Easter and Christian Culture

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nick Fletcher

Thursday 21st March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Easter, Christian culture and heritage.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the time in this great hall. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to this debate on Easter and Christian culture and heritage.

Easter is one of the two most important dates in the Christian calendar, and one that I hope we will all be celebrating next weekend. The cross symbolises what Christ did for us on Good Friday, which is wrapped up in the most famous verse of the Bible, John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

We celebrate on Easter Sunday the resurrection of Christ, giving us not just a God, but a living God to believe in, to worship, to help us and to make us right with Him, with the promise of eternal life. What a wonderful gift.

I have said much of this in my previous speeches on Christianity, so let me just say that within much of our heritage is woven our historical Christian past, and it is therefore extremely important not just to this place but to our nation as a whole. It is the “Christian culture” part of this debate’s title that I will spend my time on today.

As we know, much rhetoric is expended on culture wars, at least in this place. This, in my understanding, refers to what people believe in. As a Christian, I am told through scripture to love everyone; I try to do so, but often fail, so I can understand the concerns of others when they see beliefs and practices that are not the so-called British way. Some may not believe in progressive ideologies; I understand that. Some may believe that those who have joined us from other nations should embrace our British way of life; I understand that, too. That got me thinking. What exactly is our culture? What is our British way of life?

Like most people these days, when I do not know an answer or I am unsure of a definition, I google it, so I did, and this is what Google said:

“The culture of the United Kingdom is influenced by its combined nations’ history; its historically Christian religious life, its interaction with the cultures of Europe, the individual cultures of England, Wales and Scotland and the impact of the British Empire.”

There is a glaring omission: what about Northern Ireland? Perhaps the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can take that up with Google, because it is important. But there we have it, according to Google. There are three words in there that I believe to be very important, but I will come back to them.

I scrolled down a little further on the search engine and found numerous sites, all listing their top 10 ideas of things that make our British culture. These are some of the things that apparently make us British: the royal family, our cuisine, the English breakfast, our love of a curry and fish and chips, how we like to queue, the pub, our humour—mainly sarcasm and banter—a cup of tea, sport, the BBC, and so the list goes on. Then I thought of a scene in the film “Love Actually”. There are a few scenes in there I do not like—I will not go into those now—but who can forget the one in No. 10? No, not the singing and dancing Prime Minister. Do we think our Prime Minister sings and dances in there when he is on his own? I can assure the House that if I am ever Prime Minister, I will. If my right hon. Friend is listening —I hope he is—I should add that, no, I am not after your job, sir. The scene I mean is the one where Hugh Grant, who plays the Prime Minister, tells the US President what he thinks. He says:

“We may be a small country, but we’re a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham’s right foot. David Beckham’s left foot, come to that.”

I have to admit that the first time I saw this, it brought a lump to my throat. I felt genuinely proud to be British.

As good as all those things are, and some are truly wonderful, one thing that binds most of them together is that they are ways in which we enjoy ourselves, whether it is reading the sonnets—“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Not really me—watching our favourite team or player, eating our favourite food, or just simply having a laugh down the pub, which is definitely me. But are they really our culture? I am not so sure. Does not everyone the world round enjoy entertainment of some kind? No, I think our culture goes back to those three words I spoke about earlier—Christian religious life.

I have mentioned the royal family. Our King is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the state Church, so he is extremely important to our Christian religious life. I also mentioned Sir Winston Churchill, who did so much to defend and preserve our way of life, as have our armed forces over the centuries. But what is our culture? I believe it is not quite Christian religious life, but more our Christian way of life—the Christian way of life that has enabled us to live in freedom in this wonderful country. And trust me, it is a wonderful country, but it is even more than that—much more. It is about a life with Jesus and what that life offers, not just to the individual but to society as a whole.

Sadly, when mankind removes God from the equation, mankind resorts to its base nature. Man’s base nature is not what we think it should be—it is not good. Watching two infants play, we often see them snatch and not want to share. We must admit that we are all born at least a little selfish, if nothing worse, which is the start— the start of a life that can often lead to things going drastically wrong without correction.

If the teachings of the Christian way of life are slowly eroded, which I believe they have been, I am afraid that each generation will fall further away from our God. Life can and will definitely get worse for us all.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talks about culture and the changing generations. We met a group of people yesterday—the Christian creators, I think they called themselves—who broadcast their Christian views on TikTok. That is very different from my form of worship, but does my hon. Friend agree that they are getting the message across? Is that not an example of how Christianity will continue through the generations?

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is right. The group of Christian creators on TikTok we met yesterday were wonderful. It was a joy to meet these fantastic young people, who are all spreading the word of the Lord through social media.

Snares

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nick Fletcher

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I will talk about that further. As he says, the opinion polls show that people definitely lean towards banning snares, but we need to debate the subject, which is why the petition has been brought to the Chamber today.

My starting point is the same as that of the commentators and petitioners: nobody wants to see any animal harmed, never mind killed, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. Nevertheless, animals are killed and people support that. For example, dangerous dogs that have harmed or even killed a child are put down.

Our feelings make it difficult to move to the other side of the debate, but we must do so. It is a debate, not a platform where only one view can be heard. There must be no cancellation here. We therefore need to ask why snares are being used in this day and age. Are there good reasons for their continued use? In life, we learn that there are always two sides to a story, and that is especially the case for MPs. I have never found that everybody has agreed with me about everything I have said. We all have different views, and I welcome the fact that we live in a democracy—a country in which freedom of speech is so strong. Many countries are not so blessed.

I have made efforts to speak to those who support the continued use of snares. I wanted to know why they believe that snares are a good thing, given what the DEFRA review found. One gamekeeper I have been in contact with told me that if snares are used in compliance with current legislation, they are a humane way of protecting not only the farming world’s livelihood but the environment. I am not convinced that the aforementioned badger would agree with any of that, but for the record I have not had clarification about whether the incident involved an illegal snare or a legal snare.

That brings me to the snare itself. We talk about snares, but what is a legal snare? Not all snares are illegal, and there are regulations in force determining what is. Let me tell Members what I discovered. The snares, now called humane cable restraints, are engineered with five safety devices. Two swivels—an anchor swivel and a middle swivel—reduce entanglement. Next, it is a legal requirement in the UK for the running eye to be free-running to help reduce strangulations. Previously, snares were ratcheted, and strangulation often occurred not just to the intended creature but to non-target animals. Ratcheted snares are now illegal. A fixed stop allows smaller animals to remove themselves, and also reduces the chance of strangulation of the target animal—apparently mainly foxes. The final component is a break-away device so that if animals of a certain size pull hard enough against the snare, it will break and they will be set free. Those devices were initially tested by 34 gamekeepers across the country and proved to be much improved on the previously used snares.

The law says that snares should be checked every 24 hours. The code of practice states that it should preferably be before 9 am each day, and if the gamekeeper is able the snare should be inspected again at the end of each day. If that procedure is rigorously followed, it should minimise the number of captured animals that go through the pain that the previously mentioned post-mortem report described. Whether it is rigorously followed is a fair question. The device should also be inspected daily for signs of rusting or fraying of the cord. It should also be checked to ensure it is working—in particular, the effectiveness of all the safety devices should be checked.

The subject is emotive and I can understand the petitioners’ point of view and why, in an animal-loving country such as ours, many people want to stop this method of capturing animals. It is natural to feel that way, and I share those feelings, too. However, gamekeepers do much to look after our countryside, and they say they need snares to enable them to do their job. I have heard that they are stopping some birds becoming extinct. Lapwings and curlews are two examples of birds that are in danger of becoming extinct to the west of the UK; foxes are to blame for much of their demise.

A relative townie like me can easily sit in an armchair and say that the use of snares is wrong and even barbaric, but I am conscious that I have little understanding of the countryside and the steps necessary to protect it. Those who have spent their lives in the countryside say snares are necessary. We need to know who is right and who is wrong—we need evidence. I am therefore pleased that the Government consider it timely to open a call for evidence to make sure they have the very latest understanding on the issue. It is essential that both sides of the argument are listened to. Cancel culture is iniquitous and has no place in a functioning democracy.

I believe I speak for many, if not all of us, when I say it is also essential that we reduce any inhumane treatment of our wildlife while still helping gamekeepers to protect our countryside. I believe there are many areas in life where there is a solution if legislators, animal rights groups, activists, concerned citizens and all those in the countryside sit down and talk things through. This surely must be one such issue.

With Wales and Scotland moving quickly towards a complete ban on snares, time is of the essence for such talks and solutions such as humane snares, reflective dishes, electric fences or even high-sonic devices could be used. I am told that many in the countryside do not believe that tighter legislation will work, but gamekeepers believe that mandatory training will. That issue also needs to be addressed.

I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the debate to Parliament. We need to establish the evidence and make any necessary adjustments to the legislation that are appropriate and proportionate. What they should be is not exactly known yet. However, the process must start, and I look forward to its conclusions. I therefore hope the debate is the start of a sensible conversation, where tempers are not frayed and a solution can be found.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench speakers at around five past seven, so if Members could limit themselves to seven or eight minutes, all will be guaranteed to get in.