| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Like him, I have pharmaceutical companies in my constituency, and I have also followed, with approval, much that the Government have done to toughen up still further the laws that we introduced when we were in Government. I pay tribute to what Ministers have done, not only the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, but other Home Office Ministers in the previous Parliament. As a member of the shadow Home Office team, I worked with them and Labour Back Benchers to toughen up the law. I take the opportunity also to mention the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He is not a member of this Committee, but he did a great deal of work on a previous Bill in Committee on which I was the Conservative spokesman. Between us, we managed to improve previous legislation to give further protection for research scientists. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, this is not the right occasion to go into the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation. However, like members of the Conservative Government, Ministers have said time after time that research scientists who are carrying out lawful work should not have to live in fear of their lives. Employees of the companies based in Surrey Heath, such as Novartis and Eli Lilly, are constantly telling me that we need to ensure that the extremists in Column Number: 206 the animal rights movement, who behave like terrorists, are not a threat to them and their families.We all remember some of the appalling events that have taken place, in particular when a scientist in the west country had a bomb placed under his car by the terrorists. When the bomb went off, the force of the blast went sideways, luckily missing the scientist but unfortunately injuring an innocent bystander—a young woman pushing her child in a buggy along the pavement beside the scientist's car. All parliamentarians recognise the need to provide further protection, and as I have a similar constituency interest as my hon. Friend, I thought that it was important reinforce the point. I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept the precise wording of the new clauses, he will say that he understands the spirit behind them and that he will be prepared perhaps to table Government amendments to incorporate that spirit. If he has any doubts about that, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to confirm that that he will talk to some of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), a distinguished cancer scientist who spoke about these issues, and the hon. Member for South Thanet, who has pursued these issues in the past? We all recognise that there is a constant battle to ensure that people carrying out their own law-abiding research are protected against extremists. There is a national interest. Britain has been a home of research science for a century and more. I declare my personal interest. I think that I am the only Member both of whose parents were research scientists. They are both retired and neither of them worked with animals. However, if one grows up in a family where one's parents are involved in research science, one understands the crucial importance of maintaining Britain's position at the forefront of technological developments. I cannot stress too strongly how important I consider these matters. I hope that we will have the same constructive response from the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as I have had from other Ministers. Mr. McNulty: I recognise, as do the Government, the problems that new clauses 3 and 4 are designed to address. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about protesters outside homes and on the front lawn or drive. He will know that that can be dealt with under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. His wider point about protesters outside the home but off the drive or the front lawn was well made. I fully accept that it is entirely unacceptable for a small minority of animal rights extremists to attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their legitimate business. It is important that the message gets through and that the public appreciate that the biotechnological and pharmaceutical industries are doing valuable work and understand the methods of some of those who oppose them. The Government recognise and support the right to legitimate peaceful protest, as does the Committee, but we do not and should not tolerate protests that are violent or intimidatory. Column Number: 207 There is a clear and ongoing campaign by some animal rights activists to intimidate individuals and businesses in a way that is unacceptable and often unlawful. Such activities include criminal damage, vandalism, threats, malicious communications, and harassment in the form of protest outside the homes of those who work in the bioscience industries and their suppliers, as the hon. Gentleman described. He highlights some real concerns and makes some serious points. We always anticipate keeping public order legislation under review, and with the indulgence of the Committee we would like to take the points away to consider them further and to decide whether we need to return to them at a later stage. On behalf of my ministerial colleague on the Committee I can assure the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that we will give due consideration to new clauses 3 and 4. We first need to consider the drafting to see whether they do what they purport to do. If we feel that we need to come back at a later stage, we will do so. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion. Mr. Paice: That is the sort of constructive response that I was hoping that the Minister would give. I am grateful to him. Obviously it would be daft to pursue the matter to the extreme. Before engaging in the formalities, may I seek confirmation from the Minister that it is not just a question of keeping the matter under review, but that the Government are considering what can be done to improve the situation? I would not expect the Minister to know as it is not his Department, but in a debate in Westminster Hall two or three months ago the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) stated that the Government were not just keeping the matter under review, but were actively considering what could be done to improve the situation. I therefore hope that keeping it under review is not simply nice words, but that a positive approach will be taken to examine how the legislation can be improved, so that we can protect those whom the Minister and I would wish to protect. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way. Mr. McNulty: The broader view to take, as any Government would, is of the overall public order legislation, which needs to be kept constantly under review. As the hon. Gentleman said, active consideration of those specific purposes is taking place, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. We want to take away the new clauses to see whether it is appropriate, germane and feasible to do anything with the Bill in that area. Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, because that is very much what I wanted to hear. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to do whatever they conclude is necessary to make the law more effective. I identified the Bill as a potential vehicle: hence the debate on the new clauses. I hope that the Government, even if they decide that the new clauses are not appropriate, will use the Bill as a vehicle for toughening up the legislation and making it Column Number: 208 more enforceable. As we all know, such legislative vehicles do not come by every day, and it is important to use the opportunities when they arise. I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking and response and look forward to hearing his further views on the matter, or those of the Under-Secretary, later in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 13 May 2003 |
