Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Debate between Angela Smith and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and with others who have pointed out that a register of abusers would be an effective way forward. All those things are important.

I want to finish with a comment about the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described brilliantly the work that the charity does, pointing to the statistics relating to its investigative work and its work to bring abusers to court and secure convictions. The RSPCA is the oldest animal welfare charity in the country, and no other charity does what it does. It is rooted in our history of tackling animal welfare abuse. It has a very good reputation and it has the expertise and experience not just to deliver the investigative work that we need to enforce the Animal Welfare Act effectively but the carry out the prosecuting aspects of its work. We need to think carefully, therefore, about the RSPCA’s role. In general, we need to support the charity and its continued work in bringing animal abusers to justice. Those who would attack the RSPCA’s role need to think carefully about the impact of what they are arguing for.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now come to the first of the speeches by the Front-Bench spokespersons. The guidelines are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

Fireworks

Debate between Angela Smith and Philip Hollobone

Monday 6th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate those who signed the petition, because it raises an issue that is of genuine concern up and down the country—not least in Kettering. I am disappointed that I was not able to hear the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh), but I know it will have been outstanding, and I promise to read it tomorrow in Hansard.

There is great merit in going the whole hog and banning fireworks, and the Government should look seriously at doing that. At the very least, I would expect them to produce a proper paper outlining the pros and cons of such a ban. If we put the issue to people in a referendum—I am not advocating that, but were we to do that—we might surprisingly find a majority in favour of banning fireworks, largely because of the nuisance and distress that they cause to pets, but also because of the nuisance and disturbance they cause to schoolchildren. It is outrageous that anyone can let fireworks off in a built-up area on a school evening, when children are meant to be asleep, ready for the next school day.

Things have of course moved on from the time of my grandfather. He was an orphan growing up in south London. On bonfire night, the superintendent went around the orphanage with a bucket containing a series of fireworks, and each child was told to pick one out and to go and light it. That was in the late 1800s and I know it is not like that now, but individual fireworks are extremely dangerous. They are a type of explosive, and it is not safe to have mini-displays in back gardens. I think there is great merit in saying that all fireworks displays need to be licensed with a licensed operator.

The other issue to consider is that, frankly, amateur family-organised fireworks displays in people’s back gardens are basically rubbish. They have only a few fireworks, which do not go very high. They last a couple of minutes, and that is it, whereas an organised display has super-duper fireworks that do everything one could possibly imagine in all the colours of the rainbow and in all sorts of different patterns. They go extremely high, make fantastic noises and it is great fun. It lasts 20 to 25 minutes with a well-organised display. That is how fireworks should be displayed and appreciated. It should not just be a handful of fireworks launched by an enthusiastic dad to impress the kids in his back garden.

We have heard that 114 people go to hospital each year as a result of fireworks-related accidents. I am surprised by that, and I question the veracity of that figure. I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is a former fireman, agrees that that number is probably a lot higher. We have all read of very distressing cases where very small children have lost eyes or been caused serious burns and injuries because a fireworks display went wrong at home. Accidents of course happen with organised displays, too, but it is far less frequent. In this country we are privileged to have some fantastic fireworks companies and operators who organise magnificent displays, and we should encourage that. Were we to ban fireworks from domestic sale and say that all fireworks displays should be licensed with a proper operator, that would encourage the number of licensed displays in this country. Far from being bad news for the fireworks industry, it could be very good news.

The other point is that fireworks are of course distressing for animals. I have a feeling that those who like to have an amateur display in the back garden think it is upsetting only a few people, but they do not see the distressed dogs cowering in the corner of the living room. Responses to noise are one of the most primitive in-built instincts that all animals have. As human beings, we can be frightened by noise, but we can rationalise it, understand it and overcome it. Very few animals can do that. People who are operating these back garden displays do not see the small dogs, the large dogs or the cats—you name it—cowering in the corner petrified at the bangs going off outside.

Fireworks are great if they can be seen and if they are good, but they are universally awful if they can only be heard. Fireworks have to be seen to be appreciated; it is not possible to appreciate just the noise. Whenever somebody has a family firework display, hundreds of animals in the vicinity in a built-up area will be terrified for however long that display lasts.

The Government insist that children attend school every day, get their homework done and get the right grades, but how can we expect children to perform well at school if they are woken up at 9.30, 10 or 10.30 at night by an amateur firework display in the neighbouring street? They will probably wake up distressed; they might find it difficult to get back to sleep; and they will certainly not be as right as rain when they wake up for school the next day.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and showing a refreshing independence of mind in calling for regulation and indeed a ban on an activity such as this. His comments about the noise and the spectacle itself underline the point that we cannot drive fireworks underground by restricting their use to certain times of the year. It is impossible to drive the use of fireworks underground; they are seen and heard, so it is possible to police restrictions on the use of fireworks at certain times of the year.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. As a former special constable under the police parliamentary scheme, I know a little about trying to enforce rules and regulations. Often it is difficult, but she is right; when it comes to fireworks, it is relatively straightforward, although not in every case. I have had the experience of trying to track down where a very loud noise was coming from in a local area, and sometimes it is more difficult than people think. However, I managed to do it. It is possible, especially with other officers in attendance. It is also possible to draw on local intelligence from neighbours. The hon. Lady is therefore right to say that it is possible to enforce restrictions.

A ban is simple and understandable. If I were drawing up the legislation, I would prescribe days in the year when it is permitted to have licensed firework displays: Guy Fawkes night, Chinese new year, Diwali and the Queen’s 90th birthday, for example. At all other times fireworks would not be allowed, and I would have an absolute proscription on letting off fireworks during a school evening.

Encouraging people to notify their local area is very well meaning, but in practice it will not happen and will not be enforceable. We all know that there are responsible local firework displays organised on a small basis. One was organised by my local church not long ago. The volunteers from the church were well meaning. They put up notices in the local area that said what time the display would be and how long it would last. That is great, but there would still have been lots of animals in the local area distressed by the noise.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Debate between Angela Smith and Philip Hollobone

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion on Select Committee statements and to offer our support to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in relation to the amendments to the motion that was tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which stand in the names of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House.

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for opening the debate and explaining his thinking behind the motion. He is a treasured Member of the House and a staunch defender of Back-Bench Members’ rights. He is deeply respected by all Members. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that, despite his erudite explanation of the rationale behind his amendments, we are unable to support them in their entirety, for reasons I will lay before the House shortly.

Before that, I want to acknowledge the Backbench Business Committee, an innovation that arose from the Wright Committee reforms, which has enjoyed a great deal of success since its initiation in 2010. That success has been in no small part due to the tireless work of its Chair and her open-minded approach to the selection of topics to be debated.

Another success of the Wright reforms has been the election of members of Select Committees and their Chairs. There is no doubt that the work of Select Committees has been given more credibility as a consequence of those reforms. How often now do we see the broadcast media giving priority to the coverage of Select Committee hearings? Who can doubt that the Public Accounts Committee, under the steely leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is now seen as a really effective way of holding public services to account for the resources they spend on our behalf.

The changes to Standing Orders recommended in the motion are the next logical step in the process of improving the workings of the House and raising further the profile of the work of our Select Committees. There is no doubt that the present system of allowing Select Committee Chairs to make a statement to the House is cumbersome and that the proposed change to the Standing Orders will make it easier for Members of the House to draw out areas of interest in a Select Committee report by asking the relevant question, rather than by having to intervene. Interventions are good for the cut and thrust of a full-blooded debate, but in our view they are not the most appropriate mechanism for handling what is in effect a statement to the House by a Select Committee.

The proposed new Standing Order will also give the Backbench Business Committee discretion in allocating a specified period of time for a Select Committee statement. The same discretion will be made available to the Liaison Committee in relation to debates in Westminster Hall.

With regard to the amendments to the motion relating to Back-Bench business, we support the first change proposed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, which would give the Backbench Business Committee the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. My understanding is that that has become the norm. Indeed, I have been present when Members have made representations. I know, because I have seen it myself, that it really works, in the sense that it reflects entirely the slow but welcome progress to ever-greater transparency in this place. It would therefore be helpful to see that practice written into Standing Orders. However, we join the Chair of the Committee and the Leader of the House in opposing a formal writing into Standing Orders of the principle of extending the number of days made available for Back-Bench business when the parliamentary Session extends beyond the usual year. This did not prove to be an issue in the first Session of this Parliament, which went on for what seemed like an almost interminable two years. We agree that that is unlikely to occur again given the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments that is now on the statute book.

We disagree with the part of the motion that would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee believes that it is important that it should not have the power to table programme motions. Back-Bench business days have always been more flexible and the time has generally been split on the day depending on the number of speakers for debates. This means that Members regulate themselves and almost always have respectful regard for subsequent debates. Her fear, as she clearly articulated, is that if the Committee were to start programming, debates would fill the space they are allocated rather than the space they need.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate the dichotomy in her argument in that she is in favour of flexibility with regard to debates on the Floor of the House but not with regard to how long statements should run in Back-Bench time?

[Angela Smith]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee pointed out that for the greater part of the time Back-Bench business works on a consensual basis. I think she would want that spirit to be reflected in future arrangements rather than having written into Standing Orders a procedure that is unwieldy and may, in effect, start to distort the nature of the business that takes place on these days, which are typically sitting Thursdays.

We agree with this way of continuing Back-Bench business and encourage Members of the House to support the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the amendments. Of course, it is up to right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds on these changes, but I hope they can be guided by the Committee on these important matters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has acquiesced in that view. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to allow the amendments to stand.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Debate between Angela Smith and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful for that suggestion.

When I flagged up the issue during business questions earlier today, the Leader of the House said that the Deputy Leader of the House would provide a powerful response to my amendments during his speech. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House left his notes in the Leader of the House’s office, but his contribution certainly did not constitute a powerful response to the amendments, which I found disappointing. This could have been the occasion for the establishment in the Chamber of a new doctrine, the Heath doctrine, to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. The Heath doctrine could have stated that whenever a sitting in Westminster Hall is cancelled for understandable reasons, the parliamentary air time must be replaced by an alternative sitting. The Deputy Leader of the House would have been applauded by Members on both sides of the House, and I am disappointed that he did not choose to grasp that chalice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is right: there are all sorts of innovative ways in which the Government could overcome the difficulty of allocating the time. If we accept that, as the rules stand, it is up to the Government to decide what debates take place, the Government could say, for example, to the Speaker’s Office through the Table Office, “We must allocate this time, but will you invite applications from Back Benchers to fill the slot? We will then take your recommendation for filling the time appropriately.” That would have been the imaginative and innovative solution that I would expect from our two colleagues, and I am sorry that they did not think of it.

There is no shortage of potential debates in Westminster Hall. Only today, we heard 37 Back Benchers call for debates on a range of subjects: cosmetic surgery, north-east regional strategy, the Royal Bank of Scotland, drought and the national water grid, the Olympics, working tax credits, youth unemployment, music exports, Syria, international women’s day, elected mayors, design patents, directory inquiries, high streets, defence procurement, work experience schemes, unemployment in the north-east, business in the community, the Backbench Business Committee, arms exports to the middle east and north Africa, apprenticeships, local heating schemes, music licences in public places, bans on protest marches, the economy, education and manufacturing, employment law, Professor Ebdon, job clubs, small and medium-sized enterprises in retail, manufacturing, energy companies and their customers, and the efficiencies of police services. That is just the list for today; I am sure that in most weeks many further requests are made to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.

Representations to the Backbench Business Committee continue to flood in, too. There is a long list of outstanding issues for which it has not been possible to allocate any time, simply because the Government have not allocated the Committee sufficient time to be able to debate them. When the Backbench Business Committee was established, we were promised that it would get 35 days per Session. The gentleman’s agreement—to use a sexist phrase—was that that would, in effect, be 35 days per year. This Session lasts for two years, however, and although I am not a great mathematician, I believe that the Backbench Business Committee should therefore be allocated 70 days for the discussion of issues Back Benchers wish to raise, but today’s Order Paper reveals that it has been allocated only 53 and a half days, and we are about to go into March. It appears that we will fall well short of that 70 total, therefore. Some of these outstanding issues could be scheduled for debate in an extra day in Westminster Hall. That would go some way towards dealing with the large number of issues that have come before the Committee.

Amendments (a) and (b) are reasonable measures intended to preserve the power of this Chamber to hold the Government to account and to allow Back Benchers on both sides of the House to raise constituency interests and concerns. Even at this late stage, it is not too late for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House to have what was called this morning a Pauline conversion and to say, “Yes, this is a good idea from the Members for Kettering and Wellingborough. We wish we had thought of it, but we’re going to be charitable because we know that these two fine gentlemen have the best interests of the House at heart. We will support amendment (a).” If they were to say that, no one would cheer them louder than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and me.

Amendment (c) would allow for an extra sitting day on Wednesday 28 March. That is a separate issue from the rescheduling of Westminster Hall time. It is, in part, to do with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about Prime Minister’s questions, but not for the reasons she suggested. I think the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. It is an occasion when the great British public tune in to see Parliament at work. If we ask our constituents whether they watch any of the parliamentary television coverage, most of them will say that they do not, but most of those who say they do will watch PMQs. It is a regular half hour each week that people know is worth watching for information, news and, frankly, entertainment. The great British public look forward to Prime Minister’s questions and I think that, just on the basic level, it is a shame that the nation and the House is denied an opportunity for Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of who the Prime Minister is and of which party is in power, because it is a great British occasion. It is a shame that by having the Adjournment on the Tuesday, we do not get Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.

On a partisan point, I take completely the opposite view to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), because I think that the Prime Minister does extremely well at PMQs. I understand her point of view—she thinks he does particularly badly—but these differences are what makes for good debate and for the sense of occasion. I suspect that the Prime Minister enjoys Prime Minister’s questions and that he will be disappointed that he is not able to come here on that Wednesday. I suspect—this will doubtless be written down and used against me at some future point—that the Prime Minister is being given bad advice. I do not know whether it is coming from the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip, but someone is telling him, “Look, it would be a good idea to have the Adjournment on the Tuesday, so that you don’t have to go through all the hassle of Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday.” That is bad advice, wrongly given, and I suspect that the Prime Minister is disappointed that he will not have the opportunity to address the nation on that day.

On a serious level, all this does mean that the nation goes without Prime Minister’s questions for a month when it need not do so. According to the Government’s timetable, the last Prime Minister’s questions before the recess will be on Budget day, Wednesday 21 March, and the next Prime Minister’s questions will take place on the first Wednesday when Parliament comes back—Wednesday 18 April. So for almost a month the nation will be deprived of Prime Minister’s questions. Will the wheels come off the country, will the nation stop working and will everything grind to a halt? No, of course that will not happen, but there is no need to have a month between Prime Minister’s questions. We are talking about the Prime Minister of our country, and it would be a good precedent—perhaps this could be the Young doctrine—if the sign-off note before entering a recess were the Prime Minister answering questions from hon. Members in this House, to set the nation off for the recess. Would that not be a wonderful parliamentary occasion?

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case about PMQs. Will he acknowledge that the Prime Minister will be absent again on the week prior to 21 March because of a visit to the United States, so we will have the pleasure of the Prime Minister’s presence and responses in PMQs in only one week out of five?

[Mr Hollobone]

I did not know that, and I am most grateful for the helpful intervention. No doubt the nation will be disappointed by that. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will relish the opportunity to see how the Deputy Prime Minister performs, and that may well make for a rather more entertaining Wednesday in that particular week. I am making a genuine point when I say that there is no need to have a month’s gap in between hearing from the Prime Minister, given that we could have a new Young doctrine that says that it is important for the Prime Minister to sign off on the Session before the recess starts.