Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Debate between Angela Smith and Robert Flello

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I apologise for my ever so slightly late arrival, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing it. She is otherwise known nowadays as Detective Turley—but that is another matter.

I pay tribute to the animal welfare charities that have worked tirelessly to raise the profile of the seriousness of animal cruelty in this country: Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, Cats Protection—not often mentioned in this context—and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I think that every Member who has spoken has outlined articulately that it is cruel and unacceptable in a civilised society that people should be able to get away with behaviour such as we are discussing. The briefing prepared by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for the debate points out that a 2005 report observed that

“between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet.”

I do not think that will surprise anyone in the room, and it further illustrates some of the points that have been made.

The change in the law demanded by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar is long overdue. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 made a provision for increased sentencing, but it has never been implemented. We need to see it implemented now, and at the level recommended by hon. Members today—with a five-year maximum sentence for animal cruelty of the severest kind. That would send out a message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated in our society.

We like to think of ourselves as a country that is at the forefront of best practice when it comes to animal welfare—that we love our animals—but I am ashamed to say that we are way behind. Let us get in line with practice in Northern Ireland. The powerful contribution made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was really helpful because it illustrated another point: not only must we increase sentencing to the maximum available in Northern Ireland, but we need to remember that cultural change is required in our courts. The courts need to understand that implementation of the harsher sentencing guidelines will be required to make the change effective.

[Robert Flello]

Does my hon. Friend also think that it is important to send out a message about police animals? Police dogs are often attacked and sentencing is not appropriate, nor even is the definition of the offence. That needs to be looked at as well.

[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.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Angela Smith and Robert Flello

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am deeply saddened by the divisions and upset that this issue has caused to people on both sides of the argument. Sadly, in some quarters the divisions arise because the debate has been characterised as bigoted religion on the one hand versus equality on the other. Neither of those is true. True Christians are not bigoted, and this is not a matter of equality, no matter how often it is referred to as equal marriage. Some of the divisions arise from the campaign to steer people into thinking that marriage is simply about love and commitment. It could also be said that the Bill falls foul of Parliament’s convention of not legislating retrospectively, because changing the fundamental nature of marriage will affect existing marriages.

Under the law as it stands, as tested in the European Court of Human Rights, civil partnerships are equal to marriage. They might not have the same name, but they are equal. It has been argued that society views marriage and civil partnerships as being different and that same-sex couples feel that their relationship is not valued by society in the same way as is marriage. However, it is not even 10 years since civil partnerships were created, and already society has moved ahead in its appreciation of the commitment that those formal partnerships demonstrate.

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

As an atheist, I enjoyed the right to get married outside the Church. Surely those who do believe have a right to get married within their Church?

[Robert Flello]

I will come to that in a moment.

Perhaps the parts of society that do not view civil partnerships as being exactly identical to marriage do so because a large proportion of society views marriage as being about the union of a man and a woman for the creation and care of children, and not simply about the love and commitment of the happy couple, as important as that is. On the other hand, civil partnerships are a celebration and recognition of the love and commitment that two people of the same gender have for each other.

The state has sought to treat marriage in a special way in recognition of its intrinsically child-centred nature. That is the only reason why the state has previously had any interest in marriage at all. If marriage were simply about love and commitment, we would first have to define love as being sexual love, because otherwise non-sexual relationships that are based on love and commitment would also have to be treated as marriage on the basis of the definition of equality. If the definition of marriage is simply love and commitment, why is the state interested at all? What business is it of the state’s to register and record such unions? It is because marriage is about so much more that the state has historically wanted to be involved.