Pet Abduction Bill

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Robert Buckland

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. People who steal, or abduct, pets are despicable, and I am delighted that the legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) has taken up, with the support of the Government, will make it far more straightforward to put the people who do this in jail, because that is what they deserve.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her good fortune in gaining her place in the ballot, and commend her for her wisdom in choosing this particular Bill. As she will know, the legislation was originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and I am also delighted that she and the Government are honouring the commitment to legislate for these elements. I am confident that the Bill will fly through the House, although I am sure that both the Government and my hon. Friend will be listening to what is said about some of the finer points.

During the time when the kept animals Bill was paused, there was a significant public outcry about what should be done in respect of cats. As my hon. Friend put it so articulately in her speech, there is a slight difference between the natural instinctive attributes of different pets, but I am pleased that Government lawyers and DEFRA officials have worked hard to establish how cats can be included in the Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the taskforce. People may not realise this, but for a conviction for theft there is quite a high bar to prove that someone has been permanently deprived of a particular item. That is especially true of a living item. I am pleased that we are taking this forward. The offence of pet abduction, and the potential criminal sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment, will provide an effective deterrent.

There has been discussion about a number of different police forces. I commend Suffolk police. There has been a significant increase in pet theft in the last few years, as people seek to steal much-valued pets that can be sold. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald)—he is not in his place, but I am sure he will be back—was right to mention the impact of organised crime. It is perhaps not on the scale of national organised crime, but certainly local crime gangs are taking pets and then transporting them right around the country. I pay tribute to Sussex police, who found Willow, a dog that had been stolen in Suffolk, eight months later in Surrey—thanks to their activities, she was reunited with her owner.

People have talked about the Westminster dog show and others. My beloved Rizzo finally got a “highly commended” award in the Westminster dog of the year show a few years ago—just for perseverance, I think; she was old and blind. Sadly, she passed away not long after. We know—that is why we are here—that the British people care extensively about the value of their pets. That is why I think it wise to add to the legislation a power to react, through regulation, to what is happening with criminal gangs, giving us the opportunity to have more pets later. The precise details of the issues that hon. Members have raised may need further consideration.

I am glad that this consideration has been given to the issue. I recall a stray dog in the village where I used to live in Hampshire. It was just wandering around, and we took it in. Like a responsible person, I wanted to find out where the dog had come from. I made an initial inquiry at the village shop, but they did not know, and I then went to the vet. I was a bit surprised when the vet said that they were not allowed to tell me who the owner was. I understand in a wider sense, but I found it rather frustrating that I was limited in how I could connect with the owner to reunite them with their pet—I was not even allowed to know whether the dog was registered to somebody in my village. An officer from the council came and took the dog.

I wish that I had known the full details of section 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, under which I could have kept the dog—at the time, I was told, “Absolutely not.” I was concerned, of course, that if the owner was not found after seven days, the dog could be euthanised. I felt that I could probably have had more effect. In that regard—having now read the legislation in detail as a Member of Parliament—I would probably have wanted to hold on to the dog, perhaps for 24 hours, just to take it to the pub or whatever. It turned out that somebody at the pub that night had lost their dog, and I was able to refer them and they were reunited the following morning. I am grateful that the Bill considers the genuine kindness of people who want to try to reunite dogs with their owners.

I have given notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the Government that I will table one amendment. I want to change the commencement date in clause 6(1). At the moment, the Bill relies on more regulations coming through to bring it into effect. I understand that officials might want time to get guidance and so on, but I do not think that necessary. I strongly recommend that my hon. Friend changes that in Committee—I do not want to wait until Report to change it—and that some deal be done, whether for two or three months. That would be perfectly reasonable in order to ensure that once we have passed the Bill, it is passed in the Lords without many amendments.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. Of course, the normal convention is that the Bill would come into force two months after Royal Assent, which is a reasonable period of time. We could delete that clause or add something to allow a slightly longer period, but she makes a powerful point.

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Robert Buckland

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I shall be brief, because the Bill is short and because the context has been well set out by hon. Members.

On the scourge of mobile telephones, these phones are very often used as a communal resource by prisoners. They will obtain SIM cards, which, as hon. Members know, are very small and are sadly brought into prison very easily. The SIM cards are then inserted into a communal phone secreted in a cell, which will be accessible to prisoners during free association time, which is during the day. Of course, I am talking about category A to C prisons rather than open prisons. During the evenings, when there is a lockdown, if the phone is wanted, it can be swung on a piece of cloth out of the cell window to an adjoining cell or to a lower floor. That is what is happening in our prisons currently.

We know about wing phones, but the communal wing mobile phone has been with us for far too long. Although the Bill cannot deal with the problem of getting phones and items into prison—nobody is pretending it can—I believe it gives another resource to the prison authorities to deal effectively with contraband items when they are found.

I should like to raise two points on the Bill, the first of which is on the definition of “prisoner”. I see no definitional clause on whether the definition covers remand prisoners. There are two types of prisoner: convicted prisoners who are serving a sentence, or who have been convicted after a trial or pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentence, and remand prisoners who have not yet been dealt with by the court or convicted of anything. So some clarification of the term “prisoner” would be helpful, although it might well be that the Interpretation Act 1978 covers the definition and that the extra clause is not needed. I would be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Minister could deal with that question.

Secondly—this might not be a matter for prison legislation or rules—there is another category of custodial area: the cell area of a court building, where a prisoner will be detained either while awaiting their court hearing or during the day in court. I understand that the prison legislation and rules probably would not apply to a court building, but I seek some clarification and reassurance from my hon. Friends on the arrangements for dealing with unauthorised articles found in the possession of prisoners in the retaining or custody area of a court building.

I see that the prison escort vehicle is covered. That, of course, is within the jurisdiction of the governor and the prison rules.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend think that there is a difference between somebody who is being held in custody but who has not yet been convicted of a crime, and somebody visiting court for an offence perhaps committed while in prison?

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to raise a potential issue about the distinction between remand prisoners and those who have been dealt with and convicted. It is important that we uphold the rights of remand prisoners. They have not been convicted of an offence, but are awaiting the resolution of the allegation against them, so their rights have to be respected. Nevertheless, withholding the right to bail has its consequences. When people are held on remand in custody, they must surrender their personal effects. The authorities will collect those items in the custody area of the court, bag them up, and record and retain them in the normal way.

The Bill deals with the position of unauthorised articles where there is no reasonable explanation or excuse for them to be held.

Privilege

Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate, and I wholly endorse the motion before the House today. It is fair to say that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was absolutely united in saying that Les Hinton, Tom Crone and Colin Myler had misled Parliament. That was evidenced by just one aspect of an external lawyer’s perspective. Julian Pike from Farrer & Co. affirmed that Parliament had been lied to when responding to a question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). When asked by the hon. Gentleman, “When did you first know about the evidence given to this House?”, he answered, “At the moment they said it, back in 2009.” Such affirmations from external parties give confidence to members of the Committee on the conclusions reached in our report.

In preparing our report, we were advised not to take on the principle of lawyers, in serving their clients, not having regard to allowing falsehoods to be perpetuated, but instead to accept that lawyers are there to serve their clients. However, we all have to show personal leadership. I wonder at times whether lawyers should take a look in the mirror—individually and, as the legal profession, collectively—and decide to take a certain view on these ethical matters, including whether they wish that position to continue to be part of their ethical code.

I think it is fair to say that the Committee was not entirely united on chapter 8, owing to the fourth point in paragraph 275. However, we all accept the established principle of vicarious liability, and that the company should accept responsibility for what happened in that terrible time.

As I have stated before, News International will have a long time to regret not taking action after our excellent predecessor Committee’s 2009 report—as it now appears to be doing through its internal management and standards committee. I point to paragraph 278. Parliament—our Select Committee—was careful to try not to trample on criminal proceedings, for which we could not have been forgiven. However, we should reflect on the fact that it is thanks to parliamentary privilege that we were able to uncover and bring certain information through to Parliament that the Leveson inquiry would not have been able to bring. It is not acceptable to evade the truth when speaking to parliamentarians. It is not acceptable simply to try to leave people second-guessing, so that they may be misled—often deliberately so. It is imperative that people are prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we demand nothing less for our constituents.

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

I am grateful for all the work that has been done by the Committee, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) agree that the issue about taking an oath is irrelevant, as when a witness comes before a Select Committee there is an expectation that they must tell the truth, whether or not they swear an oath?

[Dr Coffey]

That is absolutely right. As the shadow Leader of the House said, that was in the guidance. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is irrelevant whether or not somebody puts a Bible or some other thing in front of them; they are in this House because they have been asked, on behalf of the people of this country, to come to answer questions. People should do that honestly, straightforwardly and without reservation.