Written evidence submitted by Crustacean Compassion (AWB0019) EFRA Select Committee Call for Evidence on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill Crustacean Compassion response: June 2021 Crustacean Compassion is the leading organisation in the UK campaigning for the humane treatment of decapod crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters Summary: This response summarises our response to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. Whilst we have answered all the questions, we invite you to pay particular attention to our response to Question 5, where we have summarised the case for the protection of decapod crustaceans (and cephalopods) under this Bill. Here, we cover the evidence for their sentience, the welfare issues at stake in their killing, housing and transport; the public support for their inclusion, the LSE review of the sentience of decapod and cephalopods and the risks if their inclusion is left to the use of the enabling power at a later date. For a further summary of these issues, please see our report. Q1. Will the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill ensure that animal sentience is properly taken into account in both new and existing Government policy in England? After years of discussion and debate, with a clear public mandate and a Conservative party manifesto commitment, we welcome the introduction of this Bill and the crucial duty that it places on all government departments to consider animal welfare in making and implementing policies. We are, however, concerned at the lack of a judicially enforceable duty on Ministers, who are only required to respond to the Animal Sentience Committee’s recommendations within three months in written form, with no requirement to follow those recommendations, and with no discursive Parliamentary scrutiny of any decisions Ministers take to reject the ASC’s advice. We would like to know what powers the ASC will have to hold Ministers’ decisions to account. Q2. Are there sufficient safeguards to ensure that the proposed Animal Sentience Committee will be (a) independent (b) have the necessary expertise and (c) have the necessary powers to be effective? We are concerned about the lack of clarity in the Bill over the independence, expertise and powers of the Animal Sentience Committee. a) Independence We recommend that the Committee’s independence is enshrined by the appointment of a full-time chair with secretariat, to build its security and independence. We also believe that the difference between the Animal Welfare Committee and the Animal Sentience Committee need to be clearly separated. They are different bodies – AWC is a body that provides advice to Defra when requested. The ASC will conduct proactive reviews of policy right across government departments. It also needs to be accountable to the public in the form of an annual report to Parliament, or similar. b) Expertise The ASC should have independent experts across a wide range of specialisms, with particular expertise in contemporary animal welfare science as well as veterinary expertise, since thinking has changed fast across even the last ten years, and scientists need to be comfortable with progress in the acceptance and appropriate evidencing of animal emotions, for example. It is important that there is also philosophical and ethical expertise, to interrogate taken-for-granted assumptions and values, and to weigh competing interests, human and nonhuman, with the necessary sophistication across a diversity of policy settings. There of course also needs to be legal and policy expertise. The Committee should not be dominated by only one industry, discipline or sector. c) Powers Currently the Bill has only a discretionary duty to review government policy for evidence of the appropriate regard to the welfare of animals. We believe it should have a clear duty for both the retrospective and the prospective review of policies where a clear risk to the welfare of animals is present. There should be a duty for ministers to report such policies to the Committee. The ASC should be appropriately resourced and have executive powers to call witnesses and access documentary evidence, in order to come to clear, informed judgements on the welfare of animals. In addition, the ASC should allow the committee to identify how the lives of animals might be positively improved as a result of specific policies. Doing this means that there will be a clearer duty to promote the flourishing of diverse species, and not just their bare existence. Paying attention to ‘a life worth living’, and not just the absence of abject suffering, is important; in order to recognise that animals, particularly those under our care, have the right to a decent quality of life with adequate mental stimulation, an appropriate environment and opportunities for social and emotional fulfilment. The committee must regularly review the scientific evidence for sentience in animals not covered by this Bill. We recommend every three years. This would avoid the situation outlined in Q5, whereby decapods and cephalopods were almost included in the Animal Welfare Act 2006; a report was published later the same year supporting their sentience; and yet no Defra review of their sentience was conducted until 2020. Q3. Are the proposed requirements on the Government to respond to an Animal Sentience Committee’s report sufficient? We are concerned that the Bill does not proscribe a prospective, direct duty upon Ministers to pay regard to the welfare of animals when making policy. The only duty is to report to Parliament after the receipt of a report from the Animal Sentience Committee. We are also concerned that the duty on the minister to respond to a report within three months is too lenient. We agree with the proposal for a cross-Whitehall Animal Sentience Strategy which sets out how ministers plan to have due regard to animal sentience: for example, by commissioning animal welfare impact assessments and any associated independent research required. The Strategy should also lay out which upcoming policies will fall within the scope of the Act. Additionally, the Bill should also require the Defra Secretary of State to report, in person, on the implementation of Strategy annually before Parliament, so that Parliament can evaluate the effectiveness of the ASC. Q4. How does the proposed Animal Sentience Committee compare to similar bodies, such as the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission? The SAWC recognises the sentience of decapods and cephalopods. We recommend the ASC do the same (see Q5). We would recommend that the ASC follows the example of the SAWC in its wide range of expertise, in its open and transparent recruitment process, and in the way that individuals are selected for appointment on the basis of their knowledge and expertise, not as representatives of particular groups or organisations. We approve of the Executive Powers afforded to the SAWC in order to perform its function, in Section 6 (general powers). Q5. Is the Government correct to limit the scope of the Bill to vertebrate animals? No, the Government is not correct to limit the scope of the Bill to vertebrate animals. We would like to see the Bill extended to cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans, given the ample evidence of their sentience that has amassed over the last decade and beyond; including a recognition of their sentience back in 2005 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)i. Including decapods and cephalopods in this Bill would also be consistent with the position of the Scottish Animal Sentience Commissionii. Evidence for sentience Cephalopods should be included because there is ample evidence that they are sentient and in particular that they can feel painiii iv v , which is the most commonly used criteria for the inclusion of an animal in welfare legislation. In 2010, the EU definitively ruled in favour of cephalopod sentience in EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposesvi, and they are already protected under the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, revised to include them in 2013. It would be only be legally consistent to include cephalopods in this Bill. For more information about cephalopod sentience and welfare issues, please contact Onekind (Scottish NGO) or the Association for Cephalopod Research in Italy. Decapod crustaceans should also be included, and our submission will focus on these species. A significant body of researchvii viii ix x xi xii has emerged which demonstrates that: a) decapods possess the requisite biological structures and processes to process a pain response b) decapods do not merely have a reflex “nociceptive” response to pain, but are able to experience it, remember it, and use their experience to make decisions. They also demonstrate different behaviour after the administration of painkillers. Our open letter from 2018xiii, asserting the sentience of decapod crustaceans and calling for their legal animal welfare protection, is signed by 55 world-leading animal welfare experts, veterinary bodies, and public figures. They include many whose expertise Defra and AWC regularly draw on: Professor Michael Appleby OBE Professor John Webster Dr Lynne Sneddon, aquatic animal welfare expert British Veterinary Association, signed by John Fishwick The Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Association (AWSELVA), signed by Paul Roger RSPCA, signed by Dr Julia Wrathall Professor Anil Seth, leading expert on consciousness Chris Packham and Michaela Strachan, naturalists and television presenters Public support and precedents from