Almost silently, the amendment to the animal law by Leonie Vestering of the Party for the Animals was adopted by both the House of Representatives and the Senate on May 11, 2021. If no other proposal is adopted soon, that amendment will enter into force on July 1, 2024. There are major concerns that this will lead to a lot of uncertainty among livestock farmers and a wave of lawsuits. There are several new proposals on the table. The big question hanging over the debate: what will the largest party, the PVV, do during the votes?
The Vestering amendment stipulates that it is 'no longer permitted to hurt an animal or cause injury to an animal, or to harm the health or welfare of the animal with the aim of housing the animal in a certain way. '. This means, among other things, that dehorning or docking is no longer permitted. The law also prohibits 'keeping animals in a housing system that permanently deprives them of the opportunity to exhibit their natural behavior'.
The Vestering amendment was advised against at the time by then Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten (Christian Union), because she foresaw that it would not be feasible. Also according to her party colleague, outgoing Agriculture Minister Piet Adema, the change in the law is impracticable for livestock farmers and unenforceable for supervisors. This is due to the lack of clarity about the requirements that livestock farmers must meet. The government started discussions for an Animal Husbandry Agreement in October 2022. Although they have come 'extremely far', according to Adema, this has not led to agreements because the cabinet has fallen in the meantime.
The minister has therefore now presented an amendment, which outlines measures that must later be laid down in general administrative measures (AMvBs). Until 2030, these are measures that require relatively little investment. Decisions on longer-term measures should be left to subsequent cabinets.
Concession Party for the Animals
According to Esther Ouwehand - who sees the enormous triumph for her party turning into a pyrrhic victory - the changes that Adema proposes are 'far from achieving' an improvement in animal welfare and, moreover, the ban on interventions is reversed, so that the carrying out of physical interventions will continue to be tolerated . That is why she has submitted a new amendment in which non-medical interventions will no longer be permitted as of 2025 and in which she makes it clearer what natural behavior should entail. According to her proposal, new stables and renovations must comply by 2025. For large-scale adjustments to existing stables, she gives room to 'the investment rhythm of companies and the depreciation period of stables'. All stables must meet the stated requirements by January 1, 2040 at the latest. She took that date from the minister's memorandum of amendment. She calls the new proposal a 'very painful concession'.
Unexpected collaboration
Parties are in the dark about what the PVV will vote for and that makes it very difficult to determine their position. This leads to unexpected collaborations, such as between D66 member Tjeerd de Groot and VVD member Thom van Campen, who jointly submitted a proposal for a change in the law. De Groot actually agrees with Ouwehand's proposal, but is afraid that it cannot count on a majority. For Van Campen, the reason is precisely that Adema does not yet have a majority for his amendment. In their joint amendment, Mellor's five domains that are based on positive animal welfare are laid down in law (the five freedoms from the Brambell report are cancelled). Stables for pigs, poultry, dairy cattle and calves must comply with the measures by 2040 at the latest and the Orders in Council for animal husbandry must be sent to the House of Representatives by the end of 2024. Adema thinks this is too early, since the Senate must first approve a change in the law and there is no new cabinet yet.
But the minister also advises against the proposal at a later date. According to Adema, the amendments by both Ouwehand and De Groot/Campen do not take sufficient account of 'the financial and economic implications for the livestock farmers involved' and require 'a step-by-step approach, which is partly necessary to cover the costs associated with animal husbandry. from the market is not sufficiently expressed'. Adema cannot support flanking policies that should make adjustments financially possible for livestock farmers because of his caretaker status.
Pieter Grinwis (Christian Union), together with Ouwehand and Eline Vedder (CDA), submitted a proposal to finance measures for animal husbandry from the Transition Fund (intended for nature goals). The minister also advises against this amendment.
Only the André Flach (SGP)/Vedder amendment leaves the minister to the House. It does not include concrete goals, but stipulates that animals are 'not permanently' denied the opportunity to meet their behavioral needs and that 'a reasonable transition period' is established within which animal keepers can recoup investments. In addition to the amendments, there is also a whole host of motions that need to be voted on.
How will the PVV vote?
In 2021, the Vestering amendment was adopted with a majority of 89 of the 150 MPs. The parties that voted in favor and are still in the House are: PvdD, D66, GroenLinks, PvdA, SP, FVD, JA21, Volt and PVV. Together they still have a majority in principle, but the proportions have shifted considerably. It is especially interesting what the PVV, now the largest party with 37 seats, will do. But he keeps his cards close to his chest.
"There is an elephant in the room and that is the PVV," Bromet summarized yesterday (Monday, March 11) during the continuation of the legislative consultation by the Agriculture Committee last week. In the past, the PVV has often helped the PvdD gain a majority on animal welfare proposals, but the party has many new MPs. Jeanet Nijhof-Leeuw, for example, who was unable to explain during the LTO Farmers' Congress last Thursday why the PVV voted in favor of a motion to phase out factory farming. And of course there are the formation discussions for which the PVV has already added a lot of water to the wine.
Things didn't get any clearer yesterday. It resembles a chess game where the players are blindfolded. During the consultation, proposals were made from all sides to make changes so that politicians would still want to support each other's proposals. There will certainly be further discussions about this behind the scenes in the coming days and the necessary refinements will be made. It remains to be seen what the final proposals will look like. As things currently stand, the votes will be on Tuesday, March 19.
According to PVV member Dion Graus, he will only now consult with his group. It is clear how he stands as 'the man of animal rights in the Constitution'. When asked whether he will advise his group to vote for the Ouwehand amendment, he says: "Let us be very clear: the Vestering amendment goes much further than the amendments currently before us, so you must know what I will do if I then advised to vote for the Vestering amendment. I will fight like a lion for everything that exists for animals." He doesn't seem so sure whether his faction will go with him this time: "Some things can change now and I can't do anything about it. I fight for the animals and if necessary I have to continue it immediately outside the House, on the end of the term."