Written evidence submitted by PDSA (the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals)
Who we are: PDSA is the UK’s leading veterinary charity. Through a UK-wide network of 48 Pet Hospitals, we provide free veterinary care to the sick and injured pets of people in need and promote responsible pet ownership. We are in our centenary year, having been founded in 1917 by animal welfare pioneer, Maria Dickin CBE.
Why we are making this submission: PDSA is making this submission because provisions and adequate legal protections for the health and wellbeing of sentient animals, including explicit legal recognition of animal sentience, is core to our vision as a veterinary charity.
Yes, the term should be defined.
We propose the following definition:
“Sentience is the capacity to feel things and to be able to consciously experience feelings, such as fear, hunger, pleasure and pain.”
Sentience is the fundamental, morally relevant basis upon which animal welfare concern rests (Kirkwood 2006) – a sentient animal is one with interests, whose welfare, wellbeing or quality of life (which we take to be synonymous) must be given regard and accounted for.
Including a definition of sentience will be important, as we note that several terms and concepts are sometimes used interchangeably or with mixed meanings – for example, sentience, cognition and consciousness. Cognition relates to thoughts and information processing. Consciousness can be tiered, ranging from the basic capacity to feel through to higher order consciousness (e.g. self-reflection and “thinking about thinking”). Sentience (as stated above) is the capacity to feel things and to be able to consciously experience feelings. In this way, sentience and “basic” (or “phenomenal”) consciousness may be analogous – it is better to use sentience, with its single meaning, for clarity and to avoid confusion.
Yes, we suggest that “animal” should be explicitly defined, using the Animal Welfare Act (2006) definition as a starting point, i.e. “Animal means any vertebrate other than man which is not in its embryonic or foetal form.”
The Animal Welfare Act allows for animals outside this definition to be included on the basis of scientific evidence that they are sentient and capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Evidence based on cognitive abilities and neural structure and function indicates that cephalopods (e.g. octopus) should therefore be included, as should decapod crustaceans (e.g. lobsters and crabs). Similar scientific evidence may also indicate that foetal vertebrates should be included.
The definition of “animal” in the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act (1999) should be considered as a way of achieving these aims (nb. the long title of this Act was amended in 2015 to include an express statement that the basis of the legislation was, in part, ‘to recognise that animals are sentient’. The definition of “animal” remains as originally enacted):
(a) any live member of the animal kingdom that is— (i) a mammal; or (ii) a bird; or (iii) a reptile; or (iv) an amphibian; or (v) a fish (bony or cartilaginous); or (vi) any octopus, squid, crab, lobster, or crayfish (including freshwater crayfish); or
(vii) any other member of the animal kingdom which is declared from time to time by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be an animal for the purposes of this Act; and (b) includes any mammalian foetus, or any avian or reptilian prehatched young, that is in the last half of its period of gestation or development; and (c) includes any marsupial pouch young; but (d) does not include— (i) a human being; or (ii) except as provided in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c), any animal in the pre-natal, pre-hatched, larval, or other such developmental stage.
We understand that the Animal Welfare Act (2006) sought to enshrine the principle of the Five Freedoms, and rearticulated these freedoms as needs – now often referred to as the “five welfare needs”. This is a convenient five-step guide to animal health and wellbeing, which many veterinary and animal welfare organisations use as a device for communicating care requirements to animal owners.
PDSA, for example, has assessed the health and wellbeing of the UK’s pet dog, cat and rabbit populations, through its PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) report, annually since 2011, asking “are the UK’s pet dogs, cats and rabbits having their five welfare needs met?”
We note, however, that framing care requirements as “needs” implies a minimum, and doesn’t promote going beyond basic needs to include positive aspects of wellbeing. We therefore propose that “needs” is dropped from the wording and replaced with: “Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the health and wellbeing of animals as sentient beings”.
Additional wording could be included in the Animal Welfare Act (2006) to clarify that while meeting an animal’s needs gives a baseline, additional opportunities for positive welfare should also be given whenever possible. As an example, a dog being cared for in a rehoming shelter may have his/her needs met, yet wouldn’t typically experience the enjoyment of a dog that has regular contact with his/her owner; can choose to sleep in a preferred dog bed in a preferred location within a home; has regular, stimulating walks with opportunities for playing with favoured toys, etc – which may capture the elements of a “good life” (positive welfare) rather than simply a “life worth living” (meeting basic needs).
Yes, we believe that this Bill should apply to all policy areas, covering all areas where animals may be impacted by man; for example, as companions; in the wild; when being used for research purposes; for sport and entertainment. Animal sentience should be fully accounted for, regardless of how an animal is being used or potentially impacted by a proposed or actual policy.
There should be no implied exemptions similar to those in the Lisbon Treaty covering religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. Regard for sentience should be required for all policy areas that could impact upon sentient animals.
We would suggest Defra provides a central resource for all government departments, to ensure adequate expertise is embedded across government.
We feel this should be strengthened by stating how the regard should be applied and acted upon, and how the interests of sentient animals will be fairly, consistently and transparently weighed against other public interests – for example, by introducing a standard Animal Welfare Impact Assessment to be applied consistently to proposed new policies across government.
We note that in the Lisbon Treaty the wording is “…shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals…” We request that “shall” be used rather than “should” and that “full” regard should be reinstated.
We warmly welcome this Bill and the opportunity it presents to safeguard and promote animal welfare. We encourage the government to grasp this opportunity for the UK to continue taking the lead in animal welfare legislation. The consequences of the duty will be to ensure that the interests of sentient animals are fully considered and accounted for, reflective of a humane society that meaningfully extends compassion beyond humans, to include all beings that experience a quality of life.
We feel that New Zealand has taken a progressive approach to incorporating animal sentience, and the moral obligations that flow from it, in to their 2015 national legislation. The New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) “advocates a definition of sentience that encourages a prioritisation of positive states and welfare enhancement consistent with scientific knowledge and current public expectations of 'good practice'”. The definition of sentience that they support is “the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively i.e. the animal is not only capable of feeling pain and distress but also can have positive psychological experiences, such as comfort, pleasure or interest that are appropriate to its species, environment and circumstances. To state that animals are sentient accepts that they can experience positive and negative emotions. Such an acknowledgement establishes a responsibility for those in charge of animals to treat them in such a way as to prevent unnecessary pain or distress and to provide opportunities for them to experience positive emotions" (www.nzva.org.nz/page/positionsentience/Sentience.htm).
We fully support the proposal to increase the maximum penalty for specified animal welfare offences from six months to five years’ imprisonment. This should be kept under review and increased further, if necessary, in future.
January 2018