Fiona McCade: Honourable member barking up wrong tree

Published on Monday 20 June 2011 17:36

MAN has always fought - against himself - for the right to be treated fairly. In 1998, the UK government caught up with this powerful human need and enshrined the Human Rights Act (HRA) in law.

Now the HRA upholds vitally important aspects of our existence, such as protection from torture, or slavery; the right to liberty and security; the right to a fair trial; protection of private and family life; freedom from discrimination; freedom of expression; the right to education, and free and fair elections… oh, and the right to take your dog to work.

OK, the HRA doesn't specifically state that it's a crime against humanity if a person is banned from taking their dog to work, but Matthew Offord, MP for Hendon, thinks it should.

To be more precise, he believes that Article 8 - "the right to the protection of private and family life" - refers to his right to take Max, his Jack Russell terrier, into the Palace of Westminster every day.

It's worth mentioning that, although Offord became an MP last year, his dog is only six months old; ergo, he has chosen to have a dog, even though he already had a job with often antisocial hours.

This makes his remarks such as "I won't leave Max on his own - that's no way to treat a dog" and "My wife can't look after Max during the day" seem a tad short-sighted under the circumstances.

It's not as though he has an elderly, devoted mutt that needs constant care - but, even if he did, he should have thought of that before he stood for parliament.

Also, Hendon is in north-west London, about 40 minutes from Westminster on the Tube. Couldn't he just pop home at lunchtime to check on the dog?

He started taking Max to work several weeks ago and, despite the fact that he was "taking (the dog] for regular walks" (when he was supposed to be working?), very few people noticed (there are lots of curs in the Commons). So he obviously thought he'd got away with it. Then, senior officials, including the Conservative chief whip, decided enough was enough and told Offord to remove the dog.

Cue this epic hissy fit from the honourable member. Offord is getting extremely indignant about his predicament, but a 1991 Commons regulation clearly states that the only dogs allowed in the Palace of Westminster are police dogs, guide dogs and pets of actual residents. Since the regulation predates Offord and his dog by 20 years, you'd think he'd shut up, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, people who blithely invoke the HRA for trivial reasons are not usually the sort of people who care about rules, regulations or, indeed, other people. This is the latest in a long line of abuses of this act, which really should be a proud cornerstone of our society, but instead has begun to cause eye-rolling whenever it's mentioned.

SOMEWHERE out there, there is bound to be someone whose employers are exploiting them and whose family life is suffering because of it. But will that person get a fair hearing when people like Offord are making a mockery of their only form of protection? Will all those parents who wish their long working hours didn't keep them apart from their children take kindly to this once-noble act being used to make every day Take Your Dog To Work Day?

Why is it that the Human Rights Act is so often invoked when someone wants to do something they know nobody else wants them to do?

If Offord were less selfish, he might remember the great and glorious tradition he is trashing - from Spartacus, who defied the whole Roman Empire in the name of freedom; to the Jarrow Marchers who demanded their voices be heard; to everyone who has ever fought the tyranny of an authoritarian regime.

However, if he genuinely feels his problem with taking his dog to work is up there with these causes, let him use the act. Millions have died to ensure he has that right. Alternatively, before he makes too much of a fuss, perhaps he should remember that his parliamentary majority is a mere 106.