Baroness Deech (CB) [V]: One of the worst things in this Bill, with
its miasma of uncertainty, is its retrospective effect. Along with
others, this amendment is designed to cure this defect. We have to
stop the committee considering, let alone making suggestions to
change, policies that were established in the past, that are
currently being lawfully implemented and on which people base their
livelihoods, food and sporting pursuits. As it stands, the Bill
would allow the committee to reopen...Request free trial
(CB) [V]: One of the worst things in this
Bill, with its miasma of uncertainty, is its retrospective effect.
Along with others, this amendment is designed to cure this defect.
We have to stop the committee considering, let alone making
suggestions to change, policies that were established in the past,
that are currently being lawfully implemented and on which people
base their livelihoods, food and sporting pursuits.
As it stands, the Bill would allow the committee to reopen of
its own volition policies that have been in place for perhaps a
century, as some of our animal welfare laws have. It could make
recommendations designed to undermine the use of animals in medical
research, the practice of killing animals according to
Jewish law and country sports, already hedged
about with qualifications and reached by consensus a long time ago.
We might accept that this committee, expert or not, will consider
future proposals, but we cannot let it loose on the established
law.
I say this not wholly as an advocate of the positions I have
mentioned but as a reminder that retrospective legislation and
changes of policy are to be assumed to be a bad thing. They may
undermine settled patterns of life and livelihood, taking away
certainty of freedom from criminal and civil prosecution. We cannot
allow this committee to propose legislation to take away the
validity of decisions made in the past and in good faith by people
relying on the law as it was. In the case of the traditional
Jewish way of killing animals for food, it has
been permissible ever since the Jewish return to England some 350
years ago and it is established policy under UK regulations to
permit it, as it was under EU legislation—although not that it
could be relied on, as I explained in my last speech on this when I
pointed out that the European Court of Justice allowed the Belgian
prohibition of Jewish non-stunning methods.
As a legal situation, at common law, there is a presumption
against retrospectivity. Article 7 of the Human Rights Act
prohibits arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment. At
common law, there is also a presumption against interference with
vested interests. A leading judgment on this was in the case of
Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 2003; one of
the judges in that case, my noble and learned friend , is happily still with us. The judgment explained that
there is a powerful presumption against statutes changing the
substantive law in relation to events in the past; this is
precisely what could happen if the powers of this new committee are
not curbed.
There is also a presumption against legislation affecting
vested rights unless Parliament is expressly making a new start for
the future. So, on the one hand, recommendations by this new
committee to change existing practices would be a waste of time in
that, if they were acted on, they would be contrary to the rule of
law; on the other hand, the Bill would accord better with human
rights and the rule of law by making it express that its actions
must be confined to future policy.
I hope that this amendment will be supported by the
Government; otherwise, I can see legal action looming ahead on the
horizon. This also applies to Amendments 18, 21, 23 and 29, all of
which I support.
(Con): I want to follow up on the comments
from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about ritual slaughter We have been reading
in the newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament,
it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling water to kill
them. Is that one aspect of the thinking behind what the Government
are doing? If that is the case, where does it leave pigs being
slaughtered? They are highly intelligent animals and with a very
high sense of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does
serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would just like to
know where the Minister stands on this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con): If my noble friend is referring to the
article that I read at the weekend, it was full of inaccuracies and
hyperbole, which is not what this Bill is about...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
