PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (Hansard, 17 June 1969)

§ Mr. Ben Whitaker (Hampstead)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law regarding the protection of animals. This might be called a Five-Minute Rule Bill, because I will venture to detain the House for only a short time, partly because I recognise that there are other and wider issues before the House—and I personally have always felt that the protection of children from cruelty is a matter which should have far higher priority than the welfare of animals—but partly, also, because my Bill is very simple in its scope.

The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, already prohibits cruelty or unnecessary suffering being caused to domestic animals. Basically, my Bill seeks merely to add the words "and wild" after the word "domestic" to give wild animals the same degree of protection. This was, in fact, recommended by a joint Committee of the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department—as it was then called as long ago as 1951 in its Report (Command 8266), so I do not think that it can be argued that any undue impatience is displayed in asking for legislation now.

At present, the Protection of Animals Acts do not apply to wild animals, unless they are in captivity. It is, therefore, possible at present to cause suffering to a wild animal without sanction or restraint, and that is equally true about anything done in the course of an organised alleged "sport" as well as the acts of private individuals.

I find it difficult to credit how it can be argued seriously that what is cruelty in the case of one animal is not cruelty in the case of another, or that human behaviour which Parliament has thought right to restrain and control in the case of—for example—badgers, hares, seals, or foxes in captivity can be thought substantially different when those animals are living wild.

We all realise that many other more important issues compete for the time of Parliament. During the past few years, a number of hon. Members have sought to legislate, so far without success, in the case of, for example, hare-coursing, stag-hunting and otter-hunting. Those 257 measures have been obstructed by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would describe as "tightly-knit motivated minorities". It is more satisfactory as well as saving of the time of the House if we deal with the whole issue comprehensively, as I seek to do in my Bill, by giving general protection and then afford those who wish to write in exceptions to the protection the opportunity and the onus of justifying doing so.

During the Committee stage of my Bill, if is gets a Second Reading, the Committee will be glad to listen carefully, for example, to those who seek to persuade the Committee that foxes enjoy being hunted. I am sure that such views will be evaluated and treated with the attention they deserve. Equally, I will be glad to bring in under the scope of the Bill the implementation of the recommendation outstanding from the Little-wood and Brambell Reports, if the Government would like to take this opportunity to do so. The time of Parliament will, therefore, be saved once and for all.

I believe that recent surveys, as well as the correspondence of hon. Members, have shown that Parliament is now somewhat behind public opinion by its failure to move on these issues. I would submit that legislation in this field has a value by contributing a little light on the standard of our civilisation. I think, also, that it has its part to play not only in the effects that it has on animals, but also in its effects regarding human beings.

I hope that leave will be given to introduce the Bill and that, even if there is insufficient time remaining in this Session for it to complete all its stages, a similar Measure will not be delayed from becoming law before very much longer.