What a carry on!

I love Monty Python.

Who can forget the classics? The Dead Parrot sketch, the Fish Dance, the Lumberjack, the Minister Who Refused to Ban Wild Animals in Circuses Because of the Human Rights Act, the Ministry of Silly Walks…

Pardon? Which one? Oh, you don’t remember the Minister Who Refused to Ban Wild Animals in Circuses Because of the Human Rights Act? That was a classic, that one. Surely you remember it? As with many of their funnier sketches, it was a sequel, this time to the Season Two classic, The One Where Ministers Claimed They Couldn’t Ban Wild Animals in Circuses Because of a European Court Case. Honestly, I laugh every time I think of Michael Palin’s face when he and John Cleese are arguing about it in the Commons:

CLEESE: There’s a court case.

PALIN: No, there isn’t.

CLEESE: Yes there is!

PALIN: Well, which one? Go on, tell us!

CLEESE: No.

PALIN:  What do you mean, “No”? You can’t just say there’s a court case and then not tell us which one!

CLEESE: Yes, I can.

PALIN: No, you can’t! You’re the minister!

CLEESE: No, I’m not!

MR SPEAKER (Graham Chapman): Now, just stop it! This is getting very silly indeed!

Well, you get the picture. In a year of surreal and catastrophic governance, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is offering serious competition for the Bafta for “Biggest Omni-Shambles in a British Sitcom”.

And the bits about the European Court case and the attempt to use the HRA as an excuse not to ban cruelty to animals actually did happen.

But first, credit where it’s due: the Secretary of State for Defra, Caroline Spelman, did indeed announce as long ago as April 2011 that a full ban would go ahead. Hooray! Job done and all that.

Except… Number 10 didn’t see it quite that way, and overruled the hapless cabinet minister before you could say “Billy Smart”. Regulation rather than a ban would suffice, was the new truth.

And besides, Ministers couldn’t proceed with a ban because of a live case before the Austrian courts, brought by a circus owner.

Hmm. Really?

Well, no, as it turns out. And ministers had to admit as much, dragged unwillingly and humiliatingly before the Commons to answer an Urgent Question on the matter.

Having confessed that his source for this information was not exactly robust (“Mr Speaker, it must be true – a bloke in a pub told me!”), James Paice, the minister in question, was floundering. What other reason could he offer for his refusal to impose a ban? We can assume that at that point, Number 10 came to the rescue, with a text message along the lines of “Say it’s the HRA – LOL x”.

It says something about just how out of touch this government is that they haven’t even bothered to check whether the HRA refers to humans or to animals (clue: it starts with “H”). Had this been an American sitcom, you would’ve heard John Bercow at the beginning saying: “The House of Commons is filmed before a live studio audience.”

And then, exactly a year ago today, a back benchers’ debate on a motion to introduce an outright ban took place. The government initially said it would impose a three-line whip to force MPs to vote against their consciences and a ban, a rather odd approach to debates that are generally unwhipped. But after seeing the writing on the wall, and after listening to the contributions from their own back benchers, the government whips’ office bravely capitulated to the inevitable, and announced that MPs on the government benches would be unwhipped after all. Which is why, presumably, the Commons supporting a complete ban, was passed unanimously.

A ministerial commitment to “respecting the view of the Commons” quickly followed.

Just last month, another Defra Minister, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said in a letter to Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation: “I hope you feel reassured that our intention to introduce a ban on the use of performing wild animals in circuses is genuine. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention to introduce a ban as soon as parliamentary time allows.”

But how soon will that be, exactly? There was no mention of it in the Queen’s Speech. We haven’t even heard any details of Defra’s plans to introduce an interim licensing regime, even though it was consulted upon earlier this year.

Regulation of the existing regime isn’t nearly enough and it’s not acceptable. Only a full ban on the use of live animals in circuses will do, and the fight to that end continues, whatever warm words ministers choose to deploy.

First the ban was on, then it was off, then it was still off, but for blatantly silly reasons, then MPs were told to oppose a ban, then they were told they could do what they liked, then the ban was on again, but so was a licensing regime, and there was no timescale for either.

This government lark looked a lot easier from the Opposition benches, didn’t it, Secretary of State?

Just another in a long list of examples that makes us all look forward to the day when we can say: “This is an ex-Government. It has ceased to be, etc…”

Fade to laughter.

Tom Harris is a Shadow Environment Minister