鈥淢Ps quietly voted 鈥榯hat animals cannot feel pain or emotions鈥�,鈥� claimed one headline, after the UK鈥檚 parliament voted against an amendment on animal sentience.
That has led to widespread outrage on social media, and more than one petition. But MPs did not really vote that animals cannot feel pain and suffering. Rather, they voted against the UK government having a duty to take this into account post-Brexit.
All members of the European Union signed the Lisbon treaty, which came into force in 2009. Article 13 of the treaty states that 鈥渟ince animals are sentient beings, [countries must] pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals鈥�.
Advertisement
Sentience is the ability to feel pain and fear, as well as joy and happiness. Scientifically, there is now an overwhelming amount of research to suggest that many animals are sentient. 鈥淭he weight of evidence indicates that humans are not聽unique in possessing the聽neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates,鈥� declared a group of prominent researchers in 2012.
Specifically sentient
Article 13 was expected to simply carry over into UK law as part of the EU Withdrawal Bill, which will essentially transfer EU laws into UK laws post-Brexit. In July, when environment minister Michael Gove was asked in parliament if it would be included in the bill, he replied: 鈥淎bsolutely鈥�.
But it wasn鈥檛. And last week MPs voted down an amendment that would have included it. That led to the current controversy.
The UK鈥檚 ruling Conservative Party has defended voting down this amendment on the grounds that animal sentience is already recognised in UK law, particularly in the . Critics say this is not true. So who is right?
The 2006 act does not specifically use the word 鈥渟entient鈥�. It also applies only to vertebrates. But it does say that its protections can be extended to invertebrates 鈥渙n the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering鈥�.
Protection for pets
In other words, the 2006 act does implicitly recognise all vertebrates as sentient. This is made explicit in the government鈥檚 explanatory notes on the act: 鈥溾��
But this is not the same as incorporating Article 13 into UK law, say animal welfare groups such as the British Veterinary Association. Part of their objection is the fact that the act only regards vertebrates as capable of pain and suffering, while Article 13 applies to all animals. 鈥淣on-vertebrates are also sentient,鈥� says Gudrun Ravetz, vice president of the association.
The main issue, however, is that the 2006 act is intended mainly to protect the welfare of pets. Existing UK laws do not impose the same widespread obligation to take sentience into account as Article 13, says Ravetz. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 explicitly put the duty on the state to consider animal welfare when developing and implementing other policies.鈥�
So, although MPs haven鈥檛 explicitly voted that animals don鈥檛 feel pain, the UK will indeed be taking a backwards step in terms of animal welfare legislation if it fails to include something like Article 13 in its national laws after leaving the EU.
Ravetz points out that the UK was one of the countries that lobbied for Article 13 in the first place. She hopes .
