| Parliamentary and Other Activity |
 |
| Animal Welfare Speech |
|
| Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): I join those other Members who have paid much-deserved tribute to Tony Banks. Tony was a tremendous worker for animal welfare. He is obviously most closely associated with the Hunting Act 2004, but he was also involved in a vast range of other initiatives, including even almost declaring war on the Chinese Government over the treatment of bears in China. A lot of his work and his agitation over the years is represented here in this Bill; in many ways, it stands as a fitting tribute to his time in Parliament. |
|
| I begin with some extremely unusual words, four of them: I congratulate the Government. [Interruption.] Members will never hear it again. That is probably about as friendly as I intend to get during this debate, but to be serious, I do congratulate the Government on introducing the first comprehensive animal welfare measure in a very long time. Many individual pieces of such legislation have been passed by successive Governments, but this is the first comprehensive Bill for a long while. I do not refer to Liberal Governments so I shall not say how long the period has been, but I am delighted that this Bill has been produced. |
|
| Very often, people are inclined to be dismissive about the importance of animal welfare and say that we should attend to other priorities. They think that concern for animals is based on a misplaced anthropomorphism or sheer sentimentality, whereas I believe that how we treat our animals is a measure of society. Animals have no voice of their own that they can make heard. Any ill treated human being can speak, but animals cannot: what goes on behind closed doors is determined entirely by human beings. Because animals have to take whatever we dish out, it is right that we should create a proper legislative framework to ensure that any suffering that might be inflicted is both necessary and minimal. |
|
| I have never been an extremist when it comes to animal welfare. I am not a vegetarian, nor do I think that it is never justifiable to use animals in medical research, but I do believe that we have a duty to prevent suffering whenever it is unnecessary. However, many of the proposals are grey rather than black or white, and we must clarify them as the Bill passes through the House. |
|
| For example, I am very relieved that the Bill deals with the concept of an animal's welfare, and not just with the cruelty that it might suffer. However, most hon. Members will accept that there is a difference between undue negligence—the harm inflicted by people who simply do not care what animals go through—and the sort of neglect that is inflicted through ignorance. I am not sure that the Bill makes that distinction, even though the latter type of neglect is inflicted on animals in this country every day. |
|
| Many people approach the ownership of animals with sentimentality, but it is a serious business. My most recent vet's bill came to £590, even though I only have two—admittedly quite fat—domestic cats. Owning animals incurs costs and calls for responsibility and vigilance, and the fact that many people do not understand that is especially evident at this time of year, when many Christmas presents are left tied to trees. |
|
| I am not such a child as to propose that we legislate for that lack of understanding. That would be impossible, but we must examine the amount of education available to people at the point when they acquire an animal. I believe that, at that moment, people should be given a considerable degree of education about what is involved in keeping an animal throughout what might be quite a long life. |
|
| The number of people who do not know the life spans of the animals that they take on is amazing. For example, some people think that a tortoise will live for only five years or so, when in fact it might live longer than most people. It is crucial that people understand what is involved in owning a pet. |
|
| Mr. Vaizey: I do not want to pre-empt any of my right hon. Friend's remarks, but does she think that there are some animals that are wholly unsuitable for keeping as domestic pets? |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend's timing is immaculate, as was the case earlier with an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. In fact I was going to speak about primates in a few seconds. |
|
| With some animals, ownership can be justified only very rarely. In the case of primates, it may very occasionally happen that a scientist rescues one that is not suitable for release into the wild and which cannot be placed in a zoo because it is not au fait with others of its species. Such circumstances may come about on very rare occasions, but most people will cleave to the proposition that a human being does not need to own a primate as that would not be in the animal's interest. |
|
| The Bill does not deal with the matter of keeping primates as pets, and another large grey area in the proposals has to do with circus animals. Children of my generation used to love going to the circus, where the animals' performance gave us much innocent pleasure. I remember, of course, the chimps' tea party. I did not see anything like it again until I saw Prime Minister's questions. [Laughter.] I also remember seeing elephants balancing on an amazingly small space. I have seen balancing acts in this place, but nothing in between that was as spectacular. Now, of course, I understand, as I suspect we all do, that much of the conduct used to persuade animals to act in that fashion is not benign—and that is a deep understatement. |
|
| It appears that under present legislation it is legal to beat an animal in a circus in order to produce the required performance, although it is not legal to beat the animal once the performance has been produced. In other words, one may use physical punishment to train an animal in a particular method. That has to be wrong, because there is no gain for humanity in a successful circus performance. I am therefore concerned—and that concern is shared by animal welfare organisations—about some of the changes that have been made to clause 4. We are told that it has been tidied up, but the provision in clause 4(3)(d) seems to be a get-out clause, because it provides that an assessment of suffering may include whether it was |
|
| "proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned". |
|
| For performing animals, the purpose of the conduct is a perfect act, and a fair amount of physical ill-treatment could be justified as technically in proportion to the conduct. |
|
| Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend may be surprised to learn that that line comes from case law— Ford v. Wiley—from the 1880s. The Government have lifted decent case law and put it into that clause at the behest of parliamentary counsel, which is one reason why this part of the Bill has become so confused. |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has just enlightened me and probably a large section of the House with his learned discourse. I did not know that, but it is undeniable that that part of the Bill is confused or, at least, a grey area with insufficient clarity. |
|
| Mr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend give way? |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: Yes, for the last time, although I may regret doing so. |
|
| Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend will not regret giving way, because I entirely endorse much of what she has said about circuses. However, what is her attitude towards the use of performing horses in circuses. |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: Wherever cruelty or unnatural treatment is involved in the maintenance of an animal for no good reason, it is wrong. |
|
| I would like to see a proper debate on electric shock collars. I speak with caution, because I was deeply involved in prisons for some time and I am aware of the role played by electric shock collars in training. Nevertheless, I have come to the view that other methods are just as effective and we should have a full debate and a free vote on the issue in this House. I would also prefer it if it were on the Floor of the House and not in Committee. |
|
| The question of tail docking has already been covered fairly extensively. It is an important issue. Tails are docked for one of two reasons. First, it is done for cosmetic reasons, which can never be justified and should be outlawed, with no vet allowed to do it. The second is applied to working dogs, especially gun dogs, and others whose tails may become damaged in the course of their rather regrettable duties. However, other parts of the animals may be damaged in the course of those regrettable duties, such as paws, ears and noses. We are talking about preventive mutilation. That is not justifiable. |
|
| The farce is that whereas the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly said that he had not seen a boxer with a tail, I have seen many working gun dogs with tails. Their tails were not docked and they did not appear to have come to grief. Once again, I hope that there will be a full debate on anti-docking on the Floor of the House, rather than merely in Committee, with a free vote. Docking includes the cutting through of muscles, tendons and up to seven pairs of nerves. It also means severing bone and cartilage connections; it is not a small, cosmetic operation, but something that causes a great deal of pain. |
|
| We should also consider the purpose of tails. I shall not say that if a dog loses its tail it loses its smile, but the tail is a means of communication. We even use the word metaphorically. I might say that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had his tail between his legs—[Laughter.] That would of course mean that he was somewhat dispirited after the hunting result. I might say that I was feeling waggy-tailed today, which would mean that I was happy. The tail is not just a point of communication for humans. We have to understand that the tail is a genuine means of communication between dogs, and aggression can result if dogs cannot communicate with each other. In case anyone says that bans are unworkable, I point out that there has been a ban in Norway since 1987, and in Sweden and Switzerland since 1988. Those bans have worked and none of those countries has seen fit to repeal them. |
|
| Finally, whatever laws we pass after our debates on the Bill must be observed. It demeans democracy when the House passes law, sometimes by a large majority, yet some people out there decide that because they do not like the law, they will not obey it. If, for example, following a ban on docking, we do not see boxers with tails, we will know that the law is being disobeyed. This law, like the hunting law or any other law, must be observed when it is passed. |
|
| I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and hope that the final resolutions will mean a much better world for our dumb friends. |
|
