I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 9, at end insert—

‘(6) For the purposes of section 2 (2) in this Act, “sentient beings” means a being capable of sentience, where “sentience” means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.’

This amendment would insert a definition of sentience into the Bill for purposes of reference, based on the definition included in research commissioned by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”.

The amendment would basically insert a definition of “sentient beings”, which is the phrase used in the legislation. That definition, as I have put it, is:

“‘sentient beings’ means a being capable of sentience, where ‘sentience’ means the capacity to have feelings, including pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, warmth, joy, comfort and excitement.”

I know that other definitions might be proposed, but that definition was lifted from London School of Economics research entitled “Review of the Evidence of Sentience in Cephalopod Molluscs and Decapod Crustaceans”, which was commissioned by DEFRA and was part of the discussions about whether they should be included in the legislation. I am very pleased that they are now included. That is the definition that I have used.

The Minister said in speaking to clause 1 stand part that it was not usual to include definitions in the Bill, but in my experience, it is pretty common. The “Interpretation” clause states:

“In this Act ‘animal’ means”,

and goes on to define what an animal is, and it also defines “vertebrate” and “invertebrate” by referring to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, so I think it is quite common to include definitions. On Second Reading, some quite spurious points were made, and from my recollection of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, when we talked about sentience, people threw around slightly silly things. I think it would be helpful to have a definition in the Bill, and I cannot quite see what the argument against that would be.

A definition of “sentience” would give the Animal Sentience Committee an official reference point when considering the effects of legislation, and that is a good framework to work within. Without a definition, justifying decisions could prove problematic. A definition would shorten the process because the committee would not have to argue about whether an issue related to animal sentience.

I worry that sentience is sometimes seen as being just about feeling pain. Obviously, a lot of animal welfare discussions are about cruelty to animals, and that is what the public tend to focus on most, but as I have said, feeling pleasure comes back to the idea of the positive effects of things. We know from debates about caged birds and sow crates, or just about the way farm animals are kept, that animals—particularly intelligent animals such as pigs—need stimulation. It is actually very cruel to keep them somewhere where they cannot exhibit their natural behaviour.

Defining “sentience” would make it clear that the legislation is not just about stopping animals suffering pain. It is an apolitical expert decision, sourced from Government-commissioned research. The Government accepted that research when agreeing to include crustaceans, molluscs and so on in the Bill. The amendment would help the Bill and make it a better piece of legislation. I am interested to hear why the Minister does not agree.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving the amendment, by which she asks the important question of why we are not putting in a fixed definition of “sentience”. I reiterate that this is about the positive and the negative.

Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years—the hon. Lady referred to the LSE report—and will continue to evolve. The Government approach will be led by the science. We therefore decided that we would not include a fixed definition of “sentience” in the Bill because, in the course of time, it will become out of date. As I said, for the Bill to work, it is not necessary to define “sentience” in statute. If we accept that those animals are sentient, we accept the principle supported by the Bill that their welfare needs should be properly considered in Government policy decision making, so there is no need to increase the complexity.

This is the nub of the matter: if the Animal Sentience Committee wishes to adopt a working definition of “sentience”, it will be absolutely free to do so. One of the first acts of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission—a similar body, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded earlier—was to prepare its own working definition of “sentience”. So, should the committee wish to do the same, that would be a discussion for the experts to have, rather than for us in Government. I do not think that any of us would say that we are experts in defining; it is for the committee to choose.

I thank the Minister for mentioning the SAWC’s definition of “sentience”. She is correct that that happened in the early days after its formation. Will she require that of the committee? Will that be something to be discussed and required of the committee when it sits in future?

I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Scottish Government determined that that should be one of the SAWC’s first acts. I reiterate: it should be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to do the same and to have a working definition. The whole tenor of the Bill is to be future-proofed.

rose—

Order. Had you sat down, Minister?

I apologise, I did not see the hon. Gentleman.

I was caught on the horns of a dilemma there, because the Minister was answering the earlier intervention. I apologise if I missed this in the explanatory notes, but do we have any information on the composition of the committee, on the nature of the people, individuals or expert opinions who will make up the committee?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of reference. We do not want to be overly prescriptive about its make-up, nor do we want to be over-prescriptive in case, for example, experts were to come from the devolved nations. This is an expert committee to give sound scientific advice on which Ministers will make a decision. That is referred to clearly in the terms of reference.

That is an illogical argument. If we were to follow that through, there would be no point having amended the Bill to incorporate the recommendations of the report. It would have been easy to say, “The committee are the experts, they can decide whether molluscs and crustaceans are sentient beings.” We put things in legislation to steer the agenda of the committee. That is the very point.

I worry that the committee will be open to challenge. We saw misinformed hostility from many quarters on Second Reading, and I would have thought that the Government could solidify the fact that the committee is there to look at things other than just overt instances of animal cruelty. It would really help the experts on the committee to do their job if we were to define sentience in the Bill, so I will press the amendment to a vote.

And we will get to that, but before we do, I think the official Opposition would like to comment briefly.

Thank you, Sir Charles. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who made an excellent speech that clearly and articulately explained how important the definition is and why the amendment is so important. The definition is the key to understanding the whole Bill and how the committee will work. I vividly remember the proceedings on the Environment Bill, when we were told, “Don’t worry; the explanatory notes will explain all.” However, that is not the same as legislation. Explanatory notes are separate, which is why the Opposition are so keen to have the definition enshrined in the legislation. That is why we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am sorry if I am asking an obvious question, but when the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith says “no vote”, is that recorded as a positive abstention?

It is recorded as exactly what it is. The hon. Lady could say “abstention”, for example, but it is not recorded. It does not appear in the record.

Thank you, Mr Morris, for the point of order—it was a genuine point of order and required an answer. That was actually the first one I have had in 11 years, so thank you, Ms Brock, as well.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause sets out what types of animals are covered by the provisions of the Bill and are thus subject to consideration by the Animal Sentience Committee. It covers any vertebrate other than homo sapiens. The science is clear that vertebrate animals—those with a spine—can experience pain and suffering.

Furthermore, in 2020, my Department commissioned an independent review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters, and in the cephalopod class, which includes octopus, cuttlefish and squid. There has been much scientific interest in the sentience of such creatures for a number of years, because they are unusual among invertebrates in having complex nervous systems—one of the prerequisites of sentience. The review considered some 300 pieces of research, applying a robust set of criteria to reach its conclusions. On publishing the review’s findings last October, we accepted its central recommendation that, given the strong evidence of such creatures’ sentience, they should be included in the legislation.

We tabled an amendment to the clause in the other place, and we are pleased that it enjoyed cross-party support. However, we know that there is new scientific evidence emerging all the time, which is why we have sought to future-proof the Bill with a delegated power for Ministers to add species to the definition of animals by regulations, using an affirmative statutory instrument. Such a measure would be based on scientific evidence that particular species of invertebrates are sentient.

We have no plans to use the delegated power in the near future. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was the subject of considerable scientific research over many years, and we are not expecting compelling evidence on other species to emerge overnight. However, it is important to be able to keep the Bill’s scope up to date, in line with scientific developments.

Ministers will not be able to amend the Bill’s scope on a whim. Regulations laid under the delegated power would be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, and Parliament would rightly expect more compelling scientific evidence to be brought forward to justify any extension. If it were not convinced, Parliament would be able to vote down the regulations.

The clause therefore sets the scope of the Bill to cover creatures for which there is strong scientific evidence of sentience, and it includes a delegated power to keep the scope up to date with emerging evidence, subject to sensible checks and balances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.