← Back to House of Commons Debates
Health Bill - Clause 2
14 March 2022
Lead MP
Jim McMahon
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 31
At a Glance
Jim McMahon raised concerns about health bill - clause 2 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This amendment is aimed at ensuring that reports from the Committee are detailed and comprehensive, providing necessary insights into the health sector's operations and challenges.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West and Royton
I move this amendment to improve transparency and accountability in the reporting of the Health Committee. It ensures that all relevant information is included, enhancing public trust and understanding.
Nigel Evans
Con
Fylde
Proposes new clauses to establish an Animal Sentience Committee, which would produce reports on adverse effects of animal use in various contexts and ensure government policies take into account the welfare of animals. Outlines the importance of due regard for animal welfare in policy-making processes across departments.
North Cotswolds
He argues that his amendment would ensure equivalence to EU laws on animal sentience and proposes a statutory definition of the committee’s remit, which should include local customs, religious rites, cultural traditions, and regional heritage. He emphasises the importance of these safeguards in British law post-Brexit.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Mr. Farron supports new clause 5 to mandate an annual report on the number of sentient animals killed or injured due to pollution, water companies’ actions, and Government policy impact. He cites significant sewage dumping incidents in Cumbria and argues that the lack of prosecution and accountability is detrimental to animal welfare and biodiversity. Additionally, he speaks briefly for new clause 6, which would establish an annual report into how the Government has considered animal sentience when establishing trade deals.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
He supports amendment 2 to help avoid dangers posed by undefined aspects of the Animal Sentience Committee, ensuring clarity on its composition and powers. He emphasises preventing retrospective scrutiny, addressing co-operation requirements with Departments, safeguarding the committee from misuse or transformation, and protecting against extreme agendas that could harm rural interests.
Pontypridd
Welcomes the general aim of banning live exports and introducing animal sentience into British law but argues that the Bill lacks ambition. Expresses disappointment in the lack of a proactive animal sentience strategy, which would ensure proper underpinning of animal welfare legislation. Advocates for collaboration across departments to address digital space issues related to animal welfare.
Neil Parish
Con
Tiverton and Honiton
Supports the Bill as it stands, arguing that it strikes a balance between judicial review concerns and animal welfare needs. Acknowledges the need for flexibility in legislation compared to previous inflexible EU laws. Considers how different government departments will interact with the Animal Sentience Committee. Supports amendment 2 but is cautious about other amendments potentially causing issues. Emphasises the importance of infrastructure investment by water companies to reduce pollution, suggesting strengthening Ofwat's powers rather than amending this Bill.
North Cotswolds
[INTERVENTION] Agrees with Neil Parish that the cross-cutting nature of the Bill across government departments is beneficial, providing an example of how the Department for Education could educate people on pet care.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
[INTERVENTION] Supports Neil Parish's view that the Bill is well-balanced, suggesting no amendments from either side would improve it. Considers leaving the Bill as it stands.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Supports new clause 1 for its proactive approach and argues that excluding animal welfare experts from serving on the committee would undermine the bill’s effectiveness. She criticises amendments such as 7, which she believes are designed to weaken the Bill by limiting who can serve on the committee.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Intervenes to agree with Ms McCarthy that a strategy is necessary for the committee to make sensible decisions and recommendations. He suggests that without such a strategy, the public would doubt its focus on animal welfare.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Questions whether members of the Countryside Alliance should also be excluded based on Ms McCarthy's analysis, indicating a concern that such an exclusion would be too broad.
Neil Hudson
Con
Penrith and The Border
Supports the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, emphasising the need for clearer definitions of sentience in primary or secondary legislation. Advocates for a more proactive approach to animal welfare across government departments and calls for immediate action on issues such as pet theft, farm animal welfare standards, and international trade deals. Highlights the importance of biosecurity measures during animal imports and stresses the urgency to address workforce shortages in the veterinary sector caused by Brexit.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Intervenes to recall that leaving the European Union was meant to allow the UK to maintain its own high animal welfare standards, avoiding imports produced under lower standards.
Pontypridd
Intervenes to express concern over the prevalence of brachycephalic dogs at events like Crufts and calls for stronger protections against breeding practices that harm animal welfare.
Intervenes to urge DEFRA Ministers to expedite the roll-out of electronic horse identification systems both domestically and in Europe, highlighting its importance for animal welfare.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Intervenes to criticise the hypocrisy surrounding imports of fur and foie gras that are banned domestically, calling for a ban on importing such products.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports measures to tighten pet travel scheme requirements, such as increasing puppy age entry and banning dogs with cropped ears. Calls for visual checks to prevent puppy smuggling. Emphasises importance of working with Ireland on legislation due to Northern Ireland's border. Advocates for continued high standards in Northern Ireland’s agriculture sector amid trade deals.
North Cotswolds
[INTERVENTION] Discusses work with constituents to create horse databases and plans for similar dog/cat databases, including DNA markers to prevent microchip fraud.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
[INTERVENTION] Supports maintaining high animal welfare standards and ensuring trade deals do not flood markets with substandard products.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
He supports updating animal welfare legislation to reflect modern standards. He cites his constituency's diverse interests in both animal welfare organisations and agricultural businesses. David believes that rigorous enforcement of laws is necessary to ensure practical benefits for animals and communities. He also highlights concerns about sewage discharges affecting local rivers and the need for robust trade deal negotiations reflecting high welfare standards.
Deidre Brock
SNP
Glasgow North West
Ms Deidre Brock supports the Bill and calls for it to be strengthened by recognising animal sentience in scientific testing and military experiments. She references a recent petition calling for laboratory animals to be included under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, highlighting the lack of public awareness about the extent of such tests on dogs, cats, and monkeys. Ms Brock also cites statistics showing over 4,000 procedures were conducted on dogs in 2020 alone.
Jo Churchill
Con
Bury St Edmunds
The Minister supports the Bill's aim to set up an Animal Sentience Committee but opposes specific mandates on its work plan. She emphasises the committee should be led by experts and not restricted in defining sentience or scope of work.
Deidre Brock
SNP
Edinburgh North and Leith
Asked how Scottish Government can express concerns about animal testing, cosmetic testing, and military experimentation with the committee. Emphasised the importance of addressing these issues.
North Cotswolds
Welcomed the Minister's acceptance of his amendment requiring respect for religious rights, cultural traditions, and regional heritage. Believes this will allow the committee to focus on significant issues without unnecessary breadth.
North Hertfordshire
Praised the Minister for listening to concerns from various communities and acknowledged that the inclusion of amendment 2 will balance the Bill's implications, despite initial reservations.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
He emphasised that new clause 1 would ensure the government performs good governance by having a plan for supporting farmers and being held accountable. He expressed concerns about how British farmers are often left to fight alone, suggesting the government isn't on their side.
Announced that new clause 5 has been selected for a separate decision and later interrupted proceedings to maintain order in the House during Third Reading.
Moved that the Bill be read the Third time, acknowledging support from Members on all sides of the House who stood on their manifesto. She briefly interrupted by constituents making noise while she was speaking.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West and Islwyn
Acknowledged the importance of the Bill, noting that it recognises animals as sentient beings. She outlined the accountability mechanism required by the bill to ensure UK Ministers consider animal welfare needs when formulating or implementing Government policy.
Expressed gratitude for all staff involved and thanked many animal welfare organisations that have been in touch with her. She wished the new Animal Sentience Committee well, looking forward to seeing positive actions from the Government based on their deliberations.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.