UK Elections: Abuse and Intimidation

Debate between Simon Hart and Angela Smith

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. Legislation of course already exists to deal with such incidents but, as we touched on before, it is not always easily accessible. It is not always entirely advantageous to be distracted by that during an election campaign.

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

The hon. Gentleman and I have been sparring partners on many occasions, but on this one I congratulate him on raising this issue. I agree that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. On the other hand, it is very easy for us in this place to make the case and put the arguments down—we are protected by privilege and have the means of putting our views on the record—but there are councillors and ordinary people out there volunteering for political parties and charities up and down the country who are not protected in anything like the same way as we are in Parliament.

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution, which touches on the reason we are here: the degree of collateral impact from which we may fairly visibly suffer, and the knock-on effect on people who want to do good things for their community, charity or cause, but who are beginning to ask themselves whether it is worth the effort. What plans do the Government have to assess the extent of the issue, because I do not think that any of us here know what it is?

It almost seems that the age of reasoned argument in elections is under threat. All of us, in our own particular way, have experienced situations in which we mention immigration and are instantly labelled a racist, or we mention welfare and are instantly labelled as having some extraordinary dislike of the disabled, or we want to talk about complicated and sensitive issues around the economy, which is interpreted as simply wanting to starve the poor. Absurd, extreme, ridiculous, lazy and trite comments are assigned to Members who simply want to tackle a complicated social problem in the way we were sent here to do. The fact that there is no room for reasoned argument any more is a cause of this debate. It seems that it is not really about winning votes or arguments anymore.

The manner in which some of those campaigns are conducted—I am obviously trying to steer a careful, non-partisan line here—is about driving people out of politics altogether. It is not about votes and arguments; it is about the single-minded determination to do away with anybody who happens to hold a contrary view. That is a big difference between 2015 and 2017, and it is an unattractive development that will simply reduce the gene pool from which we recruit our politicians and volunteers. I cannot believe that any member of the public, however vociferous they might be online, actually thinks that reducing the number of people from which we choose our representatives is a good thing.

What is all this doing to society? How is it impacting on candidate recruitment? What is it doing to the retention of good people in the House? Have we reviewed the recommendations that the Law Commission made 18 months ago? I am hopeful that the Minister has views on that. Are we doing enough to bring the existing provisions to the knowledge of the enforcement agencies and, indeed, to candidates? I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes he will be able to give us some indication of the Government’s view on an independent assessment of the extent of the problem—what is going on out there, what is the cause and what is the remedy.

Badger Culling

Debate between Simon Hart and Angela Smith

Monday 27th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend made my next point for me. I absolutely recognise that there is a discrepancy between those two numbers, but the problem is that we are trying to compare a non-identical set of figures and a non-identical timeline of events leading up to the particular measurement of the figures—I do not think I put that very clearly.

It is misleading to compare the numbers acquired over four years in north Pembrokeshire and south Ceredigion, during a five-year programme that had to be suspended, with a much longer process involving a different set of calculations in England. I myself find it frustrating, but we are not comparing apples with apples when looking at the two systems and processes in those two different areas. Saying, “Here is a solution that works; why don’t the stupid Government use it?” is massively over-simplifying the problem. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but we have known each other a long time, and if there was a solution or a magic pill that he could administer to make this all go away, I suspect that he would have done so by now.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech gives rise to two suggestions. One is that he might argue, along with me, that we ought to have a proper evaluation of the pilots in England. The second is that if we want to compare apples with apples, perhaps we need a proper, Government-sponsored vaccination pilot project in England.

[Simon Hart]

I think that you, Mr Paisley, would come after us if we went down the road of discussing the merits of devolution and having a different set of policies in Wales, which I suspect might be the only way to achieve those aims. However, I have no problem with proper evaluation, and I suspect that the Government have none, particularly given the importance of science, of which we are rightly frequently reminded. As the hon. Lady said herself, it is a pilot scheme, and we are fairly early in the lifetime of the project. To come up with figures now that present an absolute position on where we are and where we should go is a little premature—not necessarily that premature, but the moment is not quite with us.

I have two further points. Reference has been made to the Irish comparison. I made some brief inquiries when we went to vote in the Divisions just now. To suggest that the culling in Ireland was a success, but that it has given way to a different regime that is a resounding failure, is again not an absolutely accurate reflection of the position. When herd breakdowns occur in Ireland, as they still do, an epidemiological investigation is held in the area, followed by an absolutely thorough cull. The idea that culling forms no part of the Irish Government’s approach to eradicating bovine TB is a misrepresentation of what is happening.

We have talked about the cost of vaccination. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned a figure of about £672 annually for a vaccine that is irrelevant in dealing with badgers already carrying the disease, making the injection a completely pointless and expensive approach. There is some doubt about the exact number—I have not been able to ascertain it for 2016-17—of infected badgers that have been unnecessarily vaccinated recently.

Swansea Tidal Lagoon

Debate between Simon Hart and Angela Smith

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I will devote a section of my speech to concerns about the cost, which are raised in the media. I want to address those points, because at the moment we are looking at added value or some of the other elements that move this project from being simply a good idea to being an irresistible one. However, I will hopefully deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point properly in a moment.

Before I took those interventions, I was talking about the uncertainty about Hinkley Point. Until literally the last few days it was seen as the saving grace of UK energy production, but suddenly we discover that we are back in the land of the unknown. An important message for the Government is that an energy void needs to be filled, about which we know very little. I do not want to sound too melodramatic, but there will be a lights-off moment in about a decade’s time unless the Government—I would say this to any Government—take it seriously. They must act with haste, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, to ensure that no uncertainty creeps into the proposals.

It is also reasonable to say that everyone who supports the proposal understands that it is not a silver bullet. Our energy demands will be met by a range of different options, of which this happens to be one, but it is an important one. Tidal lagoons can provide—there is no doubt about the statistical back-up for this—8% to 10% of the UK’s total requirements. That is an extraordinarily tempting prospect. To quote, or possibly misquote, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, it is home-grown, reliable, affordable, sustainable and clean, and I am not aware of any other current proposed energy projects that can boast such descriptions.

The second thing that I want to cover is the added value, which has not been discussed in great detail in this House or in the wider media. It is important to point out that the Swansea bay tidal lagoon will employ nearly 2,000 people at its peak construction period. The programme over the whole of Wales—including Cardiff, Newport and Colwyn Bay—if it goes ahead, will consist of a £20 billion investment, which will need an average of 12,000 jobs for 12 years and result in more than 2,000 full-time positions. That does not even begin to touch on some of the supply chain, tourism and leisure benefits associated with the proposal.

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

The statistics for the steel required for the project include 8,000 tonnes in the mechanicals package, 60,000 tonnes of rebar and 3,000 tonnes of structural steel. Furthermore, Sheffield Forgemasters and DavyMarkham, another world-class manufacturer in Sheffield, are both well placed to work on several of the core turbine and generator components, remembering that the project includes 16 turbines. On that basis, it would be good just to get on with this—UK steel would be helped enormously to get over its difficult period if the project were given the go-ahead as soon as possible.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, although of course I want all the construction work, including the steel, to be in Wales and, preferably, with bits of it in Pembrokeshire. However, I recognise with a heavy heart and rather grudgingly that we may have to extend our reach to Sheffield—

[Angela Smith]

This is a UK debate, but nevertheless DavyMarkham has said that it will invest in Wales as a result of the project, so I think we are all friends on this.

[Simon Hart]

I accept the hon. Lady’s polite reprimand in the spirit in which it is intended. According to my figures—I will come on to steel in a moment—we are talking about 370,000 tonnes of steel for the Swansea project alone, and double that as we scale up to include Newport and Cardiff. As that figure goes up, it brings a whole range of other possibilities for UK steel, which, given the state of the industry at the moment, can only be welcome. I take her point.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Simon Hart and Angela Smith

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I now regret not accepting an earlier intervention from the hon. Gentleman, although it was worth the wait. I will press on, otherwise we will get bogged down. A number of other hon. Members want to make a contribution.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

I will take an intervention later, but I want to make a little progress if I can.

The debate asks why the RSPCA prosecutes when pretty much every other worthy charity, whether they deal with animal or human welfare, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, relies entirely on the CPS and the police to deal with problem areas they come in contact with in the course of their professional duties. Why is animal cruelty in Scotland dealt with perfectly satisfactorily by the procurator fiscal, rather than by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the sister organisation to the RSPCA, as private prosecutions are not permitted in the same form north of the border?

I draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the fact that all those activities have a cost to the taxpayer both through the beneficial tax regimes that all charities benefit from and through gift aid, which assists the RSPCA to the tune of several million pounds a year. Will he comment on what powers the society really has, and its relationship with the police? Even some police officers often assume that the RSPCA’s officers have powers of entry. They do not. Their rank and uniform, although often similar to those of the police, provide no authority whatever in the eyes of the law, yet they can and do liaise with the police to engage in covert surveillance, raids on property and interviewing or cautioning those whom they might suspect. Given the political and commercial activities of the society, is it right that it operates so closely with the police? Should the police exercise some care in the relationship, especially as it applies to the use of cautions?

I want to address how the decision-making process for prosecutions fits with CPS guidance, especially as it applies to the old, sick, infirm, vulnerable and young. Many fellow Members will have examples of constituents who feel that they have been the victims of heavy-handedness from the RSPCA. I will highlight just two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I regret that I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments. I will explain why in a minute. The debate is not about trying to pass yet more legislation to deal with what some people consider to be a problem. This is about how we can actually empower the CPS, and, indeed, for that matter, impose a degree of accountability on those who wish to prosecute privately. I am not here to try to stop people prosecuting privately; I am just trying to ensure that, if they prosecute, they do it in a way that does not conflict with their political or perhaps, commercial objectives.

I remind my hon. Friend that the police had the ability to prosecute in their own right removed in the 1980s, with the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. The police must gather evidence, make arrests and submit a file to the CPS, which will then apply a stringent and objective test. That process is right, and exists to protect the public from police officers who might, through no fault of their own, be tempted to chase targets or satisfy neighbourhood or other pressures, which might distort their proper objectivity. I am attempting to argue that if any charity were to go about its private prosecutions—and, let us face it, the RSPCA is about the only one that does it—with that degree of objectivity and accountability, we should have achieved something, and my hon. Friend’s fears would not come to fruition.

[Angela Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman at least accede to the point that the Charity Commission has agreed that the RSPCA’s approach to prosecutions follows the CPS code—a two-stage evidential and public interest test, which is applied in all RSPCA prosecution decisions and that it believes that the RSPCA’s work is consistent with the duties placed on trustees?

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I suspect she wrote before she read The Daily Telegraph this morning. I refer her to a letter written yesterday from the Charity Commission to the RSPCA:

“The charity should ensure that it has fully considered the reputational damage to the charity of adverse publicity; fully assessed the risk of such publicity; and taken steps to mitigate such risk where possible.”

The letter continues that

“although we understand the reasons for the ‘independence’ of the charity’s Prosecution Department…ultimately the trustees are responsible…and…the trustees should review the current arrangements to ensure that they are entirely satisfied with the criteria for prosecutions”.

The Charity Commission has therefore today issued a rebuke to the RSPCA on the manner in which it carries out prosecutions.

Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Simon Hart and Angela Smith

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bayley, for allowing me to speak now. I join in the congratulations for my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).

I will deal with two issues, one of which is to add to the momentum about consolidation, and the other is to touch on the law of unintended consequences. I have been fascinated and to some extent enlightened by the rare outbreak of consensus among all parties—we seldom hear so many hon. Members making the same points for the right reasons in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber—but one issue does concern me. There has been much reference to evidence and statistics that suggest an increase in attacks by dangerous dogs or, indeed, by dogs. Is that a trend with evidence to which the Minister can refer us, or is there simply a greater awareness or reporting of such incidents? Is there perhaps greater enforcement of which we are not aware, because we might not be privy to the statistics, and can the Minister put us right?

Another important point was the reference to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended. If ever there was an example of a piece of legislation that has clearly had no effect, the 1991 Act is surely it. Many of the speeches made today were made then as well, back in 1991, with just as much passion and feeling. Legislation was forthcoming, and those in Parliament at the time presumably felt that they had done the right thing by voting for the legislation; yet, a few years on, here we are, having the same debate and referring to statistics that appear to have got worse rather than better. So I ask the Minister to exercise some caution in thinking that the solution to the problem mentioned by so many Members is simply further legislation. Unless we deal with the problem of enforcement, such legislation will serve only to restrict legitimate dog owners, while not restricting illegitimate ones, which is contrary to what we are all attempting to do.

I want to touch on the six pieces of existing legislation, although I will not go into them all. There are provisions in the Dogs Act 1871, as amended in 1989, for some civil recourse for people such as postmen who might be the victims of vicious dog attacks. I note that no one has highlighted the plight of poor old parliamentary candidates—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, who touched on the issue—who might also find themselves being attacked on private property.

[Angela Smith]

To satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I put on the record that I was attacked in the general election last year, in precisely the circumstances outlined earlier—the hand through the letter box and the dog on the other side—so I sympathise with the plight of parliamentary candidates in elections.

[Simon Hart]

I do not think that there would be much public sympathy for our plight, but it might be the only area in which we could generate some sympathy for ourselves. That is why I made the point. I accept that such an incident is a civil rather than a criminal matter, so that might need some attention as part of any consolidation process that follows. We must also not overlook the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which do at least provide an opportunity for injunctions forbidding ownership.

As other Members have mentioned, there is therefore quite a lot of legislation, dealing with quite a lot of issues, varying from using dogs as a form of weapon to using dogs in a way that might cause them suffering, let alone the people that they might come into contact with—indeed, there is a power to prevent some people from owning dogs at all. Such provisions already exist, suggesting that instead of new legislation necessarily being the solution, the proper and cross-departmental consolidation of existing legislation might be the way to proceed.

I also want to touch on the law of unintended consequences. There are some grey areas in what constitutes a dangerous dog or activity that might cause alarm and distress to members of the public. Plenty of dog owners have fallen foul of concerned if not mischievous people who are worried that the activity of a dog might be dangerous, although it is not at all. We must protect those whose livelihoods depend on working dogs. There is a distinct line to be drawn between legitimate scrutiny by law enforcement agencies and individuals, and people who may simply be caught up as a consequence of owning a dog responsibly and thoughtfully, but which might seem to an outsider to pose a danger. There have been numerous examples of people who have fallen foul of that distinction.

This debate has shown, if nothing else, that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 did not have the desired effect, nor did the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. Clearly, there is much work to be done on the activities of irresponsible dog owners, for which the dog usually gets the blame. One wonders whether some of the measures for dog control notices that have been suggested or are in place would be better applied to the owner instead of the dog. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North about attitude and education is crucial. I fiercely defend the Minister’s position that the Government are not bossy and that it is not their business to interfere with people’s daily lives, but there is line to be drawn.

With a little knowledge, a lot of progress can be made in persuading, educating and informing people about the difference between irresponsible dog ownership and responsible dog ownership, and that could be easily and cheaply achieved. Consolidation of existing legislation, coupled with other measures, would be a sensible and proportionate way forward.