A number of my constituents have contacted me and asked why I did not vote for an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill relating to animal welfare. I hope the following helps to explain the current position and why this amendment was not necessary.
I can reassure you that the existing welfare standards which we adhere to are not being altered. Britain will be keeping, and be subject to, the same laws when leaving the EU as currently apply to us as EU members. This means that all rules and regulations which apply now will continue to apply when we leave the EU. Every law we have at present, including animal welfare laws, is going to be transferred on Day 1 when we leave the EU. This is what the EU Withdrawal Bill does and that is what I have voted to do.
It is because our welfare laws, and other laws, will be the same when we leave the EU that I did not vote to add this amendment, or any other amendment, to the EU Withdrawal Bill. To do so would have caused risks because (a) Parliament has already devised this simple mechanism for transferring so this is duplication and (b) duplication leads to conflict meaning we could end up weakening the standards to welfare, and other areas, if we are not careful.
In a letter to colleagues dated 23 November, Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made this clear. He said:
"This Government is committed to the very highest standards of animal welfare. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we will make the United Kingdom a world leader in the care and protection of animals.
Some voices have suggested that the vote last week on New Clause 30 of the EU Withdrawal Bill somehow signalled a weakening in the protection of animals. That is plain wrong. Voting against the amendment was not a vote against the idea that animals are sentient and feel pain. That is a ridiculous misconception.
Ministers explained on the floor of the house last week that this Government’s policies on animal welfare are driven by our recognition that animals are indeed sentient beings and we are acting energetically to reduce the risk of harm to animals – whether on farms or in the wild. Last week’s vote was simply the rejection of a faulty amendment, which would not have achieved its stated aims of providing appropriate protection for animals.
And at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, the Prime Minister made it crystal clear that we will strengthen our animal welfare rules. This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a properly rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU. The Withdrawal Bill is not the right place to address this, however we are considering the right legislative vehicle.
We are already proposing primary legislation to increase maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and the creation of a new statutory, independent body to uphold environmental standards.
The truth is that 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 unclear and it has failed to prevent practices across the EU which are cruel and painful to animals.
In contrast, here in the UK, we are improving animal welfare standards without EU input and beyond the scope of Article 13. We are making CCTV mandatory in all slaughterhouses – a requirement which goes above and beyond any EU rule. We will consult on draft legislation to jail animal abusers for up to five years – more than almost every other European nation. We propose combatting elephant poaching with a ban on the ivory trade which is more comprehensive than anywhere else in Europe. Our ban on microbeads which harm marine animals has been welcomed by Greenpeace as “the strongest in the world”, and is certainly the strongest in Europe.
Once we have left the EU there is even more we could do. EU rules prevent us from restricting or banning the live export of animals for slaughter. EU rules also restrict us from cracking down on puppy smuggling or banning the import of puppies under 6 months. Article 13 has not stopped any of these practices – but leaving the EU gives us the chance to do much better. We hope to say more in these areas next year."
I hope this is helpful and explains why I did not vote for the Amendment and why the rigorous animal welfare laws are not being weakened as we leave the EU.