Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill (Hansard, 5 July 1988)

§ Lord Kilbracken
Asses and mules!

§ Lord Houghton of Sowerby
My Lords, yes; I am sorry. I am getting myself mixed up. They are in fact horses, asses and mules.
As regards the Title of the Bill, noble Lords will notice that we dispensed with the romance of species that we are not able to mention in the amendment to the 1911 Act. So the Bill comes in in a suit of armour, you might say. However, I think that the brilliance of the new Title is that it gives it a sharper point altogether; it gives it its purpose. I hope that it will convince those who have been approaching my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that she will be able to convince them that this Bill deals with cruel tethering and is not just an anti-tethering Bill; it is an anti-cruel tethering Bill—which is quite a different matter.
We say that it is protection. Therefore if one wants to use the warning behind the Bill it will be much stronger to say, "You will be in breach of the protection of cruel tethering Act". That will be much more impressive than saying, "You will be in breach of the Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill". We have managed to get rid of that little complication of the "(No. 2) Bill" which no one understood, and perhaps I should explain why. It is because Mr. Amess had to withdraw the original Bill and substitute another in order to get the Bill to suit the purpose he had in mind.
238 The minor triumph of procedure ran into little difficulties. Therefore, at present, I move the amendment to Clause 1; namely, to leave out at line 7 on page 1 the words "or ass" and insert the words "ass or mule". This is the amendment which brings the mule into the Bill. I shall come in a moment to the other amendment formally which is to leave out "Horses, Ponies and Donkeys"—the description of the Bill—and bring in the new description; namely, "Protection against Cruel Tethering".
Finally, in Amendment No. 3, we leave out the words "ponies and donkeys" and insert "asses and mules". I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, I am so glad that my noble friend has agreed with the point I made in Committee that the mule should be embraced by the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was in fact playing the part of Esau in drafting the wording of the amendment as was suggested by my noble friend, because I should point out that the effect of the amendment is precisely the same as if my amendment had been accepted in Committee. So perhaps the mantle of Esau should more properly fall upon myself? However, I am glad to see the mule included, as he certainly should be, and of course I support my noble friend.
My noble friend did speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, so perhaps I might just say that I agree with him very strongly that the new Short Title brought in by Amendment No. 2 is, in my opinion, a great improvement because it tells the person who sees it what the Bill is all about—it is about tethering—instead of just vaguely being about horses and donkeys. Therefore I think that that is a great improvement, and of course Amendment No. 3 is necessary to conform to the new wording.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, perhaps I may say a word at this stage rather than later. I should like to say first that I too share my noble friend's regret that the poetic ring to the name of his Bill has now been rather sadly diminished. But, in spite of that, I must say that I very much welcome the change that he has made in the Title. As he says, the specific intention of the Bill is now most clear. As I spoke both on Second Reading and in Committee about the anxieties which had been provoked among travellers and gypsies who were most worried that the Bill was merely against tethering rather than against cruel tethering, I must say that I think this change will go a long way towards setting their anxieties at rest. I am most grateful to my noble friend for making the changes, and I entirely support the Bill.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, wherever the mantle of Esau should lie, I think—and hope—that we can all agree that the Bill now is as we want it to be. That applies especially to Amendment No. 1, which is under consideration at the moment. I should briefly say that since the matter was raised at an early stage of the Bill's proceedings, we have looked carefully at the proposed amendment. Bearing in mind the kinds of animals with which the Bill is essentially concerned—namely, those that can be termed equine—and the fact that the mule is included with 239 the horse and the ass in the definition of domestic animal in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, it does not seem unreasonable that the Bill should also refer to mules. We are satisfied that such a reference would include protection for hinnies and therefore there is no need for specific reference to hinnies to be made in the Bill. We ask your Lordships to support the amendment.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, perhaps I may make it quite clear that this amendment simply rationalises the Short Title of the Bill so that it refers to the purpose of the Bill rather than the animals which are to be affected by its provisions. Ponies and donkeys are no longer referred to as such in the Bill, but in any case it is not necessary to list all the affected animals. The application of the Bill to animals is implicit in the term "tethering". We support the amendment.