(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker and his Deputies for allowing me time for this debate. G. K. Chesterton said that
“cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin”,
and cruelty comes in many forms, but when it begins with cruelty to animals, which then becomes cruelty to people, it becomes barbaric. “Barbarism” is the word that came to my mind when I was first approached by my constituent Annette Bramley, who is in the Gallery this evening. She described to me the way that her beloved daughter, Holly, was murdered. “Courage” is another word that occurs to me, for Annette’s courage, which has led us here today in her ceaseless campaign to honour Holly by ensuring that future tragedies of that kind do not occur, is notable and admirable. It inspires me and has inspired many others.
Annette’s grief at the loss of her daughter is compounded by the appalling way that her daughter was killed by the worthless, wicked husband who murdered her. It came after years of cruelty towards her pets. Holly was just 26 years of age when she died in 2023, but she and her pets had been subjected to years of cruelty before that, involving both physical cruelty to those animals, and the coercive control associated with that towards Holly. The harm that her husband inflicted on animals served to frighten, torture, and control Holly. That vile man killed the family pets—the hamsters, a puppy and so on—in ways that are unimaginably wicked. In common with so many abusers, he exploited her love for animals and used that against her. Eventually, as is the case so often, the violence towards the animals turned into violence towards Holly.
Subsequently convicted and sentenced, Nicholas Metson, the man concerned, had previously been reported to the police for extreme cruelty towards pets. The violent behaviour did not first appear on the fatal day that Holly died—there were warning signs of animal cruelty for years before. Annette says that if she had known for how long he had been hurting the animals, and so Holly, she could have stopped what happened to her daughter.
Annette’s courageous campaign since has been for what she calls, as I call it today, Holly’s law, a national register of those guilty of animal cruelty to help prevent violence against women. She wants to help others who are suffering similarly, and so has proposed Holly’s law. It would create a kind of register so that the police would know about animal abuse convictions when responding to reports of domestic abuse. I strongly support this.
Better tracking and collecting of data on animal abusers can surely help in the campaign against domestic abuse, in addition to preventing further abuses of beloved pets. The correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence is proven, persuasive and undeniable. Domestic abuse charities have long been clear that there is a real and frightening link between the two. It stands to reason that people who are abusive to other people surely will not feel any guilt or doubts about harming animals in the same way.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals cites research that shows that 71% of domestic abuse victims report threats towards their pets. In my home county of Lincolnshire, the police revealed that animal abuse was reported in 3,000 domestic abuse incidents over just three years. The National Centre for Domestic Violence found that 64,000 civil protection order witness statements refer to the link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. The RSPCA and NSPCA have both highlighted that many domestic abuse victims report that their pets have also been abused, tortured or killed.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the system at the moment, in that abusers can retain legal ownership of those animals and it becomes difficult for the victim to get hold of their animals? Animal rescue charities are reporting that animals are left for long periods in their care while cases go back and forth, often leaving animals unable to be rehomed at the end of a traumatic case?
Sir John Hayes
Both those points are salient, as is the fear that people have of leaving the relationship because of what might happen to the animals. This is used as a means of control, but the animals and the individuals concerned—the people, the owners—become frightened, and in the end the animals become neglected, as the hon. Lady has described, so there is a series of correlations. I know the Government are aware of this, and I shall say why in a second, but now is the time for action.
We know that an early warning sign of an abusive partner is the way that they treat pets, as it is one of the questions asked in the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—the DASH—that is routinely used by the police across the UK to determine a victim’s risk. Research undertaken by Refuge4Pets, which works with Dogs Trust, found that almost nine in 10 households who experienced domestic abuse have said that their animals were abused first. In 49% of those cases, animals were killed by the abuser. It is not just neglect or cruelty—it is the death of animals, alongside the death of people.
A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely to also harm other humans. Some 70% of people who committed animal abuse also had criminal records that included crimes of violence, property, drugs or disorderly behaviour. In 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the perpetrator also abused animals. Some 97% of domestic abuse professionals encountered cases of pets being harmed as coercion.
In 49% of those cases, the animals died, as they did in the case of Holly’s pets. So the correlation between animal abuse and domestic abuse is crystal clear.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I pay tribute to Holly’s mum, Annette, and the right hon. Member for the relentless campaigning they have done to promote Holly’s law. That is hugely important, and they have not given up on it. With all those stats about the link between the abuse of humans and the abuse of animals, we are talking about how we can protect women and children from avoidable abuse, but many abusers start as children. We saw that in the case of Holly’s partner, and we saw it recently in the case of Russell Brand, who as a child was kicking his dog down the stairs. There must be a way of recording and escalating such incidents. Many children who abuse animals are receiving abuse themselves, and when they grow up they are significantly more likely to harm humans. There must be a way of intervening early to prevent these children, who are often victims of abuse, from going on to cause abuse.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the campaign, which has been notable; I thank him. This is about threat and risk. Where threat becomes apparent, risk can be mitigated. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and I spend a lot of our lives talking about threat and risk in respect of national security, and we have studied those matters closely over a long time. It is absolutely true that the early identification of the kind of risks that the hon. Gentleman describes can prevent their escalation. That is essentially what we are calling on the Government to do.
The Government want to do more on domestic abuse, and they have said that—I shall say a little more about that in a moment or two. The correlation, as I have described it, is clear; we now need to decide what we are going to do about it. We can speak endlessly about the cases, which do not amount just to this particular case, tragic though it is and personal though it is to me and my constituent. Annette wants to protect other people. That is her mission—to prevent this happening to another mother, another family, another victim.
The problem is that animal cruelty is regarded as an animal welfare matter, quite separate from human safeguarding. This is the challenge for the Government. It is clear that there is a gap in the way that the Government treat these serious problems, though they recognise that both are just that—serious. Earlier this year, Annette and I met the then Minister for safeguarding, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to make the case for a potential animal abuse register. I put on the record how well the hon. Member responded to my request for the meeting and how she conducted that meeting. She made my constituent feel valued, listened carefully to what we both said, and committed to Home Office work, which, again, I shall say a little more about in a few moments.
Vikki Slade
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the safeguarding legislation, in that sexual offences against animals do not lead to someone going on to the sex offenders’ register, when there is clearly an abuse of power in those cases?
Sir John Hayes
That is a pertinent intervention, because one of my colleagues in the House of Lords has taken up that very issue. It is a parallel issue, but a related one. Although it is a separate matter, it should certainly be taken into account in the work that the Home Office is doing. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.
To give credit to Ministers, work is ongoing in respect of domestic abuse statutory guidance and controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance. Will the Minister update the House on that work, and particularly on when it will be completed? The Minister on the Treasury Bench probably knows this, but I was on the Front Bench for my party for 19 years consecutively, and was a Minister in countless Departments; I just say to her that it is critical that very strict timetables are set. Ministers must demand of their officials that things will be done within limits and to a pre-agreed schedule. If they do not, then, with the best will in the world—and this is not about a lack of will—these things often drift. Please can we therefore have an update and some real assurances about when this is going to happen?
We may end up with a form of animal protection disclosure scheme that allows the police to disclose an individual’s history of animal cruelty and convictions to relevant organisations. It would be modelled on Clare’s law—the domestic violence disclosure scheme—and would operate under the common law duty of police disclosure. Under Clare’s law, as the Minister will know, after making an initial application, the information must be provided within 28 days. At present, UK animal cruelty convictions are recorded on the police national database, but police face the challenge of fragmented information sharing. A co-ordinated approach must be possible, and I hope the Minister can set out details of how that might work.
We know, too, that only 26 of 43 police forces reported that their mandated training on coercion covers the involvement of pets in domestic abuse. Can the Minister clarify whether that could be made mandatory for all forces? You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the difference between guidance and statutory guidance, and this may be a case where statutory guidance is necessary. Indeed, just this week, I raised this issue on the Floor of the House with the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She committed to meet me to move things forward.
The US state of Tennessee introduced an animal abuse register in 2016. It is a public register listing convictions, with offenders remaining on it for five years in the case of persistent offenders. There are obviously concerns about having a public register, but I wonder what lessons might be learned from the US, given that acts of cruelty against animals have been tracked by the FBI since 2016 in the same way as arson, burglary, assault and even homicide. That has allowed police to monitor and tackle the extent of animal neglect, torture and other abuse. It may be that we can indeed learn lessons on best practice from elsewhere.
Finally, I will mention the example of the convicted rapist Russell Brand, which was raised in the Chamber by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) earlier this week and again today. We now know of Brand’s shocking offences against women, which lasted for so long, but it is an example of his cruelty to animals that is perhaps particularly relevant to this debate. Brand’s account in a book—if you can call it that—of his history of abuse of his pet dog was surely a warning sign of what was to come. When designing policy, we must be cognisant of ensuring that relevant information, including admissions and other intelligence where appropriate—not just convictions—can be considered. Being able to consider such information is critical, because not all inquiries into animal cruelty lead to convictions. That is one of the problems we face, and addressing it needs to be built into the response to my call for Holly’s law.
This matter has significant cross-party support. I have received support from Members in all parts of this House, and a letter I sent to the Leader of the House seeking a debate on this matter attracted nearly 60 signatures from MPs of all political colours. Annette Bramley’s campaign for Holly’s law has caught the imagination precisely because it is just plain common sense. Her online petition has attracted more than 60,000 signatures. Annette’s campaign is supported by the charity Domestic Abuse Alliance, which has said that it:
“supports initiatives like Holly’s Law that address the overlapping harms seen in abusive households”.
I would like to add that it also has the strong support of my local paper, the Lincolnshire Free Press, and I pay tribute to the reporter Jenny Beake, who has been a great champion of Annette and our campaign. The campaign is also supported by the Naturewatch Foundation, a charity dedicated to ending animal cruelty, which argues that animal abuse is often linked to coercive control and escalating violence, but is not always identified as such within police disclosures.
My mission is to bring justice for my constituent and to make Holly’s law a reality. I will do all I can to help prevent what happened to Annette’s daughter from ever happening again, for as Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this really important debate, and I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he has set out these issues. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to Annette Bramley, who joins us in the Gallery and who has campaigned tirelessly in memory of her daughter Holly.
Holly’s case is a deeply distressing reminder that cruelty towards animals can form part of a wider pattern of coercion, control and domestic abuse. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned, he and Annette met the former Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls earlier this year to discuss their proposals. I understand that those were very constructive discussions, and I am glad to hear that. I also note his recent request to continue this important conversation with Government Ministers. With that in mind, I am pleased to be able to set out the Government’s position today.
Let me start by saying that the Government take the issues of animal cruelty and domestic abuse extremely seriously. As we have heard this evening, evidence shows that there is a strong link between pet abuse and domestic abuse. That is why the Government are working to take forward specific actions relating to this issue as part of our violence against women and girls strategy and our animal welfare strategy. I will touch on those important actions in further detail later.
Let me turn to the proposed animal abuse register. I understand why there is public support for this idea and the reassurance that it is intended to provide, but it is important to say that systems are already in place to both record and share this type of information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police national computer, and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information. There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it. That means that relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding and public protection. The more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the right time.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister will be pleased to know that I agree, but there is inconsistency among police forces, which I mentioned in my speech. One of the things that is absolutely necessary is that consistency is delivered, perhaps through improved guidance—I would like there to be statutory guidance—on what is required of them in the terms that she has just set out.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Courts already have strong disqualification powers, which can be lifelong where appropriate. A mandatory lifetime ban would remove judicial discretion and could create disproportionate outcomes. I believe that the right hon. Member raised some of those points previously with the Home Office and that he continues to engage directly on them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Would it not in fact be much more useful for police to push that information or in some way to tag addresses where this sort of thing happens? It is okay to hold the information to oneself, but it is of value only if it is shared with the relevant agencies willingly and openly. The Minister is saying that the information would be shared in a proportionate way, but it needs to be pushed towards the relevant agencies so that they know what they are looking for.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The hon. Member has put her comments on the record. I will ask the Home Office to write to her directly on those points.
I am aware that there is support for the creation of a specific animal protection disclosure scheme more broadly. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already working with the Home Office to support the effective use of the existing domestic violence disclosure scheme for animal cruelty offences. The scheme provides guidance for police to use existing powers to disclose information about an individual’s history of violent or abusive behaviour where that information is relevant to protecting a victim or potential victim from domestic abuse.
Police can also make a disclosure proactively where they believe someone may be at risk. Importantly, disclosures are not limited to criminal convictions or domestic abuse offences; the police may disclose information relating to animal cruelty where they assess it is relevant to the risk posed to an individual. I understand that the Home Office is currently reviewing how the scheme works in practice to ensure it is applied consistently and effectively across police forces. I am sure the points that have been raised in this debate have been noted—they are on record, and I am sure they will be heard.
I also welcome the proactive approach that the RSPCA has taken in exploring how information on animal cruelty can be shared more effectively with the police. It recognises that the information gathered by its inspectors can have a much wider role in protecting both animals and people. The RSPCA is working with the Home Office and the police to explore how that relevant information from its visits and investigations can be shared more effectively to support safeguarding and risk assessment processes.
Sir John Hayes
I am aware that we do not have long, so I will not intervene again, but the critical point is that this is not just about convictions; it is about incidents, because a lot of incidents do not lead to a conviction. That data needs to be shared in the way the Minister has described. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said, it also has to be pushed forward to other authorities. Local authorities are a very good example—whether they are dealing with housing, education, or safeguarding of one sort or another, they need that information. It needs to be proactively shared.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The right hon. Member raises an important point. This is about looking beyond convictions and making better use of the relevant information to help protect animals and people. The aim is to help the police build a fuller picture of risks and identify opportunities to act earlier, while ensuring information is accurate and shared lawfully and proportionately.
The concerns raised in this debate underline the importance of practical action to protect animals and support victim-survivors. To address an intervention made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) regarding sex acts against animals and the sex offenders register, for the new offence of sexual activity with an animal, the notification requirements will still apply in specified circumstances. We will write to her with further information on the specific points she raised.
The animal welfare strategy for England sets out DEFRA’s commitments to help protect animals facing harm in domestic violence settings. We are working closely with the Links Group, which is doing important work to help veterinary professionals recognise signs of non-accidental injuries to animals. Alongside this, we are working to raise awareness of specialist pet fostering services that provide temporary care for the pets of victim-survivors fleeing domestic abuse. These include the Dogs Trust Freedom Project, Cats Protection Lifeline, Refuge4Pets and the Endeavour Project. Earlier this year, Baroness Hayman visited the Cats Protection centre in south London and saw at first hand the impact of the important work being done in this area.
We are also working to strengthen protections for victim-survivors’ personal information held on microchip databases. Across Government, we are also looking at how stronger statutory guidance could better highlight the link between pet abuse and domestic violence. To inform future policy, DEFRA has commissioned research to look more closely at the issue and to identify additional opportunities for intervention. The research will report in 2027, and we will carefully consider the findings to help shape the next steps. Before I close, I will reference the direct, clear question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about timings. I will ensure that the Home Office writes to him, but my understanding is that it will be coming forward with the work in early 2027.
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate and all those who contributed to it and who continue to engage directly with the Government. The link between animal cruelty and domestic abuse is a serious one and, as I have set out, tackling it remains a high and clear priority for the Government.
Question put and agreed to.