Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — New Clause 98 — Offence of Pet Theft — 5 Jul 2021 at 21:00
The majority of MPs voted not to create a new specific offence of Pet Theft, with associated sentencing provisions including a maximum sentence of four years in prison.
MPs were considering the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill[1][2]
The proposed new clause rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was titled: Offence of pet theft and stated:
- (1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.
- (2) After section 2 (“protected animal”) insert—
- “(2A) Definition of pet A protected animal is a “pet” for the purposes of this Act if it provides companionship or assistance to any human being.”
- (3) After section 8 (fighting etc.) insert—
- “8A Pet theft
- A person commits an offence if they dishonestly appropriate a pet belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it.”
- (4) In section 32 (imprisonment or fine) before subsection (1) insert—
- “(A1) A person guilty of an offence under section 8A (pet theft) shall be liable—
- (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine, or to both;
- (b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or to a fine, or to both.
- (A2) When the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under section 8A it must consider the following as aggravating factors (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence)—
- (a) the theft caused fear, alarm or distress to the pet, the owner or the pet or another person associated with the pet;
- (b) the theft was for the purposes of commercial gain.”
- (5) In section 34(10) (disqualification) after “8,” insert “8A,
The motion rejected in this vote was:
- That the clause be added to the Bill.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Explanatory notes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
- [3] Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
- [4] Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as of 31 October 2011 (before the proposal being voted on here), Parliament.uk
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Alba | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 354 (+2 tell) | 4 | 0 | 98.9% |
| DUP | 0 | 8 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 4 | 0 | 80.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 195 (+2 tell) | 0 | 99.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 12 | 0 | 100.0% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 354 | 231 | 0 | 98.7% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Philip Davies | Shipley | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Esther McVey | Tatton | Con (front bench) | aye |
| William Wragg | Hazel Grove | Con (front bench) | aye |