| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with all that. May I go now?
Mr. Marshall: I wonder what the fee will be for my hon. and learned Friend's opinion.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): Substantial.
Mr. Marshall: I fear that my hon. Friend may be right.
It is traditional for one or two local issues to be raised in debates such as this. Let me mention some that are of concern to my constituents. One is the London fire and civil defence authority's recommendation that fire cover in the capital should be reduced, although its finance director has told it that its reserves of £27 million are too high. Surely it is wrong for the authority--dominated as it is by the Labour and Liberal parties--to recommend a reduction in fire cover in London, and in my constituency in particular, when it has been told that its reserves are too high. Those reserves should not be stashed away, no doubt in an attempt to produce a lower council tax rate in election year in London; they should be used now, to provide fire cover for my constituents and those of other London Members.
Let me raise two more local issues. One concerns the future of an institution called College farm--an oasis in north London that is deeply loved by my constituents and those of other Barnet Members. It is visited by many thousands of children and others each month, but the Department of Transport has decided that it is surplus to requirements. I hope that, when he decides its fate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will heed the representations of thousands of my constituents and thousands of other people in Barnet, and the campaign run by the Hendon and Finchley Times, and allow the farm to remain a farm rather than being sold for commercial or residential development.
Finally, let me briefly raise an issue that concerns many residents of the London borough of Barnet. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to learn that I refer to developments at Edgware hospital. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) for the way in which he has led the parliamentary campaign. He has tabled a parliamentary question on the issue, which is to be answered on 6 June.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
I was waiting for the hon. Member for Hendon, South(Mr. Marshall) to get round to the Schleswig-Holstein question. Next time he wishes to raise 10 issues, perhaps he will bring out a little book and we can all buy it when it is duly remaindered.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman referred to the choice of London as the millennium site. As he rightly supposed, I agree with him about that, but the way in which the choice was made does not befit the
millennium and the way in which we should celebrate it. The Greenwich site still looks like a bomb site; no wonder hon. Members representing constituencies outside London are complaining so bitterly. I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if we had had a strategic authority in London, all the dithering over the development of the site would not have happened--but we shall return to that anon.
I wish to raise two issues. The first relates to the vexed problem of Norway's resumption of commercial whaling yesterday. Early-day motion 889, which appears on today's Order Paper and has so far been signed by 143 hon. Members from all parties, refers to Norway's decision to slaughter some 425 minke whales, as well as an unspecified number for what it refers to as scientific whaling purposes. That decision was made in defiance of the International Whaling Commission. Norway declared a unilateral resumption of commercial minke whaling in 1993, but the IWC rates the minke whale as a protected species. Minke whales are migratory creatures, and they belong to us all; they certainly do not belong to Norway.
I will not tax the House by describing the method of destruction, but a penthrite grenade is fired into the body of the whale and then explodes, releasing a huge volume of gas and inflicting enormous pain and suffering. When the whales do not die swiftly--within, say, 10 seconds--Norwegian whalers finish them off with large hunting rifles. That is barbarous, and it is scandalous that it should done by a neighbouring country with which we have close relations. When I raised the matter during business questions, the Leader of the House said that he would protest, or at least pass on the comments that were made--not just my comments, but those of all 143 Members of Parliament--to the Norwegian authorities. I hope that he will tell us exactly what he has done.
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth):
My hon. Friend has pursued this matter diligently, both here and in Strasbourg, where Mrs. Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister, boasted that half the whales had died instantly. We pointed out that the other half had not.
Mr. Banks:
That, too, was an all-party attack on Gro Harlem Brundtland, which resulted in her complaining to the then leader of the Labour party that she had been attacked by a fellow socialist. I feel ashamed to describe Gro Harlem Brundtland as a socialist--particularly one who goes around the world boasting of her green credentials, and saying that Norway is at the cutting edge of environmental and ecological concern. That is rank hypocrisy, and I cannot wait to tell Mrs. Brundtland so again next time our paths cross.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth(Mr. Hardy), very appropriately, raised the question of how long it takes whales to die. Whales are sentient beings--sensitive creatures with a social grouping system. They have feelings, many of which we do not fully understand. We should be studying these marvellous creatures, not slaughtering them for whale meat and blubber, much of which ends up on plates in Tokyo. It is unnecessary, and it is done mercilessly.
Let me inform my hon. Friend that, in Norway's 1995 catch, according to Norwegian records 62 per cent. of whales were killed instantly, 11 per cent. were still alive after 10 minutes and 4 per cent. were still alive after
15 minutes. The average time for death was three minutes 24 seconds and the longest recorded time was nothing less that 43 minutes and 20 seconds. Unfortunately, in many cases, the whales were pregnant, so the infant was killed as well as the cow. It is monstrous that that is being done by a European nation--or by any nation. The strongest possible protest must go out.
What is the result? According to the Norwegian figures, the 1995 catch resulted in the landing of 327.5 tonnes of meat worth 10 million Norwegian krona, which is about £1 million. All that suffering for £1 million--it seems monstrous.
I raise that matter because the plenary session of the IWC takes place in Aberdeen on 24 June. I hope that as many people as possible will be there to protest against the Norwegians' conduct and defiance of the IWC. They must be in no doubt about the intense anger throughout this country--not just in Parliament--about the way in which the Norwegians are flouting the international whaling convention.
The second issue relates to dogs. Yesterday, the Prime Minister cried havoc and unleashed the dogs of war. I found many aspects of that surreal. The one thing about declaring war and delivering an ultimatum is that one must ensure that one has an escape route, and I do not think that the Prime Minister has. I do not intend to go into the matter too deeply, but it seems entirely appropriate to me that we should go to war over semen; it is an appropriate thing for a Government of onanists to go to war over.
I want to concentrate on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was a rotten piece of legislation. It was passed in haste. I remember standing in this very spot to warn the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who has now moved on to other things. The warnings were ignored. Everything was done in a rush. There was a public reaction, we legislated in haste and we are now repenting at some leisure.
The operation of the 1991 Act defies common sense and denies normal and compassionate treatment for animals and human beings alike. We all know why it came about--because of the attacks by pit bull terriers. Section 1 of the Act defines a pit bull terrier, but it is a confused definition. At times, one does not know what such a terrier is, as so many crosses are involved. Under section 10(3), dangerous dog activity might merely be threat or intimidation. No actual damage may be inflicted on a human being, but the Act can be brought into operation if someone feels intimidated by a dog. The Act is confused and imprecise.
Court cases are costing an average of £10,000 and an enormous amount of police time is involved. None of that makes sense. The courts have no discretion on sentencing, other than to order the destruction of the dog. We should not be proud of that. The Act has taken any discretion on the part of magistrates away, which does not seem fair in law and certainly is not fair to the dogs and their owners. It has resulted in appalling cases of suffering and heartache for dogs and owners. I know of thousands of examples of the way in which the Act has operated, but I shall give only two.
The first example relates to Mr. Bates and his dog Otis. In 1992, the police stopped him on the motorway--there was a dog in his car. The court decided that Mr. Bates' car was a public place. He appealed, but the High Court
also decided that it was a public place and that Mr. Bates should have had a muzzle and a lead on the dog while he was driving. That shows the level of absurdity that we have reached under the Act. He appealed and went to the European Court, but was turned down and Otis was destroyed on the same day as the IRA exploded a bomb in docklands. That was an absurd case, and the legislation is absurd.
The second case is still before the Home Secretary and concerns Jessie--an inoffensive, toothless dog, thought to be suffering from motor neurone disease. When Jessie was found by Southwark Crown court to be a type of pit bull terrier and condemned to die in June 1995, she had never put a paw wrong. When she was brought before the court, the judges removed their wigs in case they frightened her. In court, she limped pathetically and dragged her left leg because she is lame. Indeed, there were tears in the court room. That was the last time that her owner saw Jessie and it was a painful scene for anyone to behold.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |