Animal Torture: Online Videos

Lord Trees Excerpts
Tuesday 27th June 2023

(10 months, 1 week ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I join the whole House in absolutely deploring these behaviours. The concern about adding animal cruelty offences to the Online Safety Bill is that it is a Bill built around the experiences online of human beings. To rearchitect the Bill around actions perpetrated or commissioned on animals runs the risk of diminishing the effectiveness of the Bill.

Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (CB)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, needless to say, the behaviour referred to in this Question shows indescribable cruelty to animals. It is extremely concerning that anybody should do these things or, indeed, want to view them. It urgently emphasises the need for better regulation of the internet to reduce the danger of copying behaviour. Is the Minister aware—I fear that the noble Lord has just made him aware—of the increasing evidence that malicious cruelty to animals is a precursor, and can lead, to violent and abusive behaviour towards humans? Is this not another indication, were it needed, of why we need to better regulate the internet with regard to cruelty to animals?

Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I recognise the argument that increased cruelty to animals promotes further bad behaviour, including violence between humans, but I stress the point that the purpose of the Online Safety Bill is to bring into law a range of limitations on what can be published and what can be seen online by human beings. There are laws that effectively criminalise cruel behaviour to animals and the action of publishing evidence of cruelty to animals online; those laws just happen not to be the Online Safety Bill.