Sample Answers – Consultation on the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Draft Bill
Below are PETA’s suggested responses to help you answer the UK government consultation on a new draft bill introducing recognition of animal sentience and increased sentences for animal cruelty. If you can, please personalise your responses.
The consultation can be completed online, and the deadline for responses is 31 January 2018. More information is available here.
Questions 1–4:
Please enter your personal details as appropriate.
Question 5: Do you consider that the term ‘sentience’ should be defined explicitly?
Yes
Question 6: If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should we use?
The term “sentience” can be applied to any non-human organism who has the capacity to feel or perceive things, including but not limited to awareness of one’s surroundings, relationships with others, and both physical and emotional sensations such as pain, fear, and distress.
Question 7: Do you consider that the term ‘animal’ should be defined explicitly?
Yes
Question 8: If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should we use?
For the purpose of this bill, “animal” should be defined as all non-human vertebrate or invertebrate species. To avoid doubt, this definition should at the very least incorporate all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, and decapod crustaceans and should be defined so as to allow additional invertebrate groups to be included based on appropriate scientific evidence.
Notably, in response to a request from the European Commission related to “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes”, the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare opined that a wide range of invertebrates demonstrate a capacity to experience pain and suffering and thus should be considered sentient beings. Likewise, the panel concluded that many foetal forms of animals are considered to have the capacity to feel and to suffer and should also be protected. Therefore, in the interest of prudence, the precautionary principle should be adopted and the term “animal” should include both invertebrates and foetal forms.
Question 9: Do you consider that the term ‘welfare needs of animals’ should be defined explicitly in the clause?
Yes
Question 10: If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should be used, and should the list of needs in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 be changed?
The list of needs in Section 9(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should serve as a starting point to bring animal-welfare legislation in line with public opinion and contemporary scientific understanding of sentience. For example, the need for animals to be explicitly protected from emotional and physical pain, suffering, injury and disease should be incorporated into the definition. The legislation should also recognise the desire of animals to hold personhood, bodily liberty, and self-determination in light of scientific consensus that these traits exist in species including but not limited to great apes, grey parrots, elephants, dolphins, and cetaceans.
Question 11: Do you agree that the draft Bill should apply to all policy areas?
Yes
Question 12: If you answered ‘no’, why do you not agree with this?
N/A
Question 13: Do you agree that the draft Bill should adopt the term ‘should have regard’?
No
Question 14: If you answered ‘no’, how do you think the level of regard should be specified?
The phrase “must give full regard” better reflects the mandatory requirement which should be placed on policymakers when considering animal sentience in decisionmaking.
Question 15: Do you have any views or comments on the consequences of this new duty?
The duty as it stands in the draft bill requires Ministers of the Crown solely to take animal sentience into account during the decisionmaking process. This requirement should apply to all public policymakers – including but not limited to ministers, local authorities, and devolved legislatures.
To guarantee that the requirement to recognise sentience is being adhered to correctly, a mechanism must be put in place to ensure the government’s full and consistent execution of this duty.
Question 16: Do you have any views about whether a different formulation or approach might achieve the policy objectives? Views would also be welcome on how the approaches adopted in other countries might apply here?
The Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill should be used as the backbone to introduce other forward-thinking animal-protection measures to ensure that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of global animal welfare.
Question 17: Do you agree with the new maximum sentence?
Yes
Question 18: If you answered ‘no’, can you explain why you do not agree with the new maximum sentence?
The increase in the maximum sentence is welcomed, however, it should not be applicable only for “specified animal offences” in which egregious acts of violence and sadism are performed. Non-specified acts, such as starvation and conscious failure to provide necessary veterinary care, are just as deserving of the new maximum penalty. In strengthening the sentences for animal offences, the government should take into account expert opinion on sentencing guidelines.