Animal Welfare

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Neil Parish

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our sentences are lower than those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, too, so there is far stiffer sentencing even in our own countries of the United Kingdom. We should also consider the message that it sends if the sentence for beating to death a sentient being that relies entirely on human care is less than that for, perhaps, stealing a computer; it really is not on. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully; I know he is very keen on animal welfare. It is probably not always his remit to increase sentencing, but we must get this message out, loud and clear.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

To reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, 1.2 million people have contacted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about animal cruelty. Importantly, the legislation is extremely weak and I support him in what he is trying to achieve.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree entirely. Many aspects of animal cruelty are reported, but others are not. Having stronger sentencing would be a deterrent; we want to prevent the cruelty from happening in the first place. Having a sentence of at least five years would send the right message. Then it would be up to the courts to decide what sentence they dish out in the end.

Funding for Local Authorities

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Neil Parish

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because I believe that will need to be recognised not only in local government funding but in health service funding. In my constituency the town of Axminster has a population profile that matches the one forecast for the country in 2035, meaning that there is a much more elderly population. In Seaton and Sidmouth and along that coastline, there is an increasingly elderly population.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the local government funding formula in general needs to be looked at, because there are different problems in different regions, and they require different answers? In Coventry, the local authority has lost £45 million over the last three years and is expected to find another £19 million next year. That is affecting jobs as well as services, so Coventry is down 15%—1.5% above the national average in relation to cuts and resources.

[Neil Parish]

I started my political life in both district and county council—this is going back to the ’80s—and the formula was just as complicated then. Under successive Governments we have made it even more complicated. I think, dare I say it, that it is all done because if the formula is made complicated enough, no one will understand it and those in government can do what they like. The Government spend a lot of time talking about the spending power of councils. It is not only about that spending power, but about how we get to that spending power and who pays for it. I shall discuss that issue later.

Urban councils are still receiving 50% more per head than local authorities in rural areas, despite the fact that residents in rural authorities, such as Devon county council, pay 15% more council tax, and many public expenses are more expensive to deliver in sparsely populated rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the distances involved in getting children to school. Also, in rural areas we have many smaller schools, which are very good schools but are more expensive to run.

Despite the fact that rural areas have been underfunded, I would highlight the very good services that education authorities, schools and those across the piece have managed to deliver in very difficult circumstances. However, that does not mean that we should sit here and allow the Government not to give us a fair share. I want to put it on the record that I believe that we have very good services, despite the meagre amounts being spent on them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the areas he and I represent have an additional problem in social care, because £0.8 billion has been shifted away from local government to try to fund social care, leaving a gaping hole in the funding.

[Neil Parish]

rose—

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Neil Parish

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I rise not to support the new clause but to say to Ministers that I would like to hear exactly what they intend to do about doorstep lending. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned Wonga, which can charge up to 4,500% interest on its loans. Uncle Buck can charge 2,500% and PaydayUK can charge 1,200%. With a base rate of 0.5%, how can charging such inordinate interest be justified? These companies—I call them all loan sharks, to be blunt—travel around our poorest areas. I would be the first to admit that my constituency is not the most deprived in the country, but I have many poor and vulnerable constituents, and I think that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about what action we should take.

I know that Ministers are not keen on dealing with this problem through regulation, but perhaps we should consider our approach to smoking: we do not stop people smoking—although we have banned it in public places—but we put large health warnings on cigarette packets. The Financial Services Authority, or whichever body will be responsible, should at the very least take action so that there are serious health warnings for those considering taking out these loans.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one aspect that should be looked at is television advertising?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the advertising and promotion of these products is a great concern. These products can seriously damage someone’s financial health, because they not only get them into huge debt, with huge interest to pay, but can often prevent them from securing mainstream credit, which can affect them enormously.

I am not greatly in favour of regulation, but I do not think that we can stand idly by and let some of the most vulnerable people in the country be exploited. They are desperate for money, and people knock on the door and offer them it. In fairness, many of them do not look at all the details or consider the fact that they will have to pay such high interest if they do not repay the loans. They do not realise that they will probably be charged even more interest if the loan is renegotiated, and that if they do not pay on time the loans company is likely to impose huge fines. That is unacceptable in this day and age and we must do something about it.

About 50% of the population in Ireland are involved in credit unions. In the US and Canada, the figure is about 40%, in Australia and New Zealand it is about 25%, but in the UK it is only 2%. I know that the Government are looking into increasing the availability of credit unions across the country, but we need to act much faster. In the meantime, we have to act against these companies, the loan sharks, because people who take out the loans sometimes have to pay back 10, 20, 30 or 100 times as much as they originally borrowed.

If the loan sharks’ argument is that they lend on those terms because the people to whom they lend are a security risk, we must question whether they should lend the money in the first place, and certainly at such massive amounts of interest. They must take the view that if 25 of the 100 people to whom they lend are forced into bankruptcy they will make enough money from the other 75 to make a profit. Is that moral and right? The answer is certainly not. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, that cannot be right in this day and age.

I have mixed views on the new clause, but I do not want Ministers to wring their hands and say that there is nothing they can do. In fairness to the Government, I should point out that the Opposition cannot hold their heads high, because they had 13 years in which to do something about this issue. It is right for the coalition Government to take the issue on. Instead of wringing our hands and saying we can do nothing, let us do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady is right that parts of the population cannot borrow elsewhere, which is a problem. That is another reason for clear warnings, if not restrictions, on the rates of interest charged.

The problem is not just that there is a population who cannot borrow from anywhere else but that many companies and loan sharks knock on people’s doors. Credit is often dished out in cash, which is very tempting. Some people could, if they went to a great deal more trouble, secure money from proper lending companies at a competitive rate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

People also borrow against their wages, which puts them on a financial treadmill that is hard to get off when there are such extortionate interest rates.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman refers to payday loans, which also incur huge amounts of interest.

I am not against people being able to borrow. In a capitalist system, people need to be able to do that, but we must stop companies exploiting people’s vulnerability and lending at such vast rates of interest. That can be achieved either by legislation or by companies having to provide a clear statement of what a loan will cost when their representatives arrive on somebody’s doorstep and try to lend them money. If someone who borrows £100 will end up paying £2,000 back, that should be absolutely clear. That is the very least I should like the Government to do.

I have made, I hope, many good points, and I hope too that the Government will not just wring their hands but do something to help vulnerable people and stop legal loan sharking companies taking money from people in a way that I believe is theft.