Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Thank you very much for dividing up the time; I shall try to ensure that I keep my speech below five minutes.

I thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) not only for introducing her Bill but for securing this debate. Whatever political party one comes from, what is going on is just abhorrent. The major issue, on which I hope we will hear more from the Minister, is the fact that however horrendous the crime, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is six months’ imprisonment. If the perpetrator pleads guilty, they automatically get two months knocked off that sentence, so they often serve around four months for the most horrendous crimes.

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that if someone can string up a dog, cat or any other animal and beat it to death or kick it downstairs, or whatever the other horrendous things that have been happening are, it will not be too long before they can do that to a human. The Americans and others are linking things up and creating a register of those who have committed animal welfare crimes, and that would be a good way forward for this country.

[Robert Flello]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that as well as going on a register, those individuals should be reported to local social services, which should look carefully at their family environments?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and yes, they should. Some individuals will be just completely and utterly cruel and base; perhaps others will be challenged in some way and so not necessarily able to understand all they are doing. It is a combination of all those things. There needs to be a link with social services, but we also need to send a message not only to those who are blatantly cruel but to those taking part in dog fights and keeping dogs for that purpose. There is a criminal element out there. Sometimes, making money from inflicting animal cruelty can be an easy way of making some sort of a horrible living.

We are talking about sentient beings. Animals feel pain. Many of us present will have animals of our own. At home we have both a dog and a cat, and I have had many other animals in my time as a farmer. When someone has an animal, they are its protector. Animals cannot protect themselves, so they are very much in our care. They give us much love, and then what do we do? Individuals treat them so dreadfully and they cannot protect themselves. It is just absolutely horrendous. We need to ensure that we send the right message to everyone out there that if they are going to abuse an animal and beat it to death, they will get a sentence of at least five years, if not longer. That would ensure that we at least send out the message that animal abuse is absolutely wrong and that perpetrators will go to prison, and it would prevent others from going down the same route.

I do not wish to say anything further because there are others who wish to speak, but I ask the Minister to please deal with this problem seriously, as they have done in Northern Ireland. Let us be clear and put up the sentences massively.

I pay tribute to the RSPCA, Battersea dogs home, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and many other charities that do some marvellous work in trying to make sure that our animals are protected and looked after properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for your efficient chairing of proceedings today. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing today’s debate on animal cruelty and the skilful way in which she is handling her private Member’s Bill. She is airing the issues here in advance of the Bill being brought before the House. As the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), rightly put it, this issue should go beyond party politics. I understand the strength of feeling about offences against animals and why people feel anger towards those who commit such crimes.

So far as the Government are concerned, this matter sits between the Ministry of Justice and DEFRA. I assure the hon. Member for Redcar that the Government take animal welfare seriously. I know that the topic is of widespread concern to many. I also appreciate the concerns about those who carry out appalling acts of cruelty on defenceless animals and the wider implications of the links between animal and human abuse. The research carried out by Teesside University has been mentioned, and I assure Members that we will look at it closely.

Northern Ireland and Scotland have also been mentioned in the debate. The question was asked why, if Northern Ireland can increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty to five years, England and Wales cannot. Penalties are devolved to Northern Ireland. Each jurisdiction decides the appropriate maximum sentence for each offence, but we will look at the experience of Northern Ireland and Scotland and the impact the changes have specifically on offending behaviour. That is what we want to look at. We want to ensure that increasing the maximum sentence has an impact on offending behaviour.

[Neil Parish]

While it may be DEFRA that deals with animal welfare, it is the justice system that deals with sentencing. It is up to our courts to decide the length of sentence, but a maximum sentence of only six months gives the court very little flexibility. If we increased that maximum sentence dramatically, the courts would have much more flexibility in dealing with cases.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to the six-month point in a second, but on the five-year point, a maximum five-year sentence would be the equivalent of a sentence for gross bodily harm of a human being. Those are serious offences, and we do not have to stand back. The penalties need to work across the board. In other words, if we increase the penalty to five years in line with GBH, we will have to look at sentencing across the board. That is something the Government need to do to ensure consistency in the criminal law, which is important. As far as Scotland is concerned, again this is a devolved matter.

As is often said, however, prevention is better than cure. To that end, some animal welfare organisations help educate youngsters in animal welfare. I should mention the role of the RSPCA, as other Members have. It does great work in schools. Blue Cross, too, works in schools with children to help them become informed, responsible and active citizens. It is interesting to note from my research for the debate that the RSPCA has been campaigning for and enforcing animal welfare legislation for nearly 200 years. In that time the organisation has built huge expertise in animal welfare. It of course not only prosecutes people, but provides advice to owners about how to look after their animals properly. The Government recognise that tremendous effort, and it is to the credit of the RSPCA that it has improved the lives of many animals.

I am, however, aware of horrible cases, some of which have been mentioned today, specifically the one involving the Frankish brothers and their pet bulldog. I hope that Members appreciate that I am unable to respond specifically on the details of that case, but many people consider the penalty to have been too lenient. On that point, I would pick up on another issue that was raised: how we deal with unduly lenient sentencing. The Attorney General refers some sentences he considers unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal to reconsider. Those are summary-only offences and so animal cruelty is not currently within that scheme. That includes assault on humans and common assault, which are also not within the scheme. The Government are considering the scope of the scheme and how to implement our 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to expand it.

On sentencing, we should remember that it is a matter for our independent courts. The court is best placed to decide on the appropriate penalty for an offence because it is in possession of the full facts of the case, many of which might not be reported in the newspapers. When deciding what sentence to impose within the maximum limits available, the courts are required to take account of all the circumstances of an offender, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors.

On maximum penalties, it is worth stressing that while sentencing is a matter for the courts, setting the framework that the courts work within is a matter for Parliament, as we all know as legislators. The maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was set by Parliament to cover the most serious imaginable behaviours for that specific offence. It was only last year that the maximum fine for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was raised from £20,000 to an unlimited fine, although I note the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar that in imposing that fine, the courts often means-test it to make sure that it is payable. I am aware of that nuance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure he does. We are immensely grateful to him.

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

12. What proportion of prisoners are illiterate.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

Fewer than half of the people entering prison have basic standards of English and maths. This is a huge problem because we know that low levels of education can prevent people from securing jobs on release and leading law-abiding lives.

[Neil Parish]

The Secretary of State is quite right to say that both literacy and numeracy are essential to getting a job. Should we not therefore put more resources into educating prisoners on release so that they are able to get jobs?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that too many people enter our prisons without those skills. We need to use their time in prison to help them to gain the basic skills so that they can succeed outside. We have started measuring prisoners’ skills by testing them as they enter prison. I am keen to see that we measure real progress made during prisoners’ stay in prison and hold governors accountable for that.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is about bringing back common sense to a part of our society that week in, week out frustrates many of us; about restoring balance to the health and safety culture that all too often goes beyond what is necessary to protect individuals; about tackling a culture of ambulance chasing that all too often is about generating opportunities to earn fees, rather than doing the right thing; about ensuring that people who do the right thing are confident that the law is on their side when they do so; about trying to protect those who act in the interests of our society; about protecting those who go out of their way to take the responsible approach; and about protecting those who take risks to try to help those who are in trouble. It does not rewrite the law in detail or take away discretion from the courts, but it sends a signal to our judges and a signal to those thinking about trying it on—by bringing a case in the hope that it will not be defended—that the law is no longer on their side.

We live in a society that is increasingly litigious. In a country where things are safer than ever, where our workplaces are less risky than ever and where safety standards on our roads are higher than ever, that should not be happening. Of course accidents happen; they always will. Of course people do dumb things; they always will. Of course unscrupulous people will cut corners and put others in danger; they always will. But there is no need for us to be suing more and more. In the last three years alone, figures for personal injury claims registered with the compensation recovery unit show that claims against employers have increased from around 81,000 in 2010-11 to more than 105,000 in 2013-14—an increase of 30%.

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

I very much support what the Minister is doing, because there are some people out there who genuinely need to sue when there is a problem, but there are many who have manufactured a situation, where they were probably at fault themselves, and then want to blame somebody else. There is a culture of blaming somebody else whatever happens. We need to take responsibility for our own actions as well as everyone else’s.

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I want those who are tempted to try to attract people who have been the victim of an accident—those who say, “Hey, there’s an opportunity for you to sue”—to believe that it is perhaps not in their business interests to do so. Accidents do happen. Where people are genuinely on the bad end of a poor decision or malpractice, they should of course have a defence in the courts, but people who are blameless should not be sued none the less.

Transforming Legal Aid

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very important matter. As the House knows, I have to make some substantial cuts across the Department. I am trying to balance them sensibly and to deliver them through reforms. What this package does is enable me, in a different way, to get to the same point financially. I am grateful to those who have been involved in the negotiations for the constructive way in which they have approached this. I know it is difficult and that it will be very unwelcome to many people in the profession, but it is the best option we have available.

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

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has listened to the consultation. Devon and Cornwall were going to be treated as one area for competitive tendering, but it was just too huge. Local companies and specialist companies in my constituency and area will get a chance to deal with the work, and I am happy that he can give us that reassurance.

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. As I say, it was a genuine consultation and a genuine process of discussion. I was impressed by comments made by my hon. Friend, and by colleagues in similar constituencies, about our having to do more to try to address the issues in rural areas, and that was something I tried to take into account.

Legal Aid Reform

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. I must declare straight away that I am not a lawyer. I hope that I can therefore approach the debate in an impartial manner. I have been listening to it, and I am concerned to hear that so many small firms of lawyers could be excluded from the large contracts. Devon and Cornwall cover 40,000 square miles, and that will be viewed as one contract. That is a huge area to cover. I am not against the principle behind the reform, but we must be careful about introducing contracts that will cover such huge areas. We must ensure that smaller companies have a chance to tender for that work.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about small firms. I work in one such firm as a criminal defence solicitor. Does he recognise a certain irony, in that the Government want to avoid the legal aid deserts that it has been suggested could be created as a result of the equal-sized contracting model, and that the small firms, the medium-sized firms and the large firms are all saying that the proposed model is unviable?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience as a lawyer in a law firm. He has identified the problem with the reform, and I can relate to what he is saying. I suspect that all Conservative Members recognise the need to make savings, but we need to do so in a way that will still allow people to have a choice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to see small law firms get business and stay in business.

It is estimated that about £20 million is being spent on the defence of criminals, many of whom are probably not declaring all their assets, and I agree with the Government that that needs to be sorted out. That is perhaps a slightly different issue, but it is none the less essential that taxpayers’ money is used to the best effect. A cut-off point can be set on a person’s income above which they will not qualify for legal aid, but there are also cases in which someone who is eligible for it carries on a vexatious case against a person who is just above the threshold and has to fund the case themselves. That is perhaps not a matter for debate today, but it is essential, if we are to ensure that people can get access to legal aid, to ensure that those cases that are pursued are legitimate and not simply vexatious.

It has been pointed out that we are seeing a great many judicial reviews. It is right that the Government should be challenged, but it is not necessarily right that everyone should have access to a judicial review, as they are often unnecessary.

I broadly support the Government’s attempt to reduce the costs of legal aid, but I am concerned about certain aspects of it, as I live in and represent an area of Devon that is very rural and the proposed contract will be very large. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Minister are listening to these arguments; the Minister is nodding his head. I do not want us to be a Government who reduce choice, who drive out of business many small firms that do an excellent job and, perhaps, who do not save anywhere near as much money as we believe we will. Before we go ploughing on with this, let us sit down and have a proper consultation. I am hopeful that the Government are not just saying this and that they will have meaningful talks. I look forward to that happening.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes. I shall mention some of the provinces of the Church of England that already have women bishops when I come on to one of the possible solutions to the impasse.

I was talking about people coming in and out of the Church. For every one person who may leave the Church of England over women bishops, there will be many more who stay or come back; there are also people who, at the moment, shrug and say, “Why should I take a second look at an institution that treats women like this?”, but who will take that second look if women are fully celebrated in the Church. In the discussions that we often have about the importance of Church unity, we very rarely talk about those who have already left or been driven out of the Church, or who have not come in, including members of my extended family and my circle of friends—I am sure that the same applies to many hon. Members—because of the failure of the Church to make progress more quickly.

Having announced on the eve of this debate that they will have another go in July, the Bishops need to be sure that they will win. The process must be concluded quickly—in months, not years. If they are not sure that they can deliver, they should ask Parliament for help. Since the Synod vote, many of us will have been contacted by priests and lay members of the Church, appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me, saying, “Please, please, please, help.” She went on to ask us to remove the Church’s exemption from equality laws, describing it as

“deeply offensive to most women priests.”

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

I am very much a supporter of the Church of England having women bishops. Do we speed up the pace at which the Church moves by having this debate, or is it much better to let the Church of England get on with it?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) may be able to add some helpful intelligence in that regard when he replies, but from all the conversations that I have had with people from the archbishop downwards, they are encouraging us to have this debate. They feel that they need the pressure to be kept on from this place, so the simple answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is that it is helpful.

Other correspondents have questioned the continued presence of an all-male episcopate in the other place, and suggested that the Prime Minister put a hold on new bishop appointments until the issue is resolved. A male vicar from London wrote to me saying that because the failure lies in the synodical election process, Parliament should intervene. The Dean of Sheffield wrote to me saying:

“Parliament has a responsibility to take action when the future of the established Church is threatened by the actions of a vocal and determined minority.”

Canon Jane Charman, the diocesan director of Salisbury, wrote:

“The Church of England has a privileged place in our national life and Parliament has not just a right but a duty to help us fulfil our responsibilities appropriately.”

She goes on:

“I believe it would be a kindness to the Church and to our Archbishop designate if Parliament can now do for us what we have proved unable to do for ourselves and so bring this shameful situation to an end.”

Canon Charman goes on to suggest this could be done by a simple mechanism of Parliament amending Canon C2, as we would have been asked to do if the Women Bishops Measure had passed.

Women and the Church, or WATCH, which is the umbrella group for those supporting women’s ordination and consecration as bishops, also says that resolving the issue would be a simple task requiring the repeal of one clause of the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure or the removal of one clause of one section of Canon Law. WATCH is pessimistic about the prospect of a successful compromise in July and now advocates a simple measure legislating for women bishops. It says that that is the only legislation that Parliament should accept. Provision for dissenters, it says, should be as in all the other Anglican provinces that have women bishops—that is, based on pastoral and informal support.

A non-stipendiary priest and senior civil servant has written to me advocating a simple amendment to legislation, making it legal for anyone to be a bishop regardless of gender. This permissive model would not force the Church to have women bishops but, he predicts, the Crown Nominations Committee would nominate a female bishop within a year or so and some diocesan bishops may well start appointing female suffragans pretty much immediately.

What we have here is not Parliament wishing to intervene or relishing intervening in Church affairs, but priests and lay people in the Church pleading with us to do so. Some people have suggested that it would be unfair or unconstitutional for Parliament to single out the Church of England in legislation in this way. But that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do on same-sex marriage. The Church of England is to receive special legislation, at its own request, applying exclusively to it, banning same-sex weddings in Anglican churches. If Parliament can legislate exclusively for the Church of England to ban same-sex weddings, something the Church is perfectly capable of deciding to do for itself, why should not Parliament legislate exclusively for the Church to do something it wants but cannot deliver for itself—women bishops?

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Those issues could certainly be discussed, but the Court has indicated to us that, were we to implement a measure that took the bar lower than the six-month sentence point, it would be unlikely to see our approach as compliant with the original ruling. Whether an exception for violence could be made is a matter that needs careful consideration in Committee. I do not have the legal basis to rule it in or out at the moment, but the six-month threshold is certainly where the Court has indicated that it sees the line being drawn.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it fundamentally wrong for prisoners to be given the vote, but it is British courts that see all the evidence and take away the freedom of those people, so why on earth should it be European courts that overrule us?

[Chris Grayling]

As a great believer in the principle of subsidiarity, I think that, where possible, national courts should take decisions on all but the highest points of principle. That, of course, is not where we are at the moment with the European Court of Human Rights, which is taking decisions on issues that, in my view, should certainly be a matter for national courts.

Police

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, want to quote the phrase “not in living memory”. Not in living memory have any Government inherited such a financial mess as we, this coalition Government, have. We have had to take spending decisions very seriously. Opposition Members have made the point that perhaps we ought to share the responsibility, but the point that should be recognised is that hon. Members all sides would have had to make reductions.

The Opposition paint us as though we do not care about our police forces, but that is wrong. Devon and Cornwall police force does a very good job with excellent officers, but we know full well that we cannot carry on borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spend. We also know that if we do not have a pay freeze for officers, we will have to reduce their numbers even further, because we would not be able to maintain even the current numbers. We have to grow up and say what the coalition Government are saying: yes, police forces do a great job, but we can afford only a certain amount of money. The Labour party makes much of the fact that it spent huge amounts on new headquarters across the country, but they were not paid for there and then. They are being paid for now, and will be in the future, adding to public expenditure. All those points have to be reinforced, because we could not carry on as we had been.

It is right—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made this point—that it is down to the chief constables and police authorities in local areas to make reductions where they see fit. It is also down to the chief constables to ensure that front-line policing is maintained. I went out with my local police officers before the general election, and they said that if they make an arrest, they then have to do seven hours of paperwork. I hope that we are tackling that, and if we are not, I am sure that the Minister will tackle it, because there is no doubt that we can reduce bureaucracy and make much better use of police time. We have to accept that there is not the money in the Exchequer or anywhere else, whoever had got into power, because it was all wasted by the previous Government. That is why we have to take these actions. I would much prefer it if, instead of trying to pull apart what we are sensibly trying to do, the Opposition came to this Chamber with some genuinely concrete proposals for how we can move forward together.

I want to see as many community police officers out on the beat as possible. Indeed, every time the chief constable walked into a police station and found a lot of police officers there, would it not be a good idea—I know that some chief constables are doing this—if he asked why they were there and not out on the beat, policing and catching criminals, which is what we put them there for? There is a great deal more that can be done. There are many great police officers and very good police constables in this country, but we have to find the very best practices to get value for money. In the end, that is what it is about—value for money. The last Government were not about value for money; they were about throwing money around. Some of it went to the right places and some of it to the wrong places. Now we have to pick up the cudgel and make the money we have go further.

I look forward to the police looking at how they spend their budget. I think there is no need for big front-line cuts. If it is looked at dramatically and properly, we can police ourselves in the future very well. Yes, our constituents and the residents of our towns and villages are concerned about policing and crime statistics; they are always conscious of crime. Whatever side of the House we are on, we all know that. What the Government will do is ensure that they put the money in the right places so that policing carries on and we keep the crime statistics where they are and, hopefully, lower them in future, but at a rate that the country can afford, unlike under the last Government.

Police Grant Report

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I have discussed these matters with the deputy Mayor who has responsibility for policing. I shall discuss them with the Mayor, and I have had a number of discussions, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They do not believe that the budget cuts, which the House will vote on today, amounting to—I repeat—less than 1.5% of what the Government provide to forces, require them to reduce the number of officers in the force. However, we will take no lessons about cutting police numbers from Opposition Members, as they clearly would not guarantee force levels and left this Government with the responsibility of managing the public finances properly.

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

When my local police make an arrest, it takes them seven hours to complete the paperwork. There are great savings to be made in police time, and some of that work can surely be passed to civilians. There are savings to be made, but we can still keep front-line police on the beat.