I would like to see a strong, broad-based animal sentience committee that conducts deep analysis of all government policy to ensure that its impact on animals has been properly considered. I would much rather that the committee looked at everything in the round than sporadically look at piecemeal bits of policy. The former seems the right way to go, especially when the Bill is premised on the fact that these animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel, perceive and experience. Why any scrutiny body would be reduced to the position of seeking permission from those it is scrutinising to actually do the scrutinising is beyond me, but then there are those who believe in the divine right of kings and see scrutiny of the Government as a bad thing.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL] Committee Stage Day 2

Amendment 20 moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb 

20: Clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”

It is my pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments—or at least those amendments that seek to improve the committee and strengthen its functions, such as those of Lady Young of Old Scone and Lord Mancroft. I remind all Lords that this was a government promise. Something has to come out of this that is positive and that the general public, who asked for this, understand as being a reasonable policy. The Minister said that expert scrutiny is needed and that policy is not static. Can we not live 100 or 500 years in the past? Can we understand that things have to move on? As he also said, animal sentience is a fast-evolving field, and we need to make sure that we are up there, aware and legislating in the right way.

I thank Lord Trees, who signed my Amendments 27 and 41, and Lady Fookes. She is unable to be here for this group but she will be here later.

My Amendment 20 is the crucial one because it would toughen up the committee. I am not very welcoming of Amendments 21 and 22, which seem designed to weaken the committee into total obscurity. Why any scrutiny body would be reduced to the position of seeking permission from those it is scrutinising to actually do the scrutinising is beyond me, but then there are those who believe in the divine right of kings and see scrutiny of the Government as a bad thing.

I am very pleased that my Amendment 20 would have the opposite effect. I would like to see a strong, broad-based animal sentience committee that conducts deep analysis of all government policy to ensure that its impact on animals has been properly considered. I would much rather that the committee looked at everything in the round than sporadically look at piecemeal bits of policy. The former seems the right way to go, especially when the Bill is premised on the fact that these animals are sentient beings with the capacity to feel, perceive and experience. I have confidence that this House can improve the Bill and give short shrift to the wrecking amendments that would reduce the sentience of the committee to a lump of stone. I beg to move.

I later continued:

I thank the Minister for his comments; I will read them in Hansard to make sure that I have understood fully where our interests overlap and where there is any divergence. I also thank all Lords who took part in the debate. I listened carefully to everybody. I know that Lord Caithness, Lord Trenchard, and Lord Hamilton and Lord Mancroft, care deeply about these issues. Their views are valuable, but I found them quite repetitive. We have heard all this before. We have been told that the two committees will not clash and will have particular remits that will be extremely clear. I think that we perhaps underestimate the interest of both committees in terms of being able to understand where they might work together and where they absolutely must not because it is not relevant, so I do not have the same fears about any sort of overlapping.

I am happy that Lord Caithness, and Lord Trenchard, agree with the concept of policy in the round. The minute they started agreeing with me, I started to wonder whether I did not know what I was talking about, but I will look into that.

Lord Mancroft, is trying to tie the hands of the animal sentience committee. I just do not think that that is appropriate.

Lord Trenchard, mentioned animal rights activists. This term has been thrown at me since we did round one of this Bill; perhaps he can tell me what he thinks he means by it in reference to me. He can always send me a private email if he would prefer.

I offer a big thank you to Lord Trees, for his comments and to Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their support, which is incredibly valuable. They both made an excellent summary —much better than I did. I thank them for that.

Lady Hayman, talked about the committee being a critical friend, which is incredibly valuable and something that the Government do not have enough of. I would argue that your Lordships’ House is a critical friend, but we do not always have the same opportunities to support the Government when they change their mind.

Lord Robathan, talked about the tsunami of people who wanted us to put animal sentience back into legislation. Of course, most people probably had not used that term before, but they certainly had once the Government had taken it out of the EU legislation that they moved over—Finally, I thank the Minister for his simple explanation of how the two committees will work. That is incredibly useful, and I hope that it calms the fears of the Lords who have worried about that during the course of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Read the whole debate on Hansard