Pet Abduction Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Edward Leigh

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who spoke with passion about her devoted pet. Her story will be repeated millions of times across our country, bearing in mind our reputation—I think, in the main, our justly held reputation—as a nation of animal lovers. I will come on to some of the exceptions that we all know about in a moment.

If it is true that pets take on the characteristics of the people who look after them, then in the case of the cat who lives in my house—I put it that way rather than saying “my cat”—I would say that her propensity to be demanding and voluble may well bear some similarities to me. I leave it for the House to draw its own conclusions. Our cat is, of course, a Cats Protection cat. She is the second cat we have had in our family, both from Cats Protection, and I pay tribute to that wonderful organisation. We need never buy a cat in this country: there are tens of thousands of deserving cats who need a home, and charities such as Cats Protection provide a wonderful source of cats that need love and a home.

Our cat is named after Mrs Landingham—devotees of “The West Wing” will know that she was a great character, the President’s secretary in the first two seasons of that wonderful drama—and she has been with us now for several years. As I say, the relationship between cats and their families can be a complex one, and ours is no exception, but she is well loved, particularly by my daughter, who really enjoys her company. That is another story to add to the millions of others for whom the prospect of losing their pet would be one of real trauma—and we know the cases of trauma that exist.

Back in 2021, when I was in office as Justice Secretary, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was then the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who was then the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we set up the pet theft taskforce. The taskforce consisted of not just officials from our three respective Departments but two police and crime commissioners—Katy Bourne, the Sussex PCC, and Chris Nelson, the Gloucestershire PCC—along with police leads and representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service and animal welfare groups.

We took evidence from a wealth of organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, and indeed the Sentencing Council, bearing in mind the need to consider the interrelationship between any sentencing regime and sentencing for existing offences. It had been put very strongly at the time that we had the law of theft to cover the taking of animals and pets, and quite rightly, many lawyers said, “Well, what on earth are we doing? We don’t need another law and another layer of complexity for prosecutors and police to consider.”

However, it became abundantly clear that the treatment of animals as chattels, goods or property just does not meet the way in which society regards our pets. They are sentient beings—sentient creatures. They are much more than mere property, and therefore the definitions in the Theft Act start to become strained to breaking point. More than that, the Theft Act requires a test of dishonesty, defining theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it. Those elements all have to be proved in order to prove theft. It is not just dishonesty, but an intention to permanently deprive. Herein comes the obvious line that many perpetrators would deploy, which is, “I was not intending to take this animal. I was taking it in for its welfare, and I was not going to permanently keep it.”

You can already see, Mr Deputy Speaker, some of the evidential challenges that might present themselves in proving the offence of theft, which is why the analogy with abduction seemed to me to be much more sensible. The law of child abduction has been part of our law for many decades and was last revised in the Child Abduction Act 1984. Those of us who are criminal practitioners—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) in the Chamber—will be familiar with it. No doubt he has done cases involving child abduction, and I certainly have. It is nothing to do with dishonesty, and nothing to do with the dishonest state of mind of a person. It is all about the taking of a child from a family situation, sometimes out of the country. The consent of the child, when the child is under a certain age, is immaterial.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am getting a bit confused now. The whole point about the Theft Act is that intent has to be proved—mens rea. What happens when somebody takes a cat or a dog—this is precisely the point that my right hon. and learned Friend was making—and says, “I thought he was a stray so I was doing it for his welfare”? We are not going to have a great court case about the state of mind of that person, are we?

End-to-end Rape Review

Debate between Robert Buckland and Edward Leigh

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, again, I pay tribute to the work that he has done on victims’ issues. Even though he has other responsibilities, I know that he will want to engage in the ongoing victims’ law consultation. I readily acknowledge some of the pressures and financial issues that have led to some services not being there, but some services were not even there in the first place. The number of ISVAs in the country is too low and that has historically been the case. I want to see not a return to a previous number but a new departure in the scale of support for victims. He will note the funding that I announced this year, which I want to follow up: I will continue to make the point and make the case that we need a sustained improvement in services to see long-term results. The hon. Gentleman’s voice is being heard.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

None of what has been said so far is going to get us very far. It is absolutely intimidating for a woman—an alleged victim of rape—to have to go through a traditional court procedure. Can we not think, in really radical terms, of replacing this confrontational system with something more like the family courts? In the context of alleged rape, it is quite right that the victim has anonymity, but if the perpetrator had anonymity as well—if the case was not going forward in a blaze of local or national publicity—we might actually get closer to the truth.

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend posits a very interesting point about the merits of perhaps a more inquisitorial or consensual system than the adversarial system, but I remind him—of course, he was a practitioner as well—that allegations of a criminal nature have to meet a high standard of proof, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution in these cases. There is no getting away from that, which is why, progressively over the years, we have done everything we can to improve and to allow the best evidence to come forward from complainants through the use of special measures, remote technology and, indeed, the TV link, which has been around for 30 years. I want to go further with regard to that and make sure that evidence can be dealt with as early as possible. I will no doubt have further discussions about this issue with him, but at this stage I believe that we can seek improvement through the existing system while, as I say, dealing with some of the unfortunate consequences to which he rightly alludes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Buckland and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of reforming the Supreme Court.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a long and keen interest in the Supreme Court. It is entirely legitimate to look, in the wider context of constitutional reform, at the Act that underpinned the creation of that court to see whether it can be improved and updated. I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out, and I will say more at a later date about which aspects of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I intend to consider.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it, apart from spending so much more extra public money. I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament —in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court. That is particularly important if the Scottish National party should ever carry out its threat of a unilateral referendum against the wishes of this House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. Will the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Edward, you should know that it is not supposed to be a speech; it is a question. You have been here so long you should know that.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Buckland and Edward Leigh

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I understand entirely my right hon. Friend’s concerns. The number of divorces has declined in recent years, but that perhaps goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester about the beginning of it, because the number of marriages has declined in proportion since 1972, just under 50 years ago. Taking the long view, one should focus upon the beginning of the process—the nature of the commitment, the solemnity of that commitment and the importance of that relationship and that commitment—rather than the detail of the end process.

This Government’s proposals will apply equally to married couples and civil partners. While I conveniently refer to the concept of marriage and divorce, the principles and effects apply equally to civil partnerships and their dissolution. Husbands, wives and civil partners will no longer need to produce or face a real or perceived catalogue of failings in respect of their most intimate relationship. There is a strong common view underlying the proposals in the Bill, built upon the foundation of a significant evidence base.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course, it is not necessary to make any allegation under the present law—people do not have to prove fault if they rely on separation. In addition to the present grounds for divorce, why do we not go down the Scottish route of having a no-fault provision, perhaps of a year? In Scotland, all but 5% of divorces are no-fault. Why do we not have a moderate measure such as the one in Scotland?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his constructive approach. He quite properly seeks to make a comparison with a nearby jurisdiction—a next-door jurisdiction—but I believe that taking a more comprehensive approach will cure problems for the long term. Rather than encouraging a piecemeal approach to divorce reform—in other words, coming back to it in very short order—we are creating a Bill that will, I believe, endure for a considerable period of time.

Let us remember that the evolution of divorce law has involved significant moments in parliamentary history: there was the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which of course led to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which brought together a lot of the legislation on such issues. These things are not done, and I do not think they should be done, from Parliament to Parliament; they should have a longer shelf life, bearing in mind the gradual evolution of the law in this area.