfare strategy identified by the sentience committee. It would also mean, for example, that if the matter was a policy relating to the Department of Health, it would be for the Health Secretary to respond. The Bill is not, at the moment, clear on this, although the draft terms of reference make it clear that that is what is intended. That intention should be made clear in the Bill.

I hope it is clear that these amendments are intended to be helpful and are in the spirit of trying to turn a bad Bill into a less bad Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

My Lords, there is a large number of amendments in this group, so in the interests of time and the number of groups yet to be debated I shall focus on Amendment 38 in my name, which would insert a new clause after Clause 3 requiring the ASC to submit an annual report on its work to both Houses of Parliament. I shall also speak to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising.

The animal sentience committee is being set up as a non-departmental public body with an advisory function. The latest available figures suggest that 63% of such bodies present an annual report to Parliament. It is clearly in the interests of accountability and transparency for MPs and Peers to be able to regularly scrutinise the committee’s work. A yearly report would also allow parliamentarians to gain a wider view of animal sentience issues over the preceding 12 months and of any emerging policy trends that impact on it. Requiring an annual report through this new clause would ensure that this essential transparency and accountability measure is sustained throughout the lifetime of the committee. I urge the Minister to consider including it in the Bill.

On Amendment 21, noble Lords have previously discussed in Committee the prescriptive wording of the question that Clause 2 requires the ASC to consider. These discussions highlighted how this wording, which specifies that only “adverse” effects should be considered, could lead to important opportunities to enhance animal welfare being missed. On the first day of Committee on 6 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, signalled his agreement, saying that

“the committee should be free to consider positive effects”.—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. GC 309.]

This appears to have informed the welcome provision in the circulated terms of reference, which states:

“The Committee may consider how ministers have had a positive effect on animals as sentient beings in the policy-making process.”

We welcome this. However, the committee could also prioritise supporting government departments in minimising the possibility of any policy having a harmful effect on the welfare of animals. This is a sensible approach, which balances giving the committee the freedom to consider all opportunities to enhance animal welfare with the need to prioritise the avoidance of harmful effects.

However, the wording of the Bill itself remains unchanged and continues to require the committee to only consider “adverse effects”. This contradiction could lead to complications. An ASC report focused on positive effects could be challenged, with any defence based on the licence to consider positive effects conferred by the terms of reference being undermined by the prohibition on doing so in the text of the legislation. I hope that the Minister will consider this, as it is a simple amendment. Removing the word “adverse” from the Bill text would allow a sensible approach—which is in the published terms of reference—to be safely and fully implemented by the committee.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I thank your Lordships for amendments, and I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the points made.

I start with Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, which would establish the animal sentience committee as a committee within the Cabinet Office. I would argue that Defra is well placed to host the animal sentience committee—which I will refer henceforth to as “the committee”. Defra’s hosting allows it to be affiliated as a constituent of Defra’s animal welfare centre of expertise, alongside other expert animal welfare committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. This provides for these committees to draw upon one another’s expertise much more easily than if they were hosted separately.

In his explanatory statement, my noble friend suggested that, if the committee were under the Cabinet Office, it would be easier to reach agreement on membership. It is not clear how changing the host department would achieve this. We believe that our approach to recruiting experts means that the committee will have the right experts. The same considerations would apply regardless of which department was responsible for supporting the committee.

Importantly, Amendment 9 would mean that the committee would be non-statutory, with no independent existence from government. This would undermine its purpose—one of proportionate scrutiny and accountability. A statutory committee allows experts the appropriate independence to achieve its function.

Amendments 11, 33 and 37, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an animal welfare strategy and for the committee and the Government to undertake actions associated with this. In this Bill, we have given the committee the power to produce reports about individual policies containing its views on to what extent the UK Government are having, or have had, all due regard to the ways in which those policies might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. We believe that it is important for the committee itself to decide which policies to report on, within the remit of the terms of reference. We would expect it to form an overview of all policy decisions with a significant effect on the welfare of animals. This need not cover every single policy decision but could cover those which are of a higher priority to animal welfare.

To ask this committee to produce reports relating to every department annually would be a significant burden and would mean less scrutiny on those policies that really matter. We want the committee to be targeted, timely and proportionate in how it operates. It is better to focus on policy decisions which have the most impact. The co-operation of departments is necessary for the committee to be able to work effectively, and Defra is already working to secure this. I believe a collaborative approach is the most appropriate one.

The committee’s role is not to set out a strategy for animal welfare nor to devise plans for future policy. These are clearly a matter for the Government. In May this year, the Government launched Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare. This sets out the Government’s current and future reform programme on animal welfare, covering both kept animals and wild animals under a series of strategic themes. I do not see the need for the committee to publish its own animal welfare strategy.

I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, feels that we have already covered Amendment 13 and the remit of the animal sentience committee in group 2. But I am happy for him to raise issues in a moment if he feels we have not.

I turn to Amendments 17, 22 and 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, concerning the reports of the animal sentience committee. The committee will be made up of eight to 12 members, and we anticipate it will take forward six to eight reports a year. However, Amendment 17 would require it to issue a report on all policy decisions. This is neither feasible nor desirable. We want proportionate and targeted scrutiny and accountability, and in so doing, the committee is to consider which policy decisions it deems most important. It should not be beholden to consider every policy decision regardless of its importance to animal welfare.

The question in Clause 2(2) is designed to allow the committee to express its views in an informative way to provide a proper understanding of the decision-making process followed. We believe that the committee’s recommendations are likely to be nuanced. The purpose of these reforms is not to impose a simple “pass or fail” test, which Amendments 22 and 34 suggests it should. That is not necessary, and it is likely to be unhelpful, and indeed unworkable, in many cases.

There may well be cases where the committee’s report into a policy decision does not identify major concerns but makes recommendations that would further improve future decision-making. The proposed amendments would not cater for this situation. While I understand, in principle, the rationale for limiting the requirement for Ministers to reply only to reports which identify major concerns, this would generate missed opportunities to consider valuable recommendations for improvements.

I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which query the use of the phrase “all due regard” when describing what the committee is to consider in its scrutiny of policy formulation and implementation. The technical meaning of the phrase “all due regard” in this instance is not considered to be materially different to that of the phrase “due regard”; “all due regard” emphasises that the committee should assess the extent to which all relevant factors affecting animal welfare are being considered.

I turn now to Amendments 21 and 26, again from my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which seek to clarify that the committee can consider positive impacts on the welfare of some animals of a policy alongside the negative effects of that policy on the welfare of other animals. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Meeting the welfare needs of animals includes avoiding negative impacts as well as providing for positive experiences. Depriving an animal of its ability to have positive experiences, like exhibiting natural behaviours, counts as an adverse effect. I can assure your Lordships that the reference to “an adverse effect” in the Bill allows the committee to consider whether the positive experiences of an animal have been restricted.

We consider that the committee is already able to express its views on the ways in which a policy decision may not be able to maximise the welfare needs of animals, and that it may set out missed opportunities to make positive improvements to animal welfare. This is outlined in the draft terms of reference. Furthermore, I assure my noble friend that the Bill does not change existing law on pest control or impose any new restrictions on individuals or businesses.

I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, concerning the Bill’s scope with respect to the devolved Administrations. The committee will select policy decisions made by the UK Government on which it can issue reports. This will cover all matters that do not fall within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. As animal welfare policy is a devolved issue, it is a matter for the devolved Administrations as to how they wish to recognise and consider animal sentience when formulating and implementing devolved policies. It would be inappropriate for their Ministers to be held to account to the UK Parliament on matters that fall within their legislative competence.

Scotland has already used secondary legislation to establish an advisory body, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which advises its Government on those policy areas for which they are responsible. The commission has been asked to consider how the welfare needs of sentient animals are being met by policies of the Scottish Government. The Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are free to introduce their own legislation, should they wish. In addition, the Welsh Government have powers to set up a committee through secondary legislation if they wish to.

Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an annual report. We wish to ensure that the committee is as effective as possible in undertaking its role. Reports issued by the committee will be made available on its public website. Ministers will be required to prepare a written response to these reports for Parliament, which will create opportunity to hold Ministers to account. This process will provide a great deal of transparency about the committee’s work and the policies it has chosen to consider. Further transparency will be provided through the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.

We will conduct regular performance reviews of the committee to ensure that it is fulfilling its purpose. However, we would not want to commit to an onerous annual reporting process for the committee in statute. This could take resources away from the committee’s primary scrutiny role. Ministers are required to lay timely written responses to every committee report before Parliament. This means that Parliament will be well aware of what the committee has been working on.

Finally, government Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that clarifies the time limit in which Ministers must respond to reports published by the committee. The Bill requires Ministers to lay a written response to a report before Parliament within three months of the report’s publication. This amendment excludes from that time limit certain periods in which Parliament is not sitting. We wish to make it clear that, in these limited circumstances, a Minister may submit a written response at a more appropriate time. We are committed to Ministers providing timely responses. That is why we want the time limit established by the Bill to be clear. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this issue. While we did not have the opportunity to discuss this amendment in Committee, we have considered his contribution and improved the wording of the Bill.

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

My Lords, I am obviously a little disappointed that my brilliant suggestion about the Cabinet Office committee has not fallen on more fertile ground. To use an analogy, you would keep a sheep dog in a kennel rather than with the sheep, but I will not pursue that one. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.

Clause 2: Reports of the Committee

Amendments 12 to 22 not moved.

Amendment 23

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

My Lords, Amendments 23 and 35 give the House the opportunity to discuss the robustness of the science on which the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill is allegedly resting. I detect a lack of enthusiasm for the wide-ranging debate on this topic that might have otherwise ensued at a more timely part of the day, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as can.

I was once on the Zambezi and had the opportunity to observe the crocodiles. These are largely placid animals that sit basking in the sun but, when hungry, they can move with terrifying rapidity and can kill very rapidly indeed. The person I was with, who knew about crocodiles, said—and I will stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, if I have got any of this wrong, of course—that the brain of a crocodile is a very small thing. The size of a pea was suggested to me, and that there was no capacity within the brain at all, neurologically, for a function that allowed for any memory. The consoling thought that was offered to me was that, since a crocodile cannot remember anything, if it did eat me, it was not personal.

We are about to enact a Bill—we are close to passing it through our House—without limitation that, as I understand it, declares a crocodile to be a sentient creature; that is, a creature that can experience pleasure and pain, and science is prayed in aid to support this. I take the crocodile simply as an example, there are other creatures with brains almost as small as a crocodile and probably even smaller that are being covered and in scope of this Bill. The difficulty of this is, they have very limited functions, partly because the size of the brain simply limits the functions that they can actually have.

No one doubts, as a matter of science, that a crocodile, as I say taken as an example, will respond in a certain way if a sufficiently strong stimulus is applied to it. That is a neurological reaction explicable by the movement of chemicals and electrons through the nervous system and in what passes for the crocodile’s brain. What we are being asked to do here goes way beyond that. How can this be extended scientifically—not by analogy, not by empathy, but scientifically—to include the concept of pain in a crocodile as we understand pain.

Pain is more than a simple neurological reaction. Pain, as we understand it, exists in anticipation. One worries about it coming in one’s direction. It exists in reflection; one thinks about it in the past. One has coping strategies for dealing with it, and so on. Most importantly, it exists as a time of abnormality. Pain is abnormal; we want the pain to go away, so that we can go back to normal. How can a creature with no memory have any conception of what normality is, let alone what abnormality is? How can it understand pain, beyond that neurological reaction, in any sense that we understand it? Yet there are scientists, or people who hold themselves forth as scientists, who say that scientifically that link can be made when it is actually almost incomprehensible for most of us. Who are the scientists in whom the Government are placing such faith for the scientific basis of animal sentience that they claim to exist? Where do they gather? Which respectable journals do that publish in? Who is this cadre of leading animal sentience scientists?

Of course, there are animal welfare scientists and veterinarians, and people like that, but this is very specialised, a very narrow and a relatively new field—only over the last 20 years. It has no leading lights at the moment; it is, I would suggest to your Lordships’ House, predominantly ideologically driven, and it is based in large measure on funding being supplied by what might be thought of as groups and foundations with a prior view.

So my question really to my noble friend, even as he trembles on the brink of his success—he is very close to getting his way and seeing this Bill through with practically no amendments—and before he commits the nation to this Bill and this version of animal sentience, is whether he should not think twice about the claims that he makes and the confidence that he rests in what is a very ropey branch of science. Should that not lead him to pull back and consider this amendment, which requires peer review of scientific reports from the committee? In fact, it requires peer review of all reports, and I realise now that that is a bit silly, because some of them will just be procedural—but we can work on the wording. On the scientific reports of the committee, could not he and I work together to get an appropriate amendment at Third Reading that would try to make sure that we rest at last on robust science and not on something ropey and partisan? If it is ropey and partisan, we will come deeply to regret it.

Viscount Ridley (Conservative)

My Lords, I shall just comment very briefly on what my noble friend has just said. I disagreed with him on one point, when he said that there were no leading lights in the science of sentience. I draw his attention to a wonderful book published by Oxford University Press just a few months ago by the great Cambridge psychologist Nick Humphrey. Nick says, after 60,000 words of argument, as he put it to me in an email:

“My conclusions are quite radical—and at odds with both academic and popular wisdom. I argue that the only animals that have evolved to be sentient are mammals and birds, and not all of these. We really don’t need to worry about lobsters or octopuses.”

He did not add, “or crocodiles”.

So I think that there is developing science on this, and my noble friend is quite right that it needs to be peer-reviewed and investigated. I think that we will find the goalposts move on what is sentient, and that it is not a given that everything with a backbone is sentient or, indeed, that some of the decapods and others are as sentient as we have heard in recent years.

Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative)

My Lords, I remind the House of my various interests in the Countryside Alliance, including chairing the organisation. I apologise for being unable to take part in this Report stage earlier, but I was isolating and was only just released less than two hours ago. However, I was watching the proceedings very carefully, and it seemed to me that there was an emerging pattern—a serial rejection of all the amendments proposed by my noble friends and others, whether on issues of retrospectivity, on the composition of the committee, or on the matter of the risk that this committee is going to present of more judicial review. I could only admire my noble friend’s élan in batting away each of these suggestions, which came from former Ministers, from a former Leader of the House and from a former leader of the party—and from a brace at least of Queen’s Counsel, as well as suggestions and advice from a former Master of the Rolls. They were all swatted away elegantly by my noble friend.

I simply wish to say that my noble friends are sentient beings, too, and I believe that we are being treated cruelly. There is a case for reference to an independent committee to make advice as to whether all these suggestions should have been taken more seriously. Perhaps, if Ministers dismiss the advice of the animal sentience committee with the same alacrity, we will have little to fear from its future proceedings.

However, the truth is that there is less of a risk to specific aspects of farming or other activities that we can identify now than, I judge, of gluing up government with a constant process of analysis and rejection, followed by review, of proposals made by the committee. Indeed, there is to be not just one committee but two and, as we heard earlier, they will refer matters to each other, in a description that reminded me very much of a passage from “Yes Minister”. Ministers sometimes, when they occupy two briefs, as I once did, are encouraged to write letters to themselves in their dual positions. Now we have two animal committees that will be encouraged to refer matters to each other. This is an overcorrection because of a promise made earlier.

The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Moylan that, at the very least, we should ensure that the advice that the committee gives is grounded in the soundest possible science and is peer reviewed seems eminently sensible. I also join his modest suggestion that this might be the exception and the one proposal that the Minister might entertain.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. Why do we have delegated committees? Why do parliamentary bodies contract out part of their function? The only answer, it seems to me, is that you need very specific accumulated scientific expertise—in the field of economics, or whatever—that you would not reasonably have from a legislative Chamber.

When I made the point on an earlier amendment that there is no such thing as a disinterested expert—we all have our prejudices and opinions and scientists are still human beings—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that I was Luddite or, worse, “Goveian” in my attack on all experts. But this is surely having it both ways. We cannot say, “We must have this outside committee but there is absolutely no reason for them to base their recommendations on reputable science”. If we are not prepared to require the experts to rule on the basis of where the expertise is, on what possible basis are we creating this committee at all?

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

I bring your Lordships back to the amendments, which are on peer review and publication, but I say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who entertained us wonderfully with his stories of crocodiles. Why does he think that the Government—his Government—would use “ropey advice”, as he put it, to make decisions? I find that a quite extraordinary claim, particularly given the recent report on cephalopods and decapod crustaceans, which is the basis of a debate we shall be coming to shortly, which was done by the London School of Economics. I certainly would not classify the LSE as “ropey”. So why does he think that there is evidence of “ropey” scientific evidence being used by the Government in this Bill?

There is a certain amount in this that is very similar to Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on publication. As I said on his amendment, it concerns me that, once we start asking for everything to be published, particularly in an academic journal following peer review, we are adding a lot of time and delay to the committee’s work. Policy scrutiny reports differ in purpose, content and form from academic journal articles. The scientific evidence requirement for publication could limit the committee’s work to areas where a body of research already exists. Such research will not be in place for every policy that would impact the welfare of animals as sentient beings. In fact, I see part of the committee’s value as its ability to examine questions that have not been considered before.

The Council on Animal Affairs—a precedent body in the Netherlands, similar to the ASC being set up here —has produced some useful reports for its Government, considering new questions around policy and digitalisation in farming and biotechnology in the zoo sector. Both are areas where prior research material was very limited. The ASC should have a similar freedom to apply its core welfare question to policies where its considerations could add value, including areas not previously covered in detail by the scientific community. Again, it is important to stress that the role of the ASC is not to make detailed policy proposals but to draw attention to areas where the Government may wish to develop them.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I do not want to detain the House, but I was very entertained by my noble friend Lord Moylan’s trips down the gradations of sentience that might exist across the animal kingdom. I was trying to work out whether he was a follower of Aristotle—who believed that animals lacked rational souls and therefore were outside the sphere of justice—or whether he was Descartian or Rousseauan in his view. I do not want to go into a philosophical—

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

It may help my noble friend—seeing as he was so kind as to ask the question, I am sure he will be interested in the answer—to know that I stand on every occasion with Aristotle on this, as on so many other matters. I just want that to be clear.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

That is good to know. I am very grateful. However, I differ from him entirely if he thinks—which I do not think he really does—that the Government, of whom I am proud to be part, would engage with any form of ropey bunch of scientists. In fact we will come on to talk about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the degree of scientific breadth that went into the 300 different pieces of work studied by the London School of Economics in its reports on decapods and cephalopods. It is an indication of the expertise that exists out there.

I think my noble friend Lord Hannan has the advantage on me in that he believes that legislators do not need experts. I may have misunderstood him, but as I gaze around this Chamber I see precious few scientists, with one notable exception. There may be more—of course, there is the noble Lord, Lord Trees.

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

Excuse me!

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

No, I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Both Houses lack the kind of expert rigour that we need in decision-making. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 23 and 35 concerning the academic rigour of the committee. We will ensure that the animal sentience committee is comprised of members with the right expertise. They will be best placed to decide what the committee’s priorities should be and, in doing so, they can consult others. I reassure my noble friend that the annual work plan of the committee will be made publicly available. This will ensure that its priorities and approach are fully transparent. As the draft terms of reference for the committee show, we fully intend to appoint members through a rigorous procedure of fair and open competition.

Of course, peer-reviewed evidence from academic journals has a role in informing the committee’s work. However, I do not believe it is necessary for the committee’s reports themselves to be published in academic journals. It is critical that the committee should be able to advise in a timely way—this is the key point—on policies that are being developed. To require the committee’s recommendations to undergo the full academic peer-review process would cause considerable delays in enabling Parliament to hold government to account. This amendment would severely compromise its role. I hope with those few words I have reassured my noble friend, and he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

Before my noble friend sits down, although he says he does not want the committee’s work to be peer-reviewed, does he still abide by what he said in Hansard on 25 May when he was talking about pollinators? He said:

“It is right to use science as the absolute arbiter in this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 891.]

Is science going to be the absolute arbiter for this committee?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I hope I can reassure my noble friend that science and good scientific evidence is at the heart of decision-making and that is why we need the right advice for Ministers—so, yes. However, his experience and mine will have been that one can get conflicting scientific advice, so one needs to choose scientific experts with care and make sure that they give clear, unbiased opinions to Ministers and that their information can make better policy. Therefore, scientific evidence will be at the heart of this and we will follow it in the selection of committee members.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Before my noble friend sits down, does he think that Mrs Carrie Johnson has the expertise and rigour to be on the animal sentience committee?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I will make sure that every single person who applies for the committee has the necessary expertise, whatever background they come from. We will be looking for a range of people, from those with agricultural experience, those with experience of animals at the end of life in the slaughter process, and veterinarians. I made a list earlier; I will not repeat it because there were some long words which I cannot remember, but they will undoubtedly be a factor in deciding who will be members of the committee.

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

My Lords, it is a great disappointment that my noble friend has not conceded the very sensible proposal I made. It was unsurprising, however. What did surprise me were the remarks from the Opposition Dispatch Box. A more thorough-going endorsement of government policy better presented it is rare to imagine coming across. The idea that the Government never take scientific advice that needs to be checked or disputed and that they would never take dodgy scientific advice, now endorsed by the Labour Front Bench, is one I will cherish and store up for reference, no doubt, on some future occasion. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Amendments 24 to 26 not moved.

Amendment 27

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not appreciated the centrality of this amendment—the decent working of the whole Bill. I beg to move.

Ayes 25, Noes 74.

Amendment 28

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 28 standing in my name. This is a similar amendment to the one I moved in Committee and it asks that any recommendation from the animal sentience committee is not detrimental to nature conservation, biosecurity, crop protection and human health.

As my noble friend on the Front Bench will know very well, our major concern is the unintended consequences of his project and what these could lead to. My concern is that there is huge potential for causing damage to nature conservation. We have just completed discussions on the Environment Bill, and much of what that seeks to achieve could be undermined by some of the decisions of the committee that are then translated into action by Ministers. It is the same for biosecurity, crop protection and human health. I refer to pests, in particular.

The reason that the committee could put undue influence on the Government is that Defra’s largest postbag in the last 15 to 20 years has been on animal welfare, and the Government regularly receive petitions on animal health and welfare issues. We even heard today that Her Majesty has received a petition signed by school children. It is also well known that public consultations consistently receive high response rates—for example, those on bovine TB and badger culling. It is for that reason—this intense emotional pressure—that I asked my noble friend the question about the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in New Zealand, and whether he would follow its recommendation. He has not yet replied to me. I think he will shortly—at least, I hope he will—in which case he will set a precedent. I have been waiting three weeks for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to reply to some of my questions, and I have been waiting 10 days for the Secretary of State to reply to my questions. So Defra is not very high in my good books for replying to questions.

It is important that the committee should understand the difference between societal ethical values and public opinion; the two are very different. Backing public opinion could lead one to unscientific and wrong recommendations. My noble friend the Minister mentioned scientific evidence. As he rightly says, there will be contradictory scientific evidence; I hope that when the committee gets scientific evidence, all the contradictory scientific evidence will be clearly reported and not ignored.

I turn to the issue of biodiversity. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his place because there are important ways in which those who care for the countryside and look after it have to manage pest control. I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about this. He said in Committee on 20 July:

“To be specific on whether the Bill will interfere with pest control, the answer is no. Pest control is highly regulated. Rules ensure that the trapping and killing of vermin is humane, using permitted methods.”—[Official Report, 20/7/21; col. GC 30.]

My noble friend is right to a point: pest control is regulated—but it is not checked. If he wanted to buy some serious rat poison he would have to produce a licence, as he knows. However, you can buy the same rat poison online without any identification or licence; so, there is legislation, but it is not controlled.

With the committee able to act with the remit that it will have, there is potential for more of this to happen. I ask my noble friend to consider fox snares, which are a widely misunderstood device; a fox snare is to tether the animal, not to strangulate it. The fox snares now being used are of the highest international standard, but the animal sentience committee may choose to engage only with stakeholders and the public rather than consult those who actually know about these things. Will fox snares be an issue that the animal sentience committee can look at? What about Larsen traps? They are permitted under Section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act; they do not meet the criteria, but they are allowed under general licence. That is a perfect example of where the animal sentience committee could cause all sorts of problems. It is hugely important that Larsen traps are effective during the breeding season to keep corvid numbers under control.

I turn briefly to rats, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hamilton earlier this afternoon. I just mentioned about being able to buy rat poison with a licence or online without a licence, but is it not highly hypocritical of us to treat rats, which will be classed as a sentient being, in a very different way to all other animals? Most people do not like rats; they turn a blind eye and do not understand that when you give a rat rat poison, it does not die on the spot but goes away and dies a slow, lingering death. We would not do this to any other animal. Will this be something that the animal sentience committee will be able to look at? If we are not able to poison rats, we will pose a huge difficulty with human health, as we have had in the past.

Another pest is the brown hare. It is a pest on arable land in the spring, but at other times of the year it is not a pest. But the hare is also a game species and it is also on the biodiversity action plan. My noble friend said that the animal sentience committee will be rigorous with its scientific analysis. However, Defra has not been rigorous in its scientific analysis, because it has included the hare in the action plan for a closed season, but there is no scientific evidence to justify that. If Defra does not use good science, as it is not using good science on issues of heather burning, then what confidence can we have that the animal sentience committee is going to use good science? Robust science is critical, and where there is not robust science, the animal sentience committee should be absolutely clear in stating this for us. I was not reassured by what my noble friend said in Committee, and I hope he will be able to reassure me later this evening.

I turn to Amendments 29 and 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The noble Lord is, unfortunately, stuck in Scotland and unable to get down tonight, and he has asked me to say a few words. Amendment 29 again shows the noble Lord’s concern for animal welfare. It is hugely important, when one is culling deer, that it is done as cleanly and effectively as possible. There has been a movement, which I have taken part in, to ban shooting game with lead shot, but I do not think there is yet scientific evidence that deer should not continue to be shot with a lead bullet—in fact, quite the reverse. Any non-lead bullet has been proven to be not as effective at killing deer and therefore potentially causes the animal more suffering.

Amendment 31 is about dog training collars. Again, this is an area that Defra wants to legislate on, but the scientific evidence does not stand up to scrutiny to support its position. A training collar is a very useful device for those who live in the country and for some who live in the town, where dogs are liable to run out into the road and not only do damage to themselves but potentially cause an accident. The amount of energy and shock that a dog might get—once it has gone through the beep and the vibration to come to the shock—is a very small shock that probably happens once in its lifetime, after which it knows full well that, when the beep happens, it has to change whatever it is doing and behave more rationally.

When we talk about electric shocks, we need to talk about electric fences, which are hugely important for protecting nesting birds from badger and fox predation. If any farmer or landowner had gone to the lengths that the RSPB has done in publishing a manual about electric fences, that farmer would have had his name splashed over every tabloid and been hounded out of his job. However, the RSPB produces a manual that says you should have electric fences. Not only must you have them, but for badgers you must cover the electric fence in cotton wool, soaked in honey to attract them. For foxes, you want to get the best fat you can from your roast beef and smear it on the electric fence at fox head height, which is a wonderful way to give the fox a very nasty shock.

Those electric fences are 2,000 times more powerful than any shock that a dog might have got from an electric collar. Has my noble friend been in contact with the RSPB? I understand that it has now withdrawn its manual, but I find it quite amusing that none of the tabloids has said anything about it recommending the use of electric fences and their potential hurt and damage to animals. With hedgehogs, it goes so far as to say the shock will kill them because they tend to roll up rather than run away, so they continue to get electrocuted. With the amount of power it recommends you put through an electric fence, you will do a huge amount of damage to wildlife. This is a charity really abusing its position.

There is a hugely serious point to having electric fences. The only way the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust farm in Scotland has been able to get any hatch of lapwing this year was by putting electric fences around the nests to keep the batch predation as small as possible. Even so, a great number of young chicks were lost to predators.

I hope my noble friend will do a lot more this evening to reassure me that pests and pest control will not be affected by this Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu (Labour)

My Lords, Amendment 45 in my name is in this group. I have listened to crocodiles and in the next group we will get crabs and lobsters, so I will introduce the fish. If the Minister thinks it right to put crabs and lobsters in the Bill, he might consider my amendment.

There is a very significant body of scientific evidence that fish feel pain and are sentient animals. Individuals are capable of experiencing pain and feeling emotions such as fear. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, a fish may be a protected animal if it is under the control of man, but the Explanatory Notes on Section 59 read as follows:

“This section provides that anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing is not covered by this Act … The term ‘fishing’ should be understood as applying to ordinary activities of fishermen and anglers, and also the ordinary activities of those who own and run stocked ponds in allowing fishing activities to take place on their ponds.”

My amendment proposes that precisely the same provision be placed in this Act as was put in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It would give reassurance to a great many people who enjoy fishing.

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I echo the point of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about biosecurity. The implications of not taking care of biosecurity, which is mentioned in his amendment—I do not necessarily agree with all of the amendment—are fundamental; it is an ongoing threat to biodiversity and the ecological strength of this nation. I re-echo that point on biosecurity in terms of this Bill. As we know, at the moment we have few protections for biosecurity in our current arrangements, but, hopefully, that will change in the new year when there are greater controls on imports to this country. I just wanted to re-emphasise that point in the noble Earl’s amendment.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for making that point, which is incredibly important, particularly to me, as someone who lives in Cumbria, where we have so many problems with tree diseases and are losing so many trees. It is pitiful watching some of the woods being taken down around places such as Ennerdale and Loweswater.

Coming back to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, he is right that we do need to look out for any unintended consequences of legislation. There are concerns that there may be an adverse impact on the environment. It is important that the Minister is able to reassure noble Lords that there will not be these outcomes from the Bill being enacted. This brings me back to the points we made earlier about how critical it is that the animal sentience committee has the right members who are highly qualified to advise the Secretary of State on these matters when any proposals are put forward.

Looking at Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I say that it is not necessarily unfortunate to be stuck in Scotland at the moment; I might like to be joining him there. There was a debate on the Environment Bill about lead shot, and I will be interested to look at government progress on this.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced Amendment 31 on electric dog training collars. These are opposed by the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council and the British Veterinary Association. I am aware that the Government have previously announced plans to look at banning shock collars on dogs, and on this side of the House we would support the Government if they wanted to go down that route.

The final amendment, Amendment 45, was introduced by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I thank her for it and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to her concerns.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to discuss and explain the interaction of the Bill, and the animal sentience committee, with important policy matters related to animal welfare.

Turning to Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I can only apologise to him that I do not have a response at present to his point on New Zealand. I want to make sure I get it right, because I do not want to be criticised on the Floor of the House for replying to him late or giving him the wrong answer to a question—but I will reply to him.

This amendment would require the animal sentience committee to ensure that its recommendations would not have a detrimental impact on certain other matters of public interest and great importance. I agree with my noble friend that these vital matters of public interest should be properly considered in all relevant government decisions. But the animal sentience committee is not a decision-making body, and the committee will not have the kind of expertise to evaluate these kinds of impacts. I do not think it would be fruitful to impose this requirement on the committee itself.

Ministers should consider the full range of relevant factors and arrive at a decision as to the appropriate balance between them, for which they are accountable to Parliament. I fear that this amendment would mean asking a committee, which is not accountable to Parliament in the same manner, to prejudge this balance.

We should also be careful to task the right experts with particular scrutiny and advisory functions. The right people to comment on a policy’s effect on human health, for example, are doctors and medical scientists, rather than animal welfare experts. I would not ask doctors to provide an expert opinion on animal welfare issues. Ultimately, we must allow specialist expert committees to focus on their own particular remit. For these reasons, I believe there are better means to ensure that the important matters my noble friend raises are given fair consideration in policy decision-making.

My noble friend cited the example of a Larsen trap; let us follow that through. Suppose the animal sentience committee was to look at the animal welfare effect of an animal being trapped, albeit for a relatively short period, in a live cage trap such as a Larsen trap. Undoubtedly, that is an experience that the bird would not enjoy, but the Minister, on making policy, might reflect that capturing that bird in one of the most effective and humane ways possible means that a vast range of other wildlife and biodiversity can survive. So, while the Minister will see the report, they will be able to take a wider view rather than looking just at the particulars of that issue.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, are right to mention biosecurity. I live and breathe this, and there are diseases here, and coming our way, of trees and of animals that keep me awake at night. We want to avoid them coming here, and Defra and my team are absolutely committed to that. He is right that that is an area where a Minister will take a wider view. If it is in the interests of biosecurity or biodiversity to take a different view from the committee, he or she will be absolutely entitled to do that, and that will not be judicially reviewable as a result.

I turn to Amendment 29, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This amendment seeks to impose a requirement on the committee to produce a report on whether the welfare of deer is served by the use of lead or non-lead ammunition in hunting. It is important that the committee retains the ability and discretion to decide how best it can add value and discharge its role effectively. In our view, this calls for the committee to prioritise which policy decisions it decides to scrutinise. As we have made clear, we would expect the committee to be transparent about its prioritisation, and the expertise of the committee’s members will mean that the committee will be well placed to understand how they can fulfil their scrutiny role to meet the aims of the Bill. For this reason, I would not wish to impose a requirement on the committee to produce a particular report on a specific issue.

Additionally, the committee is there to report on how well the policy decision under consideration took account of the welfare needs of animals affected, rather than commenting on what the policy should be in light of all relevant matters. The noble Lord’s amendment would require the committee to venture into the business of the latter.

Turning to Amendment 31, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, Ministers should consider carefully how best to gather expert evidence and stakeholder views when making policy decisions. Indeed, the animal sentience committee will be established in order to help furnish accountability for properly considering the effects of policy decisions on animal welfare. As I have said before, the committee itself will not make decisions or recommendations about the substance of policy decisions themselves. The committee may only scrutinise and advise on how well individual policy decisions took account of the welfare needs of sentient animals. It will remain for Ministers to make policy decisions, having regard to all matters of public interest. Given that distinction, we do not consider it appropriate to require the committee to embark on consultation before issuing reports relating to particular policy decisions.

We believe that the committee should retain the ability and discretion to decide how best it can add value and discharge its role effectively. In our view, this calls for a prioritised approach by the committee when deciding which policy decisions to scrutinise. As we have made clear, we would expect the committee to be transparent about its prioritisation, and the expertise of the committee’s members will mean that the committee will be well placed to understand how they can fulfil their scrutiny role to meet the aims of the Bill.

Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, seeks to add to the Bill an exception for fishing. I can happily declare an interest as an avid angler. This is another good example of how the Bill might work. If the animal sentience committee were to take the decision to write a report on whether fishing caused pain to the animal, the Minister could then consider other, wider factors—for example, that it is the largest participation sport in the country, it has a significant effect on the rural economy and there is huge value in the work that fishing interests and riparian owners do for biodiversity in river environments. That is an example of where the balance of views will be taken into account.

The Bill recognises that animals with a backbone, including fish as well as decapods and cephalopods, are sentient. Recognising these animals as sentient in the Bill means that the animal sentience committee can consider how well individual central government policies have paid regard to the welfare of these creatures and can publish reports on this. Ministers will then be required to respond to Parliament on such reports published by the committee. That applies to all policy areas and has no exemptions.

As we have said, the Bill is all about providing assurance that central government policy-making is well grounded. The Bill does not change existing law and is not capable of imposing any new restrictions on individuals or businesses. More specifically, it does not change any current legal requirements on the fishing industry. I really hope, even at this late hour, that fishing interests may be watching or listening, or perhaps they will read the reports tomorrow, because I do not want to read any more headline articles saying that this legislation is about banning activities that, frankly, I feel passionate about protecting. It is about making sure that Ministers have better access to information on the policies they make, and that they are able to make it on the basis of wider considerations if they have to.

Defra will continue to work with stakeholders, including the seafood industry and any other fishing interests, whether inland or marine, to make improvements to animal welfare. I hope that I have been able to offer greater clarity and reassurance about the implications of the Bill and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for coming in on biodiversity—I am glad he was in his place for this amendment—and to the Minister, who has gone further than he did in Committee.

As we know, the animal sentience committee has to consider whether an animal has been deprived of one or more of its five welfare needs as set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. One of those is the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury or disease. That opens up a huge ambit for the committee. At the moment, we are extremely fortunate in having a Minister in Defra who understands the countryside, how it works and the need for balance. What many of us are concerned about, given the emotion and public opinion that some who are less concerned about that balance are able to generate, is that future Ministers who are not so attuned to the countryside and what happens there—I can think of quite a number in the past who were not—will not be as strong and forthcoming as my noble friend Lord Benyon. That is where we are concerned, and it is why we are trying to alter the Bill in some respects.

I have clearly failed to persuade my noble friend. He has the brief that I so often had, which at the top right-hand corner says “Resist”. His resistance is going to overcome my willingness to change, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Amendments 29 to 33 not moved.

Clause 3: Response to reports

Amendments 34 and 35 not moved.

Amendment 36

Amendment 39

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I am grateful to your Lordships for your forbearance, and for your views and insights on this important piece of legislation. I will also speak to the consequential Amendment 43.

As I have said during previous debates on the Bill, the Government’s approach to recognising the sentience of animals will be guided by the scientific evidence. My department commissioned an independent review from the London School of Economics and Political Science of the evidence surrounding the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans for that very purpose. As promised, I made the findings of that review available to your Lordships for consideration ahead of today’s debate.

Sentience is broadly understood to be the capacity to feel pain. Our Animal Welfare Committee advised in 2018:

“Sentience is the capacity to experience pain, distress and harm.”

The review considered the findings of around 300 scientific studies, using a set of criteria based on brain structure, nervous system complexity and testing for adaptive behaviour to assess whether these classes of invertebrate are sentient. The report itself was subject to peer review.

The Government have given careful consideration to the contents of the final report. We accept that there is strong evidence of the sentience of these invertebrates. It is only right, therefore, that they are included in the provisions of the Bill. That means that the animal sentience committee, once established, may produce reports under Section 2 of the Bill in relation to the welfare of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.

However, I want to be clear that this amendment does not alter existing legislation or policy. I have heard, for example, the concerns put to me by representatives of the fishing sector, and I can assure this House that nothing in this amendment, or indeed in the Bill, changes the rules governing the activities of individuals or businesses.

Naturally, in due course, the Government may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to amend the scope of other animal welfare legislation to include cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans. While that is not the question we are discussing today, I take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that any changes to existing laws would be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and we would consider carefully how we would engage industry in their development.

Today, we propose simply to recognise the sentience of these invertebrates in line with the scientific evidence. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for their previous amendments on this subject. I hope that they, and the rest of the House, will support this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

My Lords, it is with some regret that I note that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box did not thank me for my previous amendment on this subject. I accepted as far back as Committee that it was likely that cephalopods and decapod crustaceans would be added to the list of sentient beings covered by the Bill, although I did not expect it to be done in the Bill but through the secondary legislation which it contemplates.

I introduced an amendment in Committee that said, beyond vertebrates, the Government can only add, to the list of sentient beings, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans and no more. This was countered, so to speak, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who put down an amendment that actually added those two classes of creature to the face of the Bill. Neither amendment, of course, proceeded at Committee stage. I find it rather sad and curious that, of those two amendments, my noble friend at the Dispatch Box selected that promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and has rather ignored mine.

However, I still believe that it is appropriate that the Bill should be amended to place some constraints on the ability of the Secretary of State to add to the list without returning to this House for primary legislation. I am not entirely alone in that regard, because I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in that particular amendment. Of course, I have to achieve it now through a different set of drafting —a different mechanism. The mechanism is no longer to limit the expansion to those two classes, because they have effectively been added already, but to take out from page 2, line 33, those subsections that give the Secretary of State the power to proceed in extending the list. That is the purpose of Amendment 42.

There is nothing more to be said, because my noble friend is not being very kind this evening to that particular species of animal that exists on his Back Benches and is practising a certain form of cruelty in tandem with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and indeed the others whom he mentioned, the other noble Baronesses, who are not entirely in their place at the moment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Together, the Minister and noble Baronesses are going to say no to this modest suggestion. So, I will leave it there without argument, simply pellucid in its compelling character, and allow my noble friend to reject it when he rises to speak.

Lord Trees (Crossbench)

My Lords, I have been up, and indeed in, many African rivers, but not the Zambezi, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. So, I will try to be as brief as he has been, but I want to make two comments: one about Amendment 39 and one about Amendment 42.

The inclusion of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods within the remit of this Bill is warranted, evidence based and consistent with current legislation with regard to cephalopods, in that they are protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, so I support this amendment. However, currently in the Bill, it appears that larval forms of decapod crustacea would also be included. These can be microscopic; they are the fauna of plankton, and then they grow up into shrimps and prawns and so on. I ask the Minister: at what point does a larval decapod crustacean become sentient? A briefing from the Marine Biological Association and the National Oceanography Centre expresses concerns particularly that, if larval forms of crustacea are included, it might compromise their environmental monitoring and research functions. I ask the Minister if consideration has been given to an amendment along the lines of Amendment 41, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Marland, that excludes embryonic forms.

Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, removes the possibility, currently in the Bill, for the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the list of animals covered in the Bill. This would still be possible but would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny through primary legislation. This would recognise that, as scientific research continues, evidence may accrue from which it might be argued that other invertebrates may have some degree of sentience. Crustacea are but one group within a vast taxon of arthropods that includes many thousands of species including the insects.

In the excellent LSE report that reported on the sentience in decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, there is a matrix of criteria—eight in that report—in which evidence of varying strengths may be aggregated in varying levels of confidence to arrive at an overall judgment whether a particular group may be considered sentient. There is not a clear demarcation between sentient and non-sentient.

The inclusion of further groups of invertebrates as sentient merits very thorough and balanced political, economic and societal—as well as scientific—consideration, and should ultimately be a parliamentary decision in primary legislation.

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

My Lords, my noble friend may not like it but I will support him—I hope he appreciates that—because he said something very sensible about Larsen traps. On a small Midlands farm I catch between 40 and 82 magpies—that is the most I have ever caught—a year. Visitors congratulate me on the huge clouds of linnets, yellowhammers and whatever that we have on the farm, so I was delighted to hear what he said about Larsen traps.

In relation to government Amendment 39, I have always thought that putting a lobster into boiling water must be cruel. People say, “Oh no, they don’t feel, they’ve got no brain”. I have no idea whether they have a brain or not, but it must be cruel, and the Government are making a very good move in seeking to protect such things. While I support the amendment, however, I am not sure that it should be in the Bill—in primary legislation. I would have thought that it could have done by SI; I am not sure that this is necessarily the right way to go about it. I will, however, on this occasion support the Government without any compromise.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

My Lords, I am a bit perplexed by all this. The Government have decided to include lobsters and octopi—I prefer those terms because I understand them—but to exclude fish and, if they do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the minute creatures that they produce. It seems to me that we are on a slippery slope here: the sentience committee could come to the conclusion one day that fish have sentience and feel harm, and then we would ban them. Once you start down this road, there is no limit to where you can go in describing creatures as sentient. That troubles me enormously, and is why I am less than enthusiastic about my noble friend’s amendment.

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, with this amendment we move on to Clause 5. It rather intrigues me, because it makes an exception of homo sapiens, and I wanted to ask the Minister whether that means that the Government see us as a non-sentient species. Perhaps he will answer that: if the answer is yes, I would probably agree, on track record. However, I will not detain the House. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville would do, I want to thank the Government for this amendment and Amendment 43, which we very much support. I understand and greatly respect what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, but I am also aware that the recent scientific evidence on the mental facilities of species such as the octopus—how it is intelligent in a very different way from that in which mammals are intelligent—should be taken very seriously and included in the Bill.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled Amendment 39, which, as we have heard, has picked up the amendment I tabled in Committee and expands the definition of animals in the Bill to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods.

It has also been good to hear support from some noble Lords, although I am sorry that it seems to have made the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so sad. As the Minister said in his introduction, this amendment follows the London School of Economics and Political Science’s report, which concluded that there is strong scientific evidence that decapod crustaceans are sentient and can experience pain. I will not go into the detail of the report because the Minister has done that admirably, but I draw attention to the overarching central recommendation that all cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be regarded as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law; they should be counted as animals for the purposes of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and should be included in the scope of any future legislation relating to animal sentience. To be honest, that could not be clearer. The LSE is a well-respected organisation.

The report also provides some helpful recommend-ations for improving best practice and welfare and for regulating existing commercial practices that are of reasonable and widespread animal welfare concern for decapod crustaceans. In addition, it is consistent with the approach other countries have taken, for example, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, some Australian states and territories and some German and Italian cities. Importantly, the report also includes recommendations about how industry can be supported through any necessary changes. Will the Minister confirm that marine industries and the food sector will have advice and help to manage any impact that a change in legislation would bring?

I want to say once again a big thank you to the Minister and the Government for taking this forward and proposing its inclusion in the Bill. I am sure he is very aware that he has the strong support of these Benches.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I think it might be helpful to the House if I say how this came about, as it answers the points about how we got to the stage of including decapods and cephalopods in the Bill. It is a matter of serendipity. For many years people have been pushing for work to be done, and it was done by the LSE. It just so happened that that report came into the Government’s hands over the summer while we were in the process of going through the Committee stage, and it seemed an obvious moment to take this forward when the findings of that report were so clear.

To cheer up my noble friend Lord Hamilton a bit at this late hour, I cannot think of any other species that are likely to go through this process. If there are any, I suggest that it will probably be at least a decade before someone is standing here recommending that we take that forward. It may be less; this is a fast-moving area of science, but it has taken many years—I do not know how many precisely—for decapods and cephalopods to be recognised in this way. I hope that is reassuring.

The noble Baroness asked a question about the food industry and making sure that, if the committee were to make recommendations about how one treats these organisms as part of food processing or cooking and the law is then changed because Ministers accepted that advice, there would have to be a huge amount of work with the food industry to make sure that it was prepared for it. However, this amendment does not change anything. It does not change the law; it just allows it to be within the remit of the committee to give advice to Ministers who will then take other factors into account, regarding, for example, the marine environment, fish, the economic benefits of the fishing industry to coastal communities or the importance that the Government put on fish being part of the nation’s balanced diet. These are the sort of wider factors that Governments will take into consideration.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Moylan feels put upon. I thought that I was the victim here, but clearly that is not the case. I will try to be kind to him when I come to his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 41, and here my remarks relate to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill recognises that live animals with a backbone—vertebrates—are sentient. A government amendment has been tabled to also recognise decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs as sentient, as I have said. It is our intention and expectation that the committee will concern itself with consideration of the welfare of live animals. In practice, it would be difficult for the committee and government departments to identify the way in which a policy under consideration affects the welfare needs of a foetus or an embryo, as opposed to those of the mother animal. It is unlikely, therefore, that the committee would find itself considering a policy beyond its remit. The central recommendation in the report is that these cephalopods and decapods will be regarded as sentient animals, but we carefully considered the recommendations in the review. The evidence of sentient decapods and cephalopods is clear: we are committed to being led by science when it comes to sentience, and that is why we amended the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, as I mentioned, the Government are led by the science when it comes to sentience. We have considered the review’s findings carefully before amending the Bill to recognise these invertebrates as sentient. I can confirm that, at the present time, there is no intention to treat any other invertebrates, beyond decapods and cephalopods, as sentient animals. The scientific evidence that led to the Government commissioning the LSE review has been many years in the making. I can assure the House that this will continue to be the case for future extension, using the delegated powers in Clause 5.

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

I note what my noble friend says about there being no plans—and I fully accept that that is so, as he has assured the House—but if there are no plans, why do the Government wish to take the powers to continue to pursue them? Would it not be better if the Minister would just accept that primary legislation will be required as and when the science demands it?

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I hope I can reassure my noble friend by saying that if the Secretary of State were to use his or her powers to recommend another species or group of species to be included, that would be the subject of parliamentary oversight. It would be an affirmative resolution requiring debate in both Houses and would be subject to other areas of parliamentary scrutiny, such as Select Committees and other means by which noble Lords and people in the other place would seek to hold that decision to account. I hope that we would not wish to risk this Bill becoming out of date by removing the ability to update its scope should the scientific evidence develop.

While we are not aware of any instances on the horizon, we cannot discount the possibility that new evidence will emerge in the future that demonstrates the sentience of some additional category of invertebrate. Decapods and cephalopods were the invertebrates most likely to qualify for being regarded as sentient animals. The likelihood that another category of invertebrate might one day be shown to be sentient is small, but it is not zero. That is why we wish to leave an option to update the definition if needed. Such a power must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, of course, and I will address this point shortly.

In the meantime, I take this opportunity to clarify that the Bill is all about government policy decision-making and how well particular decisions take account of the welfare needs of animals. The Bill and our amendments do not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals or businesses. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has come to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopods in the Bill and will therefore support the government amendment. I also hope that the points I have set out reassure noble Lords and that they will be content not to press their amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment 39 agreed.

Amendments 40 to 42 not moved.

Amendment 43

Amendment 46

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who is unavoidably detained somewhere in the country—I am not quite sure where—I beg to move this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister feels put upon, because I think he is doing a very good job defending what some people have described as indefensible, and well done him.

This is a very simple sunset clause. It is fair to say beyond peradventure that some of the arguments raised in the past six or seven hours show that there is dispute over whether the Bill is a sensible idea. Therefore, surely, we should have a sunset clause so that, after five years, we can look back and say, “Actually, it’s not working very well, let’s scrap it”—or improve it, or whatever it might be. That is all a sunset clause does, and that is why I move it.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

I support my noble friend Lord Robathan. In anybody’s language, this is an extremely controversial Bill—that has come from a number of extremely distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The most appalling collateral damage could be caused by the Bill which no one has anticipated. That is the problem. When you have such Bills with a mind of their own and committees that can roar off doing all sorts of things and are completely independent, it is only later that you realise that it was a very great mistake in the beginning. In all modesty, I think the Minister should seriously consider this sunset clause so that we can reconsider whether the Act, as the Bill will no doubt become, has been a good idea, whether it has achieved what it set out to do, or whether it has caused so much damage that it needs to be radically revised. A sunset clause of five years gives us a wonderful opportunity to think again, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment sets a sunset clause on the Bill. Sunset clauses are quite rare and are usually associated with emergency legislation to deal with a time-specific problem. Recently, we have seen sunset clauses around the Coronavirus Act and previously, in the 2000s, in anti-terror legislation. This Bill is not a piece of emergency legislation passed to deal with something that is time specific. It is establishing the animal sentience committee for the long term, so we on these Benches do not believe that a sunset clause is appropriate or necessary.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

I thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for introducing Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which would insert a clause that would repeal the Bill after five years. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for pointing out that sunset clauses are needed more for emergency legislation.

The Government have laid the Bill before Parliament because there is an ongoing benefit from a targeted mechanism that provides greater transparency for the consideration of animal welfare in central government policy decisions. However, we know that this must be done in a timely and proportionate way. Animal welfare considerations will not cease to be relevant in five years’ time, so it is hard to understand why the committee’s work should be brought to an abrupt halt at that point. It is the Government’s considered view that it would be plainly wrong for the Bill to expire after five years, as the animal sentience committee will have plenty to contribute beyond that time.

That is not to say, of course, that there will not be a review of processes to ensure that the Bill and the committee continue to fulfil their objectives well. As indicated in the committee’s draft terms of reference, we plan to ensure that it is subject to annual performance reviews. Defra will ultimately be accountable for the committee’s ongoing effectiveness and good governance. In addition, the Bill will be subject to the standard post-legislative scrutiny process, including a review of its effectiveness. That will take place within five years of Royal Assent. I hope that that reassures noble Lords and that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

Before my noble friend sits down, does she not feel that a sunset clause might in fact be to the great benefit of the Government, because they would not need to have the dramatic act of wrapping up the committee and the Act; it would merely come to its own conclusion? If, on the other hand—unlikely, in my opinion, but not impossible—the committee was doing extremely well, legislation could be introduced to continue it. It is not difficult to extend the life of an Act; it is much more difficult to abolish an Act altogether. If it lapsed automatically, it might be to the advantage of the Government in the future, rather than their disadvantage.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)

I do not agree with my noble friend, because the committee’s work will be ongoing, and it will also respond to changes in scientific research that may come out in the course of its many years of work. To introduce a hard stop—a hard deadline—to its work would be both unnecessary and impractical.

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

My Lords, if I might say, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Hamilton, because it is not a question of ending the work of the committee, but of saying, “Is the committee doing well after five years, and do we just continue it?”, which is very easily done. I have some experience of this in the past. However, I shall not force this to a Division, my noble friend will be pleased to know. Both my noble friends on the Front Bench will be particularly pleased to know that there is only one more clause to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Clause 6: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 47

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 47. This is the last amendment to be debated and I call it the lifebelt amendment. Since 4 pm—with a couple of breaks in between, but nearly seven hours ago—the Government have heard of all the things that are possibly wrong with this Bill. There are problems with the terms of reference; problems with the setting up of the committee; and the abdication of power by the Government to the committee. My noble friend on the Front Bench has heard expert opinions from both the legal and the veterinary side about the difficulties that this Bill could pose. The zoologists are equally concerned that the terminology in the Bill is so wishy-washy that it will be very hard for some decisions to be made accurately.

I drafted this lifebelt amendment, which proposes to give the Government time for considered thought about the Bill. Yes, my noble friend has got his Bill; he has fulfilled his instructions from on high and defeated every amendment. But having got his Bill, would this not be a sensible time to set up a committee to look at the unintended consequences, of which so many have been raised, before the Bill is enacted? This would give the Government a chance to have a look again if they were persuaded, on the evidence of the committee, that the Bill ought to be redrafted in a different way. I totally applaud the sentiment behind the Bill. We want it, but we also want one that is right, so I offer my noble friend a lifebelt at the last moment. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, this seems quite novel as an amendment—to try, once a Bill has gone through Parliament and become an Act, to judge it afterwards. It is a novelty that I find perhaps rather difficult. I share the noble Earl’s thoughts about some of the issues around the Bill, but this is probably overly bureaucratic and, if we believe in Parliament, probably not the best way to move forward on this occasion—despite the great respect I have for him.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour)

My Lords, I agree; I too hold the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the greatest respect and the highest regard. Of course, he is absolutely right to say that any Government should consider seriously unintended consequences when considering any new legislation but, along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I agree that this proposal is overly bureaucratic. Do we really need another committee? We seem to have an awful lot of them already. Expert advice will be readily available to the ASC, as we have heard, as well as to the Secretary of State.

I am very pleased that we have reached the end of Report and I congratulate the Minister on his resilience.

Lord Benyon (Conservative)

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, and I congratulate her on hers, too—and I thank her for her help in making this Bill better, although we have more to do. I join in the praise of my noble friend Lord Caithness. In my short time in this House he has proved himself to be a redoubtable holder of the Executive to account, if that is not a tautology.

He calls this the “lifebelt amendment” but I call it the “committee on the committee amendment”. I thank him, but it would require the establishment of a committee to assess the impacts of the Bill after it had received Royal Assent but before its provisions came into force. We believe that it is for Parliament to satisfy itself about the impacts of the proposed legislation before it approves it, and not to pass legislation on the proviso that it goes through further approval before coming into force.

The Bill has been subject to exacting scrutiny in this House. It has been scrutinised by the EFRA Select Committee, and there has been no absence of scrutiny of the Bill and its implications. My officials and I remain ready to answer any questions that noble Lords may have about the Bill. Parliament remains free to seek the views of outside experts on any aspect of the Bill. I have been clear throughout its passage what the implications of the Bill are; it does not change existing law or impose new restrictions on individuals, businesses or any organisation outside the UK Government. It will establish the committee, on the purpose, structure and membership of which I have spoken today at length. I give absolute assurance that Ministers will continue to have full discretion and responsibility as to the appropriate balance between animal welfare and other matters of public interest.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Caithness (Conservative)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister not only for his reply but for the backbone that he has shown throughout the proceedings today. He has done a marvellous job at resisting, and I hope that the English batsmen learn from him before they take on Australia in the Ashes. But the bowling was all from one end today; Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were mostly absent, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a superb job of playing vice-Minister today. I hope that she gets her normal verve back and becomes a proper opposition Minister for the next Bill.

I really am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he listened, but I do not believe that his brief gave him any room for manoeuvre. He has done an excellent job in fulfilling his brief and saying “resist” to every amendment and getting the Bill through. I have great pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48 not moved.