Pet Abduction Bill

Debate between Jane Stevenson and Anna Firth

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth]

I thank the hon. Member for her excellent point—in fact, there is another excellent private Member’s Bill on that topic further down the list today. She is absolutely right: we do not seek to criminalise anyone who looks after Sid, George, or any other stray cat.

The Bill includes an enabling power to extend the offences to other species of animal commonly kept as pets. If there is evidence of a significant number or a rise in cases of unlawful taking, the Government will be able to react in a dynamic way. When listening to the radio last night, I was very struck by the number of people who phoned in to talk about birds—in particular, birds of prey—being stolen, so that may well be an area that we look at in the future.

We have heard concerns about the fact that good behaviour should not be criminalised. I want to assure Members that while the Bill proposes offences meant to punish those who purposefully abduct a pet, it also creates exemptions for certain connected persons and subject to certain defences, such as a reasonable excuse for taking or detaining an animal. For example—we have already heard some examples—the offence will not apply in situations where a couple have got a cat or a dog while living together, then have a disagreement about the ownership of that pet and go their separate ways. That could include someone who is fleeing an abusive relationship taking their valued pet with them. Refuge has raised that specific point and is very happy to see that situation exempted in the Bill.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I will congratulate my hon. Friend again when I make my speech. She is raising such valuable points about the different circumstances that we will see a result of the Bill. Potentially in the future it will encompass a wider range of species than dogs and cats, so does she feel that we may need a widening of microchipping to encompass those pets? It will be difficult to prove ownership of animals that are not microchipped if they do not have distinguishing features.

[Anna Firth]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent point. The logic of that is irrefutable, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Debate between Jane Stevenson and Anna Firth

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of this incredibly important Bill. I pay tribute to the brilliant speech we just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who spoke with such fluency and detail about this topic that there is little anyone now needs to say. That puts me in the difficult position of trying to follow him, but there are a couple of points that I want to emphasise.

I am extremely pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on the Treasury Bench and to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), whose Bill we are supporting today. It is terribly important to have such a strong showing from Essex when discussing this important topic, and that is not just some “TOWIE”, collegiate Essex chest-beating, important though that always is. It is because 21% of people in Essex are over 65, compared with just 18.5% in England as a whole. With that higher than average age profile, there is a higher call for lasting powers of eternity—sorry, attorney; I am going off in another direction!

That thread of evidence runs through Essex. Some 21% of my constituents are aged 65 and over, and 1.5% are over 90. If we look at age-related disease in the new powerhouse city of Southend and picturesque Leigh-on-Sea, we see that 1.2% of people are registered as having dementia, which is 50% higher than across the country as a whole. That makes the Bill incredibly important for people in Essex. While we do not like to talk or think about such things, clearly it is vital for my constituents that their rights and freedoms are protected and that they can take early action to appoint people they trust to act on their behalf.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) also spoke brilliantly—so brilliantly that I had to write down the point he made. He is right to say that the existing protections within the lasting powers of attorney system are losing their effectiveness as technology improves and society’s attitudes change. People are now accustomed to being able to obtain Government services online; not only are we working online much more, but we want the convenience of being able to fill in the forms when we happen to have a spare half-hour or hour, whether morning, noon, night or even in the wee small hours. The system has to come up to date and become less cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex.

In particular, the requirement to sign the lasting powers of attorney in a particular order presents many logistical difficulties. I remember well with my mother’s and father-in-law’s powers of attorney how all the documents turned up and we needed to focus and get them in the right order. If we had all done it at the same time online, it would have been so much easier. I am delighted that this Bill is before the House and that it will facilitate three things: first, and importantly, improvements to safeguards; secondly, a simpler process and better access for all involved; and, thirdly, making the Office of the Public Guardian more sustainable.

The only word of warning I would add is about ensuring that there is support for people going through the process electronically. That is why I am particularly pleased to hear that we will have both a digital and a paper channel available. I think of my own mother, who is an academic doctor in her own right and a powerhouse in her 80s; the fact that it was a paper process, and that she did get a lawyer, put her in control and meant that she understood it all. Even though she was doing something that she perhaps did not particularly want to be thinking about, she was in control.

My slight worry is that, if we were to go fully digital, people might feel additional stress and pressure at a time when they are perhaps considering their own mortality—not the happiest of moments—and they would probably have to turn for help to the very people to whom they were looking to give the power of attorney.

[Jane Stevenson]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I thank her for her tribute to her mother, who sounds like an inspirational woman. My mother is also in her 80s and is very tech-minded—she is a bit of a silver surfer powerhouse. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that as we move to digital, especially in provisions for older people, we must also raise awareness of any scams and any potential abuses or misuses of that new technology, and that education is crucial?

[Anna Firth]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was about to come on to the two other issues with digitisation and why it is so good that we are keeping the paper channel for the time being. One issue is the 8 million-odd people who are not online at all, and the other issue is scams. Even my mother often calls me to run through something that someone has rung her up about or put on the computer. She needs that extra person to say, “That is complete nonsense.” She is lucky that she has family around her to do that, but there are plenty of people in their 80s who do not. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

Much has been said—almost everything that could be said—in support of this important Bill, which leaves me to say only, once again, that I am delighted to support it and to see support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an important change to the legislation that will make a genuine improvement to the lives of my constituents in Southend West and will provide them, I hope, with the peace of mind that they need to ensure that their wishes, values and views will be represented, even when they can no longer make decisions for themselves.