| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.34 am
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): In principle, one of the most elegant pieces of English law based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic is the duty of care. We owe a duty of care to each other, and this place has a duty of care to its citizens. In that context we cannot rule out the duty of care that we as mammals ourselves owe to other mammals. The Bill is long overdue.
How times change. John Evelyn recorded that just300 years ago in 1690 in a debate in this very place a Bill failed to become law by just 10 votes because the majority
of hon. Members were away watching a pack of dogs baiting a tiger just two miles down the road. The situation has changed, although, sadly, it has not changed enough. Hon. Members have spoken about the way in which some hedgehogs and other animals have been treated. It is extraordinary that human beings can behave in that way towards other animals. It is almost as if they are psychopathic and have no empathy of feeling for other living creatures.
It is sad that it has taken so long for the Bill to come to the House, because the present law is riddled with loopholes. A hedgehog or a fox when kept as a pet is protected by law, but the same animals in the wild can be cruelly treated or tortured. The Bill will ensure that that cannot happen in future.
I noticed with a little distress that clause 7 of the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, cannot apply to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) could explain why that is the case.
Mr. Meale:
It is quite simply that Scotland and Northern Ireland are covered by other Acts, and have to be dealt with by those mechanisms. Hopefully, the Bill's provisions will be repeated in the appropriate Acts.
Mr. Fabricant:
If the Bill becomes law, I hope that the will of the House will be seen to be clear, and that a mechanism can be contrived, which happens if the will is there, to see that the Bill's provisions apply to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
That was an interesting exchange, and perhaps we could return to it on Committee. I think that the only requirement would be to find in Northern Ireland legislation words that are equivalent to those in clause 3.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was as helpful as ever. If he is correct, it seems that there is no impediment to the Bill covering Northern Ireland.
As hon. Members have said, there is considerable public feeling in favour of the Bill. I have received many letters in my constituency, particularly from people in Lichfield, supporting it. A few months ago, the RSPCA conducted a survey which showed that some 94 per cent. of the population--I am surprised that the percentage is so low--are keen to see the Bill in force.
In the past, the police have tried to take offenders to court for wanton cruelty to wild animals. The RSPCA has dealt with cases involving hedgehogs being burnt, beaten and impaled on sticks, and of live fox cubs being nailed to trees or set alight with petrol.
As I said, I cannot believe that people behave in that way. What sort of minds they must have that they treat other living creatures in that manner. Prosecutions have failed because of the many loopholes in the law. I am pleased that political correctness and political dogma have been overcome to enable the Bill to come to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
I welcome the Bill, not least because it is based on the concept of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said, for 100 years, all measures in the House to protect animals have been based on consensus. That is the British way--the sensible way. This Bill will pass into law because it recognises that, in a free society, progress affecting the rights of minorities has to be based on consent.
The Bill last year, sponsored by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), was doomed to failure, because it sought to ride roughshod over that principle. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has told us today that the Bill is merely a first step, but the League Against Cruel Sports will, I suspect and hope, ultimately fail, because it seeks to criminalise the activities of hundreds of thousands of decent, law-abiding people. That is why there is an internal crisis and a sense of frustration in the league, and why I suspect that the Bill is the work more of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals than the league.
Mr. Morley:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to many people why, under the Bill and existing law, it is illegal to set dogs on a tame fox, but why--even under the Bill--it will still be legal to set dogs on a wild fox?
Mr. Leigh:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because I was coming to that matter.
James Barrington, the league's executive director, who has just been forced out by the extremists, sought to raise that point. He dared to suggest--as, apparently, the Bill, by its uncontroversial nature, suggests--that field sportsmen are perhaps respectable members of society with rights and views that need to be taken into account. He suggested simply that, if terrier work were abandoned by hunts, they could enjoy greater public recognition, and that the league could conceivably change its attitude towards them. I personally have some sympathy with that view. It may be a compromise that is worth investigating.
No doubt Mr. Barrington is right in saying--or perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is right in saying--that the case against hunting would be even weaker if terrier work were banned, although no doubt the hon. Gentleman and others would go on suggesting that hunting should still be banned. I should like to know his view on that point.
Mr. Meale:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the preparation of the Bill, there has been equal partnership: equal advice has been given by the RSPCA and the League Again Cruel Sports. My advisers during the preparation of the Bill have been someone from the RSPCA and John Bryant from the League Against Cruel Sports.
I urge the hon. Gentleman not to dwell on the background of an industrial incident at the league because I know some of the background of that matter, which will be decided outside this place at an industrial tribunal.My impression is that I think the league was correct in what it did.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the debate continues, may I make the point that we are debating the
Mr. Leigh:
I am happy to leave Mr. James Barrington--I have made that point.
The Bill recognises what should be a cardinal feature of our debates: in a free society, we cannot suddenly legislate away in a private Members' time on a wet Friday afternoon rights that have existed since time immemorial. At the very least, a Government would need to be elected with such a provision in their manifesto. Perhaps a referendum would be required. It is interesting that the Labour party, which could take that course, chooses not to do so. It recognises, as we all do, that this is primarily a moral and not a political issue.
Do I then argue that, in a pluralist and liberal society, which, like everyone else here today, I support, people should be allowed to do exactly what they like? Of course not, which is why I support the Bill, and why we will all allow it to go through. People should not be allowed to derive gratuitous pleasure simply from torturing animals. I suspect that only a small minority do so, and I know of no respectable field sportsmen who derive such pleasure from any pain inflicted on animals.
There is another point. If, for some extraordinary reason, hunting with dogs had never been invented,it would have to be invented now, because sometimes it is not possible to control pests without dogs. Hunting, shooting and fishing as sports have been a feature of rural life for centuries. In those circumstances, it is neither morally right nor feasible to criminalise something undertaken every weekend by millions of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my previous guidance. We must consider what is contained in the Bill rather than do a general survey of other matters that, although they may be related, are not in the Bill.
Mr. Leigh:
I am happy to take your guidance on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth saying, however--this is the point that I really wanted to make in my few remarks--that, if we are going to make any progress in these matters, as I believe we have to, we must recognise that there are people in this country who have alternative views.
Mr. McFall:
As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not taken part in any negotiations on either my Bill or this Bill, unlike the hon. Member for Wimbledon(Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope). Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is coming across as shrill, partisan and out of keeping with the tone of this morning's debate, when we have focused solely on the issue of animal welfare. It would do the hon. Gentleman good to take a leaf out of the book of hon. Members debating the issue this morning.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |