MPs reject animal sentience in Brexit bill
“Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment."
A slim majority of MPs have voted against the inclusion of a clause recognising animal sentience in the EU Withdrawal Bill.
The vote was held during an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the bill.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas had submitted an amendment clause to transfer the EU Protocol on animal sentience, into UK law, so that animals could continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law.
However, the new clause was rejected with a majority of just 18 MPs, with 313 against and 295 in favour of the clause.
Gudrun Ravetz, senior vice president of the BVA, said it is “extremely concerning” that a minority of MPs voted against.
“Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.”
Currently, 80 per cent of animal welfare legislation comes from the EU, but after March 2019, these laws will no longer apply to the UK.
The BVA has called on the government to ensure that current standards of animal health and welfare, and public health, will be at least maintained after Brexit.
“Yet actions speak louder than word,” Gudrun continued, “and this action undermines the government’s previous promises that the UK will continue to be known for our high standards of animal health and welfare post-Brexit.”
According to the RSPCA, one of the arguments put forward by the government during the debate, was that animal sentience is already covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, however, the charity says the term is not used in the Act, which only covers domestic animals.
RSPCA’s head of public affairs David Bowles said recognition of animals as sentient beings in the EU has been effective in improving animal welfare, adding: “It is simply wrong for the government to claim that the Act protects animal sentience”.
Gudrun Ravetz concluded: “There is now an urgent need for clarity from Government on how the provisions in Article 13 will be enshrined in UK law to ensure we do not fall short of the high standards we expect as a nation of animal lovers.”
FIVP has shared a survey, inviting those working in independent practice to share their views on the CMA's proposed remedies.
