Generally speaking, we expect those in positions of power in the UK to act in the best interests of their constituents and of the country. In the House of Commons, our elected representatives are at least accountable to those who they represent, even if we didn’t vote for them ourselves. Members of Parliament can lose their seats and be removed from power at the whim of the electorate when the opportunity arises and that often happens when it transpires that all they’re really interested in is serving their own agenda and vested interests. Or they break the law.
The House of Lords, though, is a different kettle of fish entirely, made up as it is of a combination of life peers appointed by the Crown (but nominated by the Prime Minister) and hereditary peers who simply have power because they were born into it. They’re accountable to nobody other than the law and whichever God they might believe in, they cannot be removed from power unless they break the law and, in the case of hereditary peers, they will be replaced by a member of their own family who, more often than not, shares exactly the same views and interests. And that can be a problem.
Let’s look, for example, at the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill currently before Parliament. It seeks to formally recognise animals as sentient beings and create an Animal Welfare Committee which will “put animal welfare at heart of Government policy”. The legislation will also “ensure that animal sentience is taken into account when developing policy across Government through the creation of a Animal Sentience Committee which will be made up of animal experts from within the field”. Animal experts. It’s a vague term but, in the context of the Bill, surely means those who have a knowledge of animals, care about their welfare, their place in the world and how to ensure they experience the best lives possible and, where necessary, the most humane death possible.
The Bill is unusual and, to my mind at least, pretty encouraging. It has still to be debated and passed in the House of Commons and I definitely believe there are a number of refinements necessary to close loopholes and better protect wildlife, livestock and domestic pets. It’s designed to further the UK’s reputation as a nation of animal lovers and to grant sentient beings the legal recognition and protection they unequivocally deserve. And yet, during its passage through the House of Lords this Bill has been attacked time and time again by conservative and labour peers who have tabled countless amendments to try and dismiss it, reshape it and even to dictate who should and should not be invited to sit on the Animal Sentience Committee. The main detractors in the House of Lords have one thing in common, they’re all senior members of the Countryside Alliance.
I saw a thread on Twitter recently in which someone was wondering how they might learn the key players in the House of Lords who lobby on behalf of the Countryside Alliance. One sure way is to read the daily Hansard transcripts of debates and gain an understanding of those peers who routinely seek to argue against anything that might adversely affect the interests of the shooting and hunting groups they represent. I can think of no better way to illustrate this than by providing some examples (with links to the full debates below) from the second and third (final) readings of the Sentience Bill in the House of Lords.
Back in the Summer, an amendment was tabled by Lord Mancroft, a Conservative hereditary peer and senior player in the Countryside Alliance. Mancroft may be known to some of you as the former Chairman of the Master of Fox Hunds Association (MFHA) and a vocal contributor to the leaked webinars that led to the conviction of an MFHA Director for encouraging and coaching illegal fox-hunting under the guise of trail-hunting. His amendment sought to revise the Bill such that it would specify who could sit on the Animal Sentience Committee it would create. The amendment garnered little support and Mancroft was obliged to withdraw his amendment.
Fast-track to early December 2021 and the second reading of the Bill. Lord Mancroft was absent from the House through illness but tabled another amendment through Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour life peer who happens to be the President of the Countryside Alliance. This time, Mancroft’s amendment sought not to specify who could sit on the Animal Sentience Committee but who could not. If you read the Hansard record of the debate, one Lord Robathan, who has publicly supported the Countryside Alliance at the Game Fair and other functions and who owns a farm in the Midlands, and shoots, asked openly;
“Before my noble friend sits down, could she reassure the House that, for instance, Chris Packham and Mark Avery of Wild Justice would not be eligible to be on the committee?”
Quite what Robathan’s personal beef is with two respected naturalists and wildlife campaigners was not made clear. His remarks was the most blatant of attempts to stop the Animal Sentience Committee becoming populated by anyone who does not embrace the doctrines of the Countryside Alliance and a glowing testament to the good work being done my Messrs. Packham and Avery, along with Ruth Tingay, through Wild Justice. (If you don’t already follow Wild Justice and subscribe to its regular newsletter then you should!).
Happily, Mancroft’s amendment was obliged to be withdrawn for the same reasons as his tabled amendment failed in the Summer. It will be for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to select the members of the Committee and outside the control (but still under the lobbying influence) of the Countryside Alliance. Whoever finds themselves invited to become a member of the Animal Sentience Committee, let us hope that Defra has an application and assessment process for more extensive and fair than relying on the prejudicial bias of members of an organisation determined to continue killing livestock and wildlife with abandon, whatever the environmental, social and animal welfare implications.
Please do have a read of the debate using the link below. Even a skim read will reveal the extent of opposition to this Bill among the hunting, shooting and fishing communities and that certain concerns over the drafting of the bill have some validity.
The excellent news for all those truly concerned with animal welfare in the UK is that the House of Lords approved the Bill and passed it to the House of Commons on 13th December 2021.
A number of peers took the opportunity to criticise the proposed legislation as it left the Lords including, naturally, Lord Herbert (Conservative life peer and Chairman of the Countryside Alliance) who tabled an amendment that the Bill be passed “with regret”. That amendment also failed and was withdrawn. Lord Mancroft, Baroness Mallalieu and the Earl of Caithness (a declared Countryside Alliance and National Farmers Union (NFU) member also took a swing at the Bill as it passed them by but without laying a glove on it.
In fact, the combined forces of the Countryside Alliance in the House of Lords did not achieve a single revision during the Bill’s passage (see the link below) and now the House of Commons will debate it. I’ll be watching with growing interest.
For anyone wondering who Lord Ridley might be (vocal in the 6th December debate) he’s a hereditary peer (Conservative) and a known climate change sceptic. His ancestral estate in Northumberland includes two open-cast coal mines and he owns a 6,000 acre grouse moor in County Durham. Astonishingly, this moorland is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is a little baffling to me. He’s also President of the Moorland Association, representing grouse moor estates in England and Wales. You can learn more about him here
https://whoownsengland.org/2021/01/04/the-climate-sceptics-grouse-moor/
To add some balance, or humour (he certainly makes me laugh), Tim Bonner, the CEO of the Countryside Alliance is extremely upset at this Bill’s progress and content and writes about it here;
https://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/tim-bonner-sentience-bill-opens-door-to-extremists
I wonder if Lord Robathan considers Chris Packham and Mark Avery to be “extremists”? If so, he needs to get out more and deepen his knowledge of the wildlife crimes committed daily by members of trail-hunts, game-keepers and others he vocally supports and with whom he blissfully associates.
ecolelogical 