So, here we are then. Despite a monstering in the Lords and near-universal condemnation across the press, the Animal Sentience Bill has reared its ugly head once more, returning to the Commons today for its Second Reading. The flagship legislation, which Mr S has covered extensively, is designed to protect helpless creatures and recognise they can feel pain by creating a new super-committee to judge the effects of government policies. Proposed amendments mean that shellfish are to be included; hapless ministers forced to defend them are not.
As Steerpike has pointed out repeatedly, animal welfare has been recognised in British law for 200 years
The government has been caught between something of a rock and a hard place on the bill: either it is too powerful and risks derailing future administrations via a slew of judicial reviews or it is too toothless to actually do anything and is therefore impotent and unnecessary. Torn between the two, Defra has opted to argue for the latter, with a departmental spokesman dismissing concerns that animal rights activists could block infrastructure projects in a Mail on Sunday article last week on the grounds that ‘the committee will have no legal powers nor the ability to place new burdens or restrictions on individuals or businesses.’ If that is the case, then what is the point of the bill?
As Steerpike has pointed out repeatedly, animal welfare has been recognised in British law for 200 years, back to 1822 when the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act was passed. Successive governments and parliaments have already recognised the fact of animal sentience both prior to, and since, Britain’s membership of the EU such as the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. The bill seems to be a solution looking for a problem but, given the support of Labour and the government’s determination to show it can do something other than host illicit raves, it will almost inevitably become law.
Still, that backing by the opposition should give Tory supporters pause to reflect on what such an empowered committee would look like under a future Labour government. They may be reassured now by the quality of names currently being put forward to serve on the committee. Would they feel the same way five or ten years down the line, when a Labour government, with all its prejudices, nominated its supporters to serve? It’s already been suggested that Peta staff could sit on the committee: how many road-building projects could be vetoed on the grounds of, say, the potential dangers to local foxes?
Given the experiences of the Home Office in fighting lawyers over the Human Rights Act, Steerpike is surprised that the prospect of death by a thousand judicial reviews is so appetising to the Defra mandarins. Mr S just looks forward to a future Conservative government being elected to take on the over-mighty lawyers empowered, er, by the legislation their colleagues fought to impose.
Comments