Cross-border Trade and Accounting

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Graham]

Is the Minister on his feet?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

He is going for a drink.

[Luke Graham]

I hope it is whisky; we will be here for a while.

Accountants can help us with some of our biggest social and environmental challenges. In the current context, with Brexit on the horizon, I thought this debate would be useful, and later in my speech I shall come to the issues relating to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Let me give a little background on accounting systems—the non-accountants in the room can tune in now, because this is the exciting bit. Accounting has come a long way since it was established centuries ago: we had the evolution of double-entry bookkeeping from the original ledgers; we then had some base computing in the 19th century, and then more into the 20th century; and we now have the far more advanced accounting systems that we use today. During my previous life, before I entered the House, I was lucky enough to use a range of different systems, on which I shall touch in just a minute.

One of the Government’s greatest advances in the use of accounting systems to help on the domestic front was the Making Tax Digital scheme. Unfortunately, like many others, I was greatly upset by the fact that the Government had to defer some of their plans to make tax digital because of the advent of Brexit and the consumption of Government time by Brexit preparations. Making tax digital and using accounting systems, whether for small or large businesses, is important because it makes us more efficient and more productive, and it can lead to better decision making for companies right across the United Kingdom. That is vital.

Whether someone is a single trader in Portsmouth, working for the global manager in Edinburgh, or working for a large multinational in London, accounting systems can really give them the transparency of data that they need. They are also environmentally friendly, because as accounting systems develop, we are able to move away from paper receipts and invoices and towards electronic records, which makes interactions between individual companies, customers and suppliers far easier, more efficient and more effective. As a result, the real benefit will be for the entire country, because not only will companies grow, but it will contribute to our productivity and thus our GDP.

Another important point is that as companies are developing, intangibles and intangible assets are becoming more and more important in their valuation. In fact, just a few years ago it was recognised that around 80% of the value of the S&P 500 is in intangible assets rather than tangible assets. That is why the development of accounting systems is so important: we need to be able not only to capture the value of our physical assets, and use the traditional accounting fair-value methods to make sure that those assets are held at the right value, but to look at new methods of valuing intangibles, because the intangibles of brands and, to a certain extent, intellectual property, along with other new technological advancements, mean that it is increasingly the case that less and less of companies’ value is being captured on our stock exchanges, and that obviously has an impact on the prices that are traded and the returns that can be made by companies and customers throughout the country.

As I said earlier, a number of systems have come into the accounting sphere that can help smaller businesses to improve and be more effective. One of them is Xero and another is QuickBooks, and there is also Oracle for large companies. I should say, for the sake of fairness, that plenty of other accounting systems are available. The point of these systems is to make sure that, from the base transaction and from the base-level accounts receivable and accounts payable systems, right the way up to the highest-level strategic decision making, managers and users of the information have the correct information —the one source of truth—and that there is consistency in the data right the way through the organisation. That is for the benefit not just of the actual company, but of HMRC and our Government. The better the records we receive, the more accurate the accounts are and the more accurately we can calculate the tax take for those companies as well. Obviously, it is always a good thing that not only should taxes be low, but companies and individuals pay the taxes that they do indeed owe.

In the current context, as we move between accounting systems, I would like to apply some of this to the discussions that we have been having on Northern Ireland. The reason why I take this leap—some might see it that way—is that many of the accounting systems that are imported now are connected to HMRC to help companies and individuals file their tax returns. They are also connected to HMRC for the purpose of VAT filing. As we know with Northern Ireland, VAT and customs have been a key issue in the new withdrawal agreement, and I will explore that a little bit more—hopefully with help from my colleague from Northern Ireland.

[Luke Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is quite right. There is a number of those accounting systems, but there is also a number of other systems and structures in place in Northern Ireland. I have to be honest about this. Although I have engaged with some of his colleagues on this over the past two years, many Members in this House and the broader public are still ignorant of the matter. It would, I think, be to the benefit of the House if some of these issues were explored in greater detail and in greater depth, so that Members can make more educated decisions, especially when we are working on such controversial issues as withdrawal from the EU, and as we start mapping out our future trading relationship with Europe. As he will recognise, this will also be important when we have new free trade agreements with other countries around the world—whether they are the rollover agreements that are coming across from the EU or, indeed, new trade agreements such as those with the United States of America. I will touch on that matter in just a moment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene on him. Let me follow up on the point from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Presumably, this digital accounting system will not just be routed into HMRC for tax purposes, but could quite easily be pushed sideways to the Border Force. What we are actually talking about is minimising the paperwork for crossing a border, and that is terribly important.

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend is almost making me skip over certain parts of my speech, so I appreciate his intervention. He is quite right. One of the key systems that is currently used is the VAT information exchange system. Under the current withdrawal agreement proposals, it will still be open to Northern Ireland. At the moment, I am not sure whether it will be open to other parts of the United Kingdom, but I recommend that it should be. Through that system, companies and member states are able to co-ordinate VAT returns. It also enables the simplification of those VAT returns between different member states. There have been concerns about the system, certainly in the area of fraud, especially when parts are moving between different areas of member states, but the system is still a good one and will be open to Northern Ireland. That is one of the very good things that is contained within the withdrawal agreement as it stands at the moment.

I did have one question on the issue of VAT. Although VIES will be available to Northern Ireland, as I have said, will it be available to the rest of the UK? Furthermore, one point that I would like someone to explain—it may not be the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today, but certainly I hope that it comes out in further debates—is related to the terms found in the withdrawal agreement when it talks about Northern Ireland being outside EU law in relation to VAT, but also about EU VAT law being applicable in Northern Ireland. Greater transparency in the details around this issue and also in the details around the application of the customs code would help a great deal for debates in this House, which inevitably will take place when, hopefully, we return here in December.

Therefore, as I have said, there are a number of systems available. What is even better is that private business and enterprise are catching up with some of these systems and complementing them. As I mentioned earlier, the evolution of accounting systems that are used by some of these smaller companies and larger companies can then obviously work with systems such as VIES, which means that Government, customers and suppliers can all work together to make sure that there is more efficient and effective record keeping, better tax collection and— hopefully—better revenues and profits for all those involved. As I said, I would love to get some more clarification either from the Treasury Minister himself or from a Brexit Minister in the near future.

This is not just an issue for the United Kingdom and the EU. I had the great fortune to work in China and the United States before I came to this place, and was able to see some of their tax collection and accounting systems in progress. China is an enormous country of over 1 billion people, but a significant amount of accounting records are still kept in paper format—this was back in 2008, so some of the new software was not available then—and everything is signed off by an original chop. For those who do not know, that is a traditional stamp. A record, fapiao or receipt needs a traditional ink chop to be recognised for accounting purposes; multiply that by over 1 billion people, and it becomes more of an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Minister will be well versed in some of the reports and debates on Making Tax Digital. A lot of these barriers were articulated at that time. One key area will be costs. Sometimes the cost of pieces of accounting software is very low, perhaps a couple of hundred pounds or so, but for a small company it is still an additional cost. The other obstacle that customers and companies will face is knowledge of the accounting software. Even in a large multinational business, many of the executives on the board, and many of the managers, have no knowledge of their accounting system. They are only focused on simple outputs and do not necessarily know what is underneath the bonnet. With modern cars, as we all know, that often leads to more costly and more complicated servicing when the time comes. That is great news for finance directors but not such great news for operational directors.

[Bob Stewart]

In the nicest way, I think that my hon. Friend is such a know-all on this subject that he has just talked himself into becoming a junior or even a middle-ranking Brexit Minister after the election.

[Luke Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I think. As my record will show, I am very much in favour of more international co-operation, and I hope that we will be doing that when we come back.

Accounting systems can really help with cross-border trade, from small companies to large multinationals. As I hope I have laid out in this short speech, they have been used in places such as Northern Ireland, and they can be discussed in some of our debates when, hopefully, we return to this place. It will be useful for the Government to use some of these systems as they negotiate new trade with other countries all around the world. The Government are very fond of saying that they want a global Britain and that our exit from the EU will allow us to expand over new horizons. I therefore hope that after this speech and the debate that follows, the Minister realises that it may well be accountants who have the key to that global Britain.

Summer Adjournment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick). In Stafford, we, too, have the issue with county lines, which our police force is going after at the moment. I accompanied police on a raid just two weeks ago, when they managed to seize a considerable quantity of drugs, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot more has to be done.

I want to start by talking about development, particularly unauthorised development. Later today, with your permission and your favour, Mr Speaker, I shall present a petition that I should have presented on Monday. It is about authorised development in Penkridge that should not have been authorised. The council and local people objected to it, but because, on a technicality, the council had slipped below the five-year land supply for a short period, the developer claimed that the council was in breach and that this totally unnecessary and unwanted development should therefore go through. We must listen more to local people on things such as this, not just have a tick-box exercise and permit developments that are long term and not wanted. This is in an area where we are building more than twice the national average in terms of housing. This is not about nimbyism at all.

I also want to point out the importance of the quality of new housing. Many of the new houses that are being built are not up to standard, and it is vital that that should be tackled, but not only that—we should go further, including with insulation. We should ensure that all new houses are built to the highest possible energy saving standards; that they have, where possible, integrated solar; that they have car charging points; and that they have the highest quality insulation.

My local hospital, County Hospital, has had its difficulties over the years, but I want to praise the work that it has done such that, in most weeks, more than 95% of people are seen, admitted, treated or discharged within four hours. That is one of the best records in the country and the hospital deserves great credit for that, but it is under consultation at the moment, and one of the issues is, again, the future of our emergency department. However, I am glad that the trust has made it clear that that department is secure. It has my absolute support in that. I will not tolerate the downgrading in any way, shape or form of the emergency department.

However, the stand-alone maternity department is at more risk. The reason is that people are not using it. This is one of those “use it or lose it” cases. I urge all those in my area who are talking with their patients—pregnant women—to say, “Look, there is this alternative.” Clearly, it has to be a safe alternative, which I fully understand, but I want that stand-alone maternity unit—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I know Stafford quite well. If those people are not using the unit, where are they going?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Most women will be going to a consultant-led unit in Stoke, Wolverhampton or Walsall. I understand that, and they may have received advice from their GP on the issue—this has to be clinically led—but I very much value the stand-alone unit in Stafford and want it to continue.

We also have a problem with shortage of general practitioners in Stafford. In fact, there is a shortage across the country, so I welcome the new medical schools that are being opened. I am delighted that my wife, who is a GP, was up in Sunderland this week giving some training at the new medical school, which is about to be opened. I welcome the ones that are going to be opened in Chelmsford and other places.

I want to raise a few other issues, such as visas, including for foreign spouses and partners. Many people have come to my surgery with real problems in getting visas, including visas to visit, let alone visas for residence, and those issues need to be looked at more sympathetically, as does the issue of visas for visitors from Africa. Last week, the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and I published a report on the difficulties that African visitors have in getting visas. These are Government officials and business people. I had one case recently involving the headmaster of a school in Ghana who was coming to visit his brother for a couple of weeks—a very distinguished man. Of course he does not want to stay in this country—he would much rather go back and teach his students in Ghana—but it has taken ages and he still does not have that visa. We must, must do better and I urge all Members to read the report that we jointly produced.

Turning to business, this is a minor matter, although not so minor for those affected by it—bailiffs. The behaviour of bailiffs has been considered by the House and new rules have been put in place. However, there is also the matter of fees. Sometimes, fees go up enormously—exponentially—over time. We should look at capping bailiff fees. I understand that bailiffs are necessary; their role is important in enforcing payment of debt, but it must be carried out in a reasonable manner.

We also need to look at the infrastructure for charging electric vehicles. We talk about needing to move to electric transportation. Quite frankly, the charging infrastructure is very poor. It is getting better, although not nearly fast enough, but the grid is simply not there to support it, nor is the generating capacity. I have asked questions about this in the past. I believe that we are too complacent. If we are to move to electric vehicles fast—we are making them in the west midlands and in Sunderland—we need the infrastructure to support that.

Finally, two issues. First, I welcome the start, after about 30 years of discussion, of the African continental free trade area. This will be tremendous for the African continent, but also for all those such as the United Kingdom who wish to trade and invest far more with our friends and neighbours across the Mediterranean in Africa.

Secondly, I have recently had the pleasure of being appointed to the Environmental Audit Committee. We have heard that Natural England is grossly underfunded and cannot do the work that needs to be done on all these fantastic sites of special scientific interest, so I ask the Treasury to look carefully at restoring the funding that has been cut from Natural England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who raised an important issue that affects constituents across the country.

Before we rise for the summer recess with a spring in our step after the zinging performance by our excellent new Prime Minister, I wish to raise a number of issues for the Government to think about over the summer and for us to concentrate on.

During questions to the Leader of the House, I raised the consultation that is under way across a number of areas in London on Transport for London building high-density, multi-storey housing on car parks attached to stations. That will dramatically reduce the number of car parking spaces available at the terminus of every single line in London and affect commuters right across the south-east who drive to a station, leave their car and use public transport to travel in. Equally, there is a concern that the properties that will be built will be rabbit hutches and will become the slums of the future, causing further problems.

[Bob Stewart]

Building is taking place on railway car parks in my constituency. That is pushing people out on to other local roads and clogging them up even more.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend; that is clearly another impact.

That leads me to my next issue, which is the bus consultations that are going on in London. The proposals will increase the speed at which buses move around London, but reduce the continuity of service between buses and stations. Residents in my constituency will have to change buses twice to reach Northwick Park station, whereas currently they can get on one bus and reach the station on public transport. That is absurd.

I have raised before at questions to the Leader of the House the impact of the illegal occupation by Travellers of areas in my constituency. We had—I use my words carefully—an illegal occupation on Stanmore Lodge. They were then evicted and moved to Stanmore marsh, which once again is public land. They were removed from there and moved to Canons Park. They then moved to Hatch End and then Whitchurch playing fields. Harrow Council and the police worked quickly to remove them, but we need new laws that prevent illegal occupation from taking place. It is not only the illegal occupation that has an impact, but the clear-up costs after these people have left. That is left to the council tax payer to pick up, which is clearly grossly unfair.

We have a new Chancellor who, in a previous role in government, was very helpful to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, but there is still unfinished business. The people who were scammed by Equitable Life are still owed £2.6 billion. I hope that the Chancellor will live up to his word and honour the Government’s commitment to fund in full the settlement for those individuals.

I have raised the Vagrancy Act before. It is a disgrace that this country still has on the statute book the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises people for being homeless. People should be helped into housing, not arrested because they have nowhere to live. I hope that the new Government will take action to remove it from the statute book and to ensure that prompt and proper action is taken against aggressive street begging, which is a real problem in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is no longer in his place, has spoken about leasehold reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has produced an excellent report—well, I was party to it and to the evidence—and we had a debate in this Chamber on the need for the reform of leasehold. The Government must take that up quickly and deliver.

There is also the challenge of financing local government, on which the HCLG Committee will publish a report shortly. We need to reform the financing of local government, because it is suffering from a lack of finance and a crisis in the provision of services. The basis on which any finance is provided to local government across the country is unfair, so reform is necessary.

I am delighted that shortly before my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister left office, the Government released the long-awaited prevention report, which contains action on smoking and obesity and a number of other measures. I am, as many people know, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, as well as an avid anti-smoker. We have to ensure that we become a smoke-free society as quickly as possible. At the moment, the ambition is too slow and we have to speed up the process. We can use the taxation system to discourage people from smoking and put a levy on the tobacco companies, which make millions of pounds of profit from a drug that kills people who use it in the way they intend. The burden on the national health service and smoking cessation services could be paid for by that levy if we were bold enough to implement it.

I attended the recent rally in Ashraf in Albania with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and I hosted a meeting in this place on human rights in Iran, at which one of the guest speakers was Richard Ratcliffe. I have said previously in the House what an honourable man he is in his suffering. He has been deprived of having his wife beside him and his child is not able to share family life, but he is diligent in trying to ensure that his wife is released from prison and returned to her family. Given the situation arising in the Gulf, we need to make every effort possible, but the reality is that what we need is regime change in Iran and the end of the theocracy.

What is going on in Sri Lanka right now for the Muslim minority is a disgrace. Those people need protection and they need support from this Government. I trust that our new Foreign Secretary will provide it.

As we rise for the summer, some people may be going on holiday. On Monday, I shall be assembling my work experience team of students, who will find out what it is really like to be an MP during the vacation. I look forward to that and to assisting—

Port Agents: Medical Duty of Care

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. For transparency, I make the House aware that I have declared a relevant interest with the Table Office.

On 13 February this year, Gordon Hoyland Spencer passed away at the Sue Ryder Wheatfields Hospice in Leeds. He was a beloved husband, father, grandfather, and also my much cherished father-in-law. This did not need to happen.

Gordon Spencer was a hard-working entrepreneur who, with his wife Jackie and family, built a large and successful enterprise. Gordon and his wife Jackie started life in the back streets of Leeds, working on the shop floor in the industrial and textile mills. However, both of them had an indomitable entrepreneurial spirit and, coupled with a hard-working ethic, this led to them building two large and successful businesses in facilities management and property. Their facilities management company started out as a window-cleaning round that Gordon bought to earn some extra income in order to buy a carpet for their cottage some 60 years ago. Their son, daughter, daughter-in-law and grandson all work in the business, making the companies a truly family enterprise. Combined, these companies today now employ over 11,000 people in the UK and it is one of the largest privately-owned facilities management companies in the country—a true facilitator of the northern powerhouse.

Gordon was also instrumental, as part of a group of Leeds-based landlords, in contributing to the Housing Act 1988, which brought in protection for both landlords and tenants through the shorthold tenancy agreement. He wanted to ensure not only that landlords would be able to receive the rent that they were owed but that tenants had protection from unscrupulous landlords.

Gordon and Jackie were married for 62 years—something quite unheard of these days. They have three children and two very adored grandchildren. Gordon was very much a family-oriented man and loved nothing more than spending time with his family. He was a devoted dad, husband and grandfather. In their retirement, Gordon and Jackie enjoyed travelling and had undertaken several world cruises, but two destinations had always eluded them: the cherry blossoms in Japan for Jackie and the Taj Mahal in India for Gordon. On 5 January this year, Gordon and Jackie set sail on a four-month world cruise with Cruise & Maritime Voyages that would take them to these last two bucket-list destinations.

Shortly after the cruise started, Gordon became unwell with a chest infection and cough. Jackie took Gordon to see the ship’s doctor, who diagnosed double pneumonia and high blood pressure and started treatment with antibiotics. Through an ECG, it was diagnosed that Gordon had a left bundle branch block, which causes an irregularity in the heartbeat but is not considered pre-emptive to a heart attack. The doctor also performed troponin tests and categorically confirmed that Gordon had not had a heart attack. Troponin is an enzyme that the heart emits. A higher level of troponin is the indication of myocardial infarction, or a heart attack. Despite the high blood pressure and the left bundle branch block, because Gordon’s troponin tests were negative, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that Gordon had had a heart attack or was at risk of having a heart attack. This is a very significant point, in relation to the actions that happened next when Gordon and Jackie were disembarked in Barbados and where they consequently were sent for medical treatment.

Bridgetown is the capital of Barbados and is home to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is the island’s primary acute medical care facility and provides extensive care in a wide array of medical specialties. A report in 2013 entitled “Caring for Non-residents in Barbados” by the Medical Tourism Research Group outlined the medical arrangements in Barbados. It states:

“Within the Caribbean, Barbados is regarded as a favoured destination for regional patients, particularly for those from smaller islands lacking advanced diagnostic and treatment facilities and the capacity to offer to treat high-risk patients…BFC, the Sparman Clinic, Island Dialysis, and Bayview Hospital all attract private regional patients; however, according to our interviewees, the public Queen Elizabeth Hospital is the primary health care destination for regional patients.

The Queen Elizabeth Hospital serves as the main referral hospital for the entire Eastern Caribbean…Consultants at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital…have the ability to admit private patients such as ill vacationers not covered by the island’s public system”.

On Friday 18 January, with a major hospital available just two miles from the port for an 86-year-old man with double pneumonia—who, according to the ship’s doctor, was improving at the point of medical disembarkation—the port agent in Bridgetown decided to send Gordon to the privately run Sparman clinic, some three miles from the port. The clinic is owned and operated by Dr Alfred Sparman, and is advertised as a heart specialist clinic. The ship’s doctor’s notes and lab results, which clearly stated that Gordon had not had a heart attack, were given to the Sparman clinic on Gordon’s arrival. However, the medical notes made by Dr Sparman afterwards state that Gordon was admitted to the clinic with double pneumonia and having had a heart attack, which was not the case.

On arrival at the clinic, Jackie was asked to pay US$10,000 before the clinic would admit or treat Gordon. Jackie maxed out her credit cards to pay the up-front costs, which left her without funds to find accommodation while in Barbados. On Monday 21 January—I emphasise that I am speaking about this year—Gordon’s children arrived in Barbados to assist their parents. At that point, Gordon was on a nasal cannula and an antibiotic drip, but had received no further treatment during the three days since being admitted to the clinic. He appeared to be weak and short of breath, but was able to sit up in bed, was eating, and was fully coherent.

Jackie had been sleeping on the couch in the observation room, because she did not have the funds to procure other accommodation. The Sparman clinic is actually a doctor’s surgery with a waiting area, one small operating theatre where most cardiovascular surgeries are performed, and an observation room which doubles as a patient bedroom and intensive care unit and contains mostly wooden and soft furniture.

Dr Sparman met the family to discuss Gordon’s prognosis in the clinic’s conference room, which contained a cracked board table held together with gaffer tape and several broken and cracked leather chairs. In addition, client records were strewn across the floor and piled high in boxes. I mention the dilapidated state of the entire clinic because, given that a state-of-the-art hospital was less than half a mile away in Bridgetown, it is difficult to understand how this clinic was deemed appropriate to offer any level of suitable healthcare to a critically ill patient with double pneumonia.

During the meeting, Dr Sparman advised the family that Gordon was very ill and had suffered a heart attack as a result of the strain that the pneumonia had put on his heart. He suspected that Gordon also had a blockage in one of his arteries, and therefore needed an angioplasty and an angiogram. He ended the meeting by stating that once the surgery was completed, Gordon would feel much better—better than he had felt for years —and that the family would be able to fly him home via a commercial airline by the end of the week. However, the medical report received from the clinic after Gordon was released clearly shows that at the time of the meeting with Dr Sparman, Gordon’s troponin levels, while now showing positive for the enzyme, were still well outside the parameters that would indicate that a heart attack had occurred or was likely to occur.

In the days leading up to the operation, Gordon’s condition began to deteriorate. He was in a highly agitated state. He lacked the strength to move his position in the bed, and was offered little assistance from the nurses, which led to great discomfort for him. Moreover, the air conditioning in the observation room, where Gordon was staying, was not working, which resulted in uncomfortable temperatures in a Caribbean hospital—so much so that Gordon had struggled to sleep since his arrival at the clinic, and was now exhausted. Despite several requests from the family for the unit to be mended, the clinic never repaired it. Gordon was clearly weakening. By the day of the operation he had been refusing food for more than 24 hours, had developed spasms that wracked his entire body, and had begun vomiting.

The operation finally took place six days after Gordon had arrived at the clinic. This was a man who had been able to walk, talk and eat just a few days earlier, but who was now visibly declining in front of everyone. This was due to a combination of lack of sleep because of the broken air-conditioning unit, lack of nutrition because Gordon was not placed on a protein drip until several days after he had stopped eating, considerable discomfort from his lack of strength to move position, and no aid offered and an overall general lack of proper nursing care.

Yet there were still more delays, not least when the family were then presented with a bill for $45,000 and advised that Dr Sparman would not perform the surgery without the money first. The family came up with the money and, despite Gordon’s severely weakened state, Dr Sparman proceeded with the surgery.

If Gordon had been admitted to the general hospital in the first place it is highly likely that he would have received pre-emptive treatment much earlier and would not have had to wait six days for a corrective procedure had he needed it. He most likely would have been making a full recovery, but at the Sparman Clinic there were continuous delays and a general lack of care.

According to the lab results, half an hour before the operation a troponin test was conducted. At this point, Gordon’s troponin levels had elevated to a point that showed that a heart attack was imminent. The family was not aware of this, but Dr Sparman would have been. Within half an hour of the operation commencing Dr Sparman returned to the family and said he had been unable to perform the procedure as Gordon had started going into cardiac arrest, so the operation was aborted.

After the operation Gordon began to deteriorate rapidly and within 24 hours he was under sedation and had been placed on tracheal intubation. A ventilator did the breathing for him, which was strapped to Gordon’s face using string. His blood pressure was now dangerously low, his body was still racked with spasms and he now also had kidney failure.

Gordon was initially sedated using Valium, but after he came round twice and tried to pull the tube from his mouth Dr Sparman changed the sedation to diazepam and tied Gordon’s hands to the bedframe. The diazepam worked in terms of ensuring that Gordon did not come round again and it also stopped the spasms; however, Gordon never fully regained consciousness after the drug was administered. For the remaining three days that Gordon spent at the clinic under sedation and intubated his body position was never moved once by the nursing staff and his family were not permitted to move him.

At this point, a member of staff at the clinic—who would prefer to remain anonymous—advised that Gordon should be airlifted out of the clinic as soon as possible. It was implied that he was not going to get better at the Sparman Clinic. The family immediately started to arrange a medical airlift back to the UK. At this very stressful time, the family were presented with another bill, for $11,000.

I hope I have managed to describe to the House the utter lack of care that Gordon received, and that the primary motivation appeared to be to delay the correct and proper treatment that Gordon needed in order to extract more money from the family.

The family were now working fastidiously with a medical flight team to repatriate Gordon to the UK. However, after speaking with consultants in the UK it was deemed that Gordon was too ill to endure the flight and needed to have an angioplasty and angiogram prior to repatriation, but it was also advised that in Gordon’s present condition this operation was high risk. Gordon was critically ill, and the risk factors associated with either the operation or the flight carried great life-threatening consequences.

Dr Sparman made it clear that the decision to have the surgery was entirely up to the family. I must reiterate this point: Dr Sparman placed life-threatening medical decisions in the hands of Gordon’s family, who had no medical training whatever. At a loss to know what choice to make, the family consulted the head cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, who advised them to remove Gordon from the Sparman Clinic immediately and bring him to the hospital as soon as possible, and not to go ahead with the surgery. The family began making plans to move Gordon, but Dr Sparman advised them that he was too ill and would not make the journey and now began pressuring them to go ahead with the surgery.

In desperation, the family sought further advice from a relative in England who is a doctor. Based on the information that Sparman provided to the relative, it was advised that the surgery should go ahead. So the family had no choice but to put their faith in Dr Sparman.

At this point, the family were presented with another bill, for a total of $70,000, of which the family had already paid $56,000. The family were advised that the surgery would not go ahead without the balance being paid, so they had no choice but to once again come up with the money. It would appear that, in response to the threat to move Gordon out of the clinic, Dr Sparman was determined to now go ahead with the surgery, putting immense emotional pressure on my family and presenting more bills, in case he lost “the business.”

Gordon came out of surgery with only a 10% chance of survival according to Dr Sparman and two days later he was deemed stable enough for the medical evacuation. Dr Sparman arranged the medication to be administered during the medical flight, and this was given to the flight team—in a fast food bag. The sedative he provided for Gordon for the flight was once again diazepam. The air medical team queried the use of the drug as a sedative, saying that such a high quantity as had been prescribed to Gordon was not administered in the USA because it took far too long to disperse through the system in patients with that level of critical illness and especially patients with kidney failure. The absolute failure to care for Gordon’s wellbeing, coupled with a wholly inappropriate drug for his age and state of illness and in a quantity that was beyond irresponsible, placed a constant strain on his heart.

I must emphasise that we would never have been in this position had Gordon been sent to the main hospital and properly treated for the pneumonia the moment he arrived.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I interrupt my good friend to ask something I have been waiting to hear. Who made the decision to send Gordon to Sparman rather than the hospital? Was the decision taken on board the ship? Was there some kind of cosy arrangement or deal? Does he know?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. I will come to that in my speech, but it was not the decision of the cruise liner; it was the decision of the port agent.

In the 11 days Gordon spent at the Sparman clinic, he received limited nutritional care and substandard nursing that gave rise to horrific first-degree bed sores that visibly shocked the medical staff at the Leeds General Infirmary and was placed in a poorly air-conditioned room, which led to his exhaustion. This all led Gordon to have much higher levels of anxiety, fear, pain and rapid health deterioration, which put increased pressure on his heart, at a time when he should have been able to rest, be properly hydrated and nutritiously fed, and so continue the recovery from his pneumonia that the ship’s doctor said he was comfortably making without any heart issues at that time.

Gordon was repatriated to the UK and admitted to the Leeds General Infirmary early on Tuesday 28 January. On inspecting the report from Dr Sparman, the consultants could not understand why Gordon was still so critically ill. The medical reports implied that he was and should be in recovery. They were also very concerned at the gravity of Gordon’s bed sores, which were first degree and had resulted from his position not being changed whilst he was in the Sparman clinic. I re-emphasise that not only did the nursing staff refuse to move Gordon, but Dr Sparman had tied his hands to the bed and prevented the family from moving him. These are basic nursing practices. Anybody in the medical profession knows that patients left in the same position will develop bed sores. I emphasise again that the staff at the Leeds General Infirmary audibly gasped when they saw the state of my father-in-law. They also questioned the prolonged use and high dosage of the drug diazepam that was administered.

Sadly, after the consultants at the LGI had performed their tests on Gordon, it was determined that his heart had greatly deteriorated and was in a much worse condition than had been reflected in Dr Sparman’s notes. In fact, the prognosis was not good. In addition to chronic heart failure, Gordon had kidney failure and brain damage from lack of oxygen. Despite his being taken off the diazepam sedation on arrival at the LGI, Gordon’s kidneys were not able to dispel the drug, and that, coupled with his now having multiple organ failure and brain damage, meant that Gordon never properly regained consciousness. Thirteen days after being admitted to the LGI, the family, with very heavy hearts, had to admit defeat and Gordon’s life support was stopped. He died on 13 February, leaving behind a devastated and traumatised family.

Owing to the circumstances around Gordon’s death the post mortem is still ongoing as the Coroner’s Office considers it to be a very complex case, which means we have been unable to get the final pathology report and still await his final death certificate.

My family paid approximately $200,000 in total for the barbaric treatment my father-in-law received in Barbados and the subsequent medical repatriation to the UK, and they have nothing to show for that money other than traumatic memories of the tragic and painful death of Gordon. After the horrific treatment and trauma my father-in-law had been through, we did not think we could be hit with anything else, but we were. It was only after returning to the UK that the family started doing simple Google searches on Dr Alfred Sparman, and they highlighted a horrifying picture.

In 1986, Sparman was convicted of the offence of disorderly conduct, to which he pleaded guilty. In 1991, he was convicted of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in New York and sentenced to five years’ probation. In January 1996, Sparman was registered as a sex offender in Florida, but in June he applied for licensure to practise medicine in Florida. The state of Florida revoked his medical licence in 1997. In 1999, Sparman received a licence to practise medicine in Tennessee, but this was revoked in February 2001 owing to

“unprofessional conduct; a previous felony conviction for sexual abuse in New York, and false statement on medical application.”

In June 2001, he was again registered as a sex offender in the state of Florida.

It was in 2001 that Sparman went to Barbados and opened his clinic. In 2004, he had his board certification in internal medicine suspended by the American Board of Internal Medicine, but he continues to this day to advertise himself as an “American Board-Certified Physician”. In 2005, he was reregistered as a sexual predator and offender in the state of Florida. In 2010, he was reregistered as a sex offender in the state of Tennessee, and the register also contains a list of Sparman’s aliases: John W. Freeman and Alfred W. Eversley.

On top of the crimes for which he has been convicted, Sparman has advertised himself as a “Board-Certified Cardiologist” but never passed the board certification cardiology exams in the USA. He has also advertised himself as a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology but the FACC has no record of his being a fellow. He was reprimanded by the Medical Council of Barbados and asked to remove “FACC” from his letterhead. He advertises himself as an interventional cardiologist but has no specialist training in interventional cardiology. He has had a number of complaints made against him to the Medical Council of Barbados. He has also tried to poach paying cardiology patients—that is, tourists—from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. All this information can be found in a simple online due diligence check. In addition, there are countless stories online of other people who have suffered at the hands of Dr Sparman.

So why was Gordon sent to the clinic of a supposed doctor who was stripped of his licence to practise medicine in the US, who is a registered sex offender, who has numerous speculations surrounding him regarding his conduct and who has blatantly lied about his accreditations? Why was Gordon sent to a heart clinic in the first place when he was diagnosed with double pneumonia, rather than being sent to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital? We will never know the answers to those questions.

A representative of Cruise & Maritime Voyages has confirmed that it was the port agent who determined where my father-in-law was taken for his medical care once he was disembarked. The port agent is governed by maritime law. A port agent is the designated person or agency held responsible for handling shipments and cargo and the general interest of its customers at ports and harbours worldwide, on behalf of ship owners, managers and charterers. Quite frankly, the decision that the port agent made to send Gordon to the Sparman clinic, instead of to the main hospital, killed him. And to add a final insult to all the injury, instead of Gordon visiting his “bucket list” destination, the Taj Mahal, with his beloved wife, Jackie instead laid his ashes there.

I ask the Minister and her Department today to seek a change to international maritime law, by lobbying the International Maritime Organisation, regarding the duty of care and due diligence, through a fit and proper persons test, that a port agent must carry out when identifying and commissioning onshore medical facilities and practitioners for those who are disembarked for medical emergencies. The international conventions for the safety of life at sea of 1974 and 1988 have been used to bring in the highest standards of health and safety for those at sea, whether they be crew or passengers. These provisions were amended in 2004 through the international ship and port facility security code after the security concerns raised after 9/11, and I would argue that this shows that the wellbeing of seafarers carries on within the port, not just on the vessel.

Gordon was always proud of the work he did in bringing about changes to landlord law to achieve the protection and standards required, especially for tenants, and although this will never bring him back, it would be a final fitting tribute to his life to know that, even in death, he was able to try to make the world a better place, to ensure that this never happens to anybody else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

That would be absolutely fit and proper. I accept it, and we will do what we can as soon as we can.

We have heard this afternoon of the tragic and preventable death of Gordon Hoyland Spencer. I share my hon. Friend’s commitment that, although nothing can be done to reverse what happened, Gordon’s death should act as a call for action to the maritime industry. Passengers should be cared for to the highest possible standard, particularly when they are most in need, and the Government will play their part in helping to ensure that no one has to repeat the painful experiences of Gordon and his family.

[Bob Stewart]

I believe the Minister is shortly to finish, but I wonder what the heck is going to happen to this so-called Dr Sparman. How can we allow this man to continue his work in Barbados? What can the British Government do to stop it? Are we going to report the man to the Barbadian Government? And are we going to complain about how the port agent dealt with this case? I believe that practical step might prevent another family from going through the hell that the Shelbrooke family have been through.

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. The fact this has been raised on the Floor of the House will be reflected by all Government agencies, and I do not doubt for a moment that this message will reach Barbados, especially once the meeting takes place with the IMO.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell for bringing this debate to the House, Once again, I express my profound sympathies to him, to Gordon’s widow Jackie and to the entire family. I look forward, if I can use that word, to working with my hon. Friend to campaign on this incredibly important issue and to ensuring that we do all we can to prevent another incident like this one.

Question put and agreed to.

Mortgage Prisoners

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to all those involved in the D-day landings 75 years ago today, especially remembering those who gave their lives. We and our allies will forever owe them a debt of gratitude. My constituent Alfred Barlow sadly passed away a few weeks ago, but he had hoped to be in Normandy with other veterans. I mention him particularly following the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), who was a family friend of his.

Let me now turn from a debt of deep gratitude to a kind of debt that is causing harm to families across the country who are locked into uncompetitive and expensive mortgages and unable to move to other more affordable products. That may be because they are trapped by large and expensive exit fees, or—as we have heard this afternoon—because they have been told, quite perversely, that they cannot afford to move to a cheaper deal, owing to an over-rigorous application of credit-scoring or affordability checks. Many are customers with excellent track records of keeping up repayments, but they are trapped by the rigidity of the new lending criteria. Being locked into those expensive products means that they pay more than they ought to pay. That, in turn, can force them into financial hardship, and in extreme cases can lead to the loss of their homes and other assets, especially when the loan is transferred to vulture funds which seek aggressively to recover the debts.

Colleagues may have hoped that on a Back-Bench Thursday we might avoid even a mention of the European Union, but the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) beat me to it. I mention the EU not with any reference to the current overarching debate, but to refer to a matter of fact. The EU mortgage credit directive is a code of conduct for mortgage firms, which we implemented in the UK in 2016. In an attempt to learn lessons from the 2008 mortgage credit crunch, rules on lenders were tightened to prevent consumers from taking out loans that they might later not be able to afford by stress-testing their ability to make repayments, even in the hypothetical event of large hikes in interest rates. In contrast to the relatively laissez-faire attitude to mortgage lending that had gone before, this was supposed to protect consumers from placing themselves in potentially precarious financial situations. However, its implementation has shown that the rules have been over-tightened, which has resulted in the creation of tens of thousands of mortgage prisoners.

As with everything, there is a general lack of agreement on whether the current rules stem inherently from the EU directive or from the UK’s implementation of it. There is also a question mark over whether the situation of mortgage prisoners is merely an unfortunate and unintended consequence which the industry is keen to rectify, or whether lenders indeed benefit from the position of customers who find themselves trapped, and may therefore have a limited appetite for reform. We have seen in other areas of financial service regulation that when debtors face distress there is always someone around to profit, and that is exactly where vulture funds come in, to pick at the remains. It is a trend that we have seen in the business banking sector too, when lenders have abused small and medium-sized enterprises to extract the maximum profit.

Like many other Members, I was contacted by several constituents before the debate, and was asked to give examples from their cases. I hope that by doing so I will highlight the human side of the story, which is often lost when we talk about market reviews and regulatory consultations. Important as those processes are to reforming the system, we must remember that behind each broken product or recalled asset is a home, and an individual or a family.

I want to mention two cases but this issue affects many more in my constituency. One gentleman from Offerton contacted me. He has a mortgage with Landmark Mortgages following the collapse of Northern Rock and was paying a fixed rate of 6% for two years, which was subsequently reduced to a variable rate of 4.7%. That is clearly quite high in the current market and he was paying a lot in mortgage repayments. I wrote to Landmark Mortgages on his behalf to ask if it would consider offering him a lower interest rate now his fixed product had ended. It declined.

Another constituent, from Hazel Grove, took out a 15-year fixed 1.25% above base rate loan secured against a portfolio of properties with the Yorkshire Bank. He placed his trust in the security of a 15-year loan. However despite his excellent credit ratings and payments being made on time and never in default he soon found himself subject to aggressive sales of further loans on higher interest rates which he felt bullied into accepting. This meant he was paying considerably more interest each month for many years until he started to struggle with the repayments. He therefore made arrangements on a number of occasions to try to refinance, but each time it was denied.

Then the bank appointed Cerberus Capital Management, a US-based private equity firm specialising in “distressed investing” to take over the loan and act in receivership. I know that some Members make more classical allusions in this Chamber than I do, but I will on this occasion indulge the House with such a reference, because Cerberus is a multi-headed dog that guards the gates of the underworld to prevent the dead from leaving; what an apt description of that company. As my constituent found to his cost, it is not in the agent’s interest to help customers, as it will lose fees, so it undermined any attempts made to resolve matters. Now my constituent has all rents from his property portfolio paid directly to the administrators and lives in constant fear that his family home—or even that of his 84-year-old mother—may be repossessed at any moment.

This is all rather similar to another issue: the treatment of small businesses by banks and the aggressive recall of loans and assets. This is an issue with which many of us are well-acquainted through the excellent work of the all-party group on fair business banking and finance, which has spent many years looking at this issue, most notably at Lloyds and the Global Restructuring Group, but it was a practice endemic across the industry.

I want to highlight a few of the similarities that are critical to this debate. The first is the apparent toothlessness of the FCA and its seeming inability or unwillingness to respond to poor practices in the market. As we saw with the business banking scandal, the FCA is slow to instigate reform, and it is not until consumer victims start piling up at its door that it takes note. It is for the Government to ensure that the FCA shows more appetite and greater urgency to protect the consumer. I welcome the current consultation on responsible lending rules and guidance, but if past experience is anything to go by I am not holding my breath that it will provide the kind of solution that customers need and deserve.

Moreover, the FCA often suggests that consumers seek redress from the ombudsmen or the courts, but that is rarely a viable option. The Financial Ombudsman Service is limited in the size of redress it can offer. For larger claims, litigation is an extremely fraught option due to the inequalities in access to justice between an individual customer and huge, often multinational, financial institutions with their armies of lawyers.

As my constituent from Hazel Grove told me:

“The bank squeezes every penny from you so you’re unable to support your family or fight for justice. The court costs of litigation are too high, therefore you’re unable to make a claim or file to protect your rights. I am unable to get legal aid as it’s a civil matter. If you try to bring a claim the banks just say to the court that they will want a cost order, and proof that you can pay the bank’s costs if you lose, which of course I can’t.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The FCA seems to be an organisation that either ignores people, puts us in a pending tray forever, tells us to go away or suggests we go to an ombudsman, but very rarely does it actually do its job. It is time it was sorted out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As an old soldier, I am conscious, as is the House, that at this time 75 years ago, our troops had gained a foothold on Gold and Sword beaches, the Canadians were on Juno and troops were on Utah, but on bloody Omaha, where 2,500 men’s lives were taken on this day 75 years ago, people were still trying to get on to the beach. The sea was red with blood, troops were drowning as they got off the landing craft, and when they did get a foothold on the sand under the water, they had to push bodies away before they were massacred on the beach. In the first waves, 90% of those incredibly brave American soldiers were casualties. We are talking today about something that matters very much to our constituents, but we should also—I have a right to say this, I think—bear in mind the absolute fear and worry of our troops at this moment 75 years ago.

My speech will be short, because Mr Deputy Speaker has told me that it has to be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that he can take up to 10 minutes. How is that? I will be as generous as that.

[Bob Stewart]

Mr Deputy Speaker is such a great man. I thought I was being told off earlier.

My comments will be short because I have spoken about this matter and the associated problems many times in the nine years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. Colleagues on both sides of the House are nodding. Why the heck has this matter not been sorted out? We are meant to sort these matters out—we are meant to be the people who legislate to get such injustices sorted and done. We have failed collectively to do that.

In particular, I want to raise the matter of the injustice done to my constituents—to the D’Eye family. Dean, my friend, is somewhere around, but I am not allowed to point him out. An injustice was done to him and his family by these banks. I am referring to Dunbar Bank, part of the Zurich group, and also the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group. I just cannot understand it. Decent people run these associations and they are actually—dare I use the word—screwing people utterly and completely, and it is immoral.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I am glad to say that my colleagues agree with me.

It seems to me that it is also far too easy for banks to get rid of their problem by selling on their loan accounts to unscrupulous debt recovery firms—vulture firms—that entangle decent, hard-working people, such as the D’Eye family, in a web. That is utterly wrong. These people cannot get out of it because they just do not have the money, and that is utterly wrong. Originators of loans should not be able to get rid of their responsibilities in this way. It is wrong, colleagues! It is wrong!

I want to end my remarks by talking about the Financial Conduct Authority, which does not seem to have the will or the authority to sort out this matter—to force the banks to investigate and deal with these legacy issues. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is a good friend of mine, is looking at me with a scowl, but in a nice way. He is a great friend and an utterly decent man who would really like to sort out this matter—he has to now after I have said such nice things about him. I am now expecting that to happen.

I truly believe that, somehow or other, we people in this House must get this matter resolved. It is wrong that we have not sorted it for the people whom we represent. I have been here for nine years and feel ashamed that we have not resolved the matter. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—oh, it is Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that Mr Deputy Speaker had got far more attractive while I was speaking. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now shut up.

Animals

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for that sedentary comment.

Seriously, it is a problem. People can legally bring them in. If someone has a signed certificate from a vet in a particular country, they can bring them in. This could be another bonus from Brexit, dare I say it?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Speaking as someone who moves our two dogs backwards and forwards all the time on a pet passport, I presume that all five puppies would have pet passports, which are expensive—in our case, about €50 each time we visit the vet.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is quite expensive, but I am not convinced that where many of these puppies come from the expense is so great. We must also remember that people are probably making £1,200, £1,500 or even £2,000 per puppy with some breeds. They are not smuggling in mongrels or cross-breeds; they are bringing in pure-bred dogs, although they are probably not as pure as they think they are and probably have the potential for disease, which is another issue to deal with—we could be bringing in dangerous diseases at the same time.

I have gone on a bit—you have allowed me to digress, Madam Deputy Speaker—but all these things are closely linked, as I am sure the Minister is aware. I welcome the regulations. There is another issue in respect of banning third-party sales. Let us imagine an establishment that is perhaps not the best breeder in the world. There is a problem there. If someone has to go to the premises to buy the puppies, they will, I hope, see the mother and what is happening in that breeding establishment, so to some degree it will be self-policing. If people go there and think there is something wrong, they are likely to report it and action will likely be taken—either the puppy establishment will be closed down or its operation will be tightened up and things will get better, since sometimes people breed badly out of inadequacy, rather than meaning to do it. So there is a combination of things. One only has to talk to the RSPCA to understand the problem.

Those are the key issues. The other issue, of course, which is more difficult for any Government to deal with, is that of backstreet breeding where people breed dangerous dogs. That is where microchipping comes in and all those other things that can hopefully go with it. By linking microchipping with the ban on third-party puppy sales, we should be able to tighten up on the backstreet breeding as well, however difficult it might be. The Metropolitan police and others are very good at the process because they have the specialists, although that is not the case all over the country.

I will not go any wider than that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have been very lenient on me. Suffice it to say that I am delighted to support the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

First, I say once again that it is fantastic to be able to participate in such a positive debate and to make such positive progress. I am grateful for all the contributions made today; they have all been constructive and the questions raised are legitimate. We do need to answer them and I will do my level best to do so.

It is important to correct the record, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said we are “a nation of lovers”; I think in the context of this debate he meant animal lovers. We will leave the other subject for a different day, but we are talking about animal welfare here today. I just want to make sure that is absolutely clear.

It is important that we do not forget the cats. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was very clear about that, as she was in her praise of the tireless campaigners, which the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) did a fantastic job of doing, too.

[Bob Stewart]

Cats, as Winston Churchill said, look down on us, dogs look up at us, but pigs look us in the eye as equals. I just wanted to make that point, as a dog lover more than a cat lover.

Loan Charge

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All the correspondence I have had has been phrased in very reasonable terms. People want to do the right thing, but they feel under a huge amount of pressure.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am sure that, every year, my hon. Friend’s constituent sent in a tax return, which HMRC ticked, approved and sent back. Only recently has HMRC suddenly seen the way things are going and said, “Right, this is some kind of tax avoidance. Let’s get it all back, and in one year.”

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I do not know what the rules are on my hon. Friend reading the next line of my speech over my shoulder, because it says here that my constituent continued with these arrangements and, each and every year, dutifully declared on his tax return the amount he had received in loans and the amounts he had returned thereof. It came as a surprise that, years later, HMRC intends to use its newly granted powers—in what my constituent describes as “winding back the clock”—to retrospectively claim that the arrangements my constituent and others had used were not legal, had never worked and that the tax on the loans was always due.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) and the Loan Charge Action Group for all that they have done, and indeed to the Minister, who for a long time has been given a hard time on the subject.

I am speaking today on behalf of about 100 constituents whose lives have been blighted by this and who have lived with awful uncertainty for about three years. After last week’s debate, I met a number of them at the City Praise Centre in my constituency. I have to say that when I first met constituents about this, my heart did not exactly bleed for them; it is not fair for one particular group of people to pay income tax at a lower rate than the rest of the workforce, and lots of my constituents are in real need, living in substandard accommodation and waiting months for hospital appointments, so I cannot condone the systematic loss of revenue to the Treasury.

[Bob Stewart]

The people who are coming to my hon. Friend are normal people, such as nurses—some of them actually work for HMRC.

[Adam Holloway]

I thank my hon. Friend and absolutely agree.

My view has since shifted, however, as I have come to understand more about their circumstances. These people are not pocket Al Capones out to defraud the system; they are self-employed professionals who are contracting to different entities, paying their own pensions, without the protection of regular employment, and trying to avoid the complexities of IR35. I guess any of us would wish to minimise the tax we pay, and HMRC knew about those arrangements for decades and was slow in taking legal action, and inept in shutting it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have huge sympathy with my constituents caught by loan charge repayments, because they are normal honest people who thought they were doing the right thing. They had no intention of diddling the taxation system.

Most people who owe loan charge repayments accept that they are now liable to pay that tax back. What I find unacceptable is the amount of interest that is heaped on that tax requirement. My plea to the Minister—as he knows, because I have spoken to him separately about this—is to reconsider the interest charges. In my view, they are far too high and, as a decent gesture—because these people did act decently—the interest charges should be dropped entirely. Such a move would go a long way to lessen concerns among my constituents, and it would be a fair way to proceed, bearing in mind HMRC’s lack of warning to participants in loan schemes.

Business Rates

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the plea from those of us who represent rural areas, where the one or two ATMs in our market towns play a very significant part.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the logic behind an ATM on the outside wall of a bank having to pay business rates when those that are inside do not? It beats me! Perhaps there is a reason, but I do not understand what it would be.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I understand that there are two reasons. The first is that the Valuation Office Agency can get away with saying that an ATM on the outside of the building is, in the jargon, a different hereditament from the main building on which it sits. The second argument that is given in the official explanation is that ATMs are often not run by the same company as the building on which they sit, and that as it is a different company, it can be rated as such. Those are the official explanations, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is far more expert in these matters than I am, will be able to give us a better one.

Returning to the £51,000 and the question of discretionary relief as opposed to allowances, the Minister knows that this is the core of my speech. It was the core of my speech last October, and it is the core of my speech today. This £51,000 is still a discretionary relief. While the majority of local councils have now pledged to provide the resources for their local businesses to benefit from this change, there are some that, regrettably, have not been forthcoming with their support of this measure, either by delaying their decision to implement it or by putting systems in place that require businesses to apply for the relief, firmly putting the onus on businesses to take time out from their day job to claim back money that is rightfully theirs. That means that businesses in those areas are being disadvantaged.

Of course this still does not resolve the complexity, and I believe that simplicity is always the key. We all know that small businesses are under increasing and unfair pressure from out-of-town retail parks and online retailers, and I am sure that Members here tonight will have lots of examples of that. For example, for every £1 in business rates that our small high street operators are taxed, the big online and out-of-town retailers pay significantly less, averaging around 16p. We can immediately see the competitive disadvantage for high street retailers, compared with the large out-of-town retailers and big online organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend, along with most of my hon. Friends, if not every single Member who is in the Chamber, is passionate about defending small businesses. I can see that she is shortly going to make a speech to support her small businesses—perhaps very shortly; I cannot possibly foretell.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Yes, because my hon. Friend has been very patient.

[Bob Stewart]

As a small factual correction, when my hon. Friend said “5.7 small and medium-sized businesses” he meant 5.7 million. That is a small point, and I know it was a slip of the lip.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Indeed it was a slip of a lip. The figure of 5.7 million small and medium-sized businesses is terrific, and shows the entrepreneurialism in this country, which is why our economy is doing so well and why we have such full employment at present.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth]

There is a huge opportunity for us to debate the benefits of off-licence versus on-licence, the support that people get when they enter a pub and the responsibilities of the landlord. That is especially the case when we talk about loneliness.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was stirred to action by the hon. Lady, my good friend, using the words “older gentlemen”—I qualify, but I am not lonely. The way to keep the pubs in our communities alive is for people to visit them. If we get more people going to the pubs, they will live longer. That is very important—and, by the way, that includes me.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I thank my friend for his intervention. I think a pint of Steerage from the Titanic brewery will definitely help him live longer.

Pubs bring everyone together in the community. Whether it is fundraising for local charities, increasing awareness of illnesses or just everyone coming together on a Sunday evening, pubs are at the heart of our communities when other institutions are falling away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Evans]

Yes. At times, there must be immense pressure for pubs that have closed to be turned into a block of flats, because there is a lot of money in housing, but there is an opportunity for them to be turned into a community pub, if the community come together to raise money and keep it going. There are countless examples of those throughout the country, and it means that the community still have a focal point where they can come together. I hope that more publicity will be given to those opportunities.

I have three breweries of different sizes in my patch: InBev, which makes Stella Artois, Thwaites brewery, which was moved from Blackburn into the Ribble Valley, is much smaller but is the famous brewery with the shire horses—there is a lot of corporate responsibility within that company—and Holmes Mill, which brews the great Bowland beers in the heart of the Ribble Valley.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend speaks with forked tongue. I have been to the pub beside his house with him twice or three times, and it is a wonderful pub, but when we go next door he always leaves behind the lady who lives in his house. She is called Alexa. He has never taken her.

[Mr Evans]

All I can say in reply to that interesting intervention is that my hon. Friend has been to my pub three times and not once has he bought me a drink. That is the sort of friends I have.

[Bob Stewart]

What about Alexa?

[Mr Evans]

I am not mentioning Alexa.

It is a great pub—it was actually the CAMRA pub of the year in 2013—but I have other pubs such as the Freemasons at Wiswell and the Parkers Arms in Newton. A lot of pubs rely on offering food as well. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned that she does not drink, but people do not have to drink alcohol to go to these places because there is so much more on offer.

Mention has been made of taxation on beer, which is huge. At £13 billion, it is massive. Almost 1 million jobs are provided by the industry. We need to look at ways of lowering that taxation. There is something wrong when taxation goes up, people drink less and less money actually goes to the Inland Revenue. There should be a common-sense approach to lower taxation, increase sales and ensure that HMRC gets more money out of that.

Taxation is high if the alcohol by volume rate is high; it drops only at below 2.8%. We need to look at ways of increasing the rate to 3.5%. It would encourage more people to drink lower strength alcohol and have a great time; it would incentivise them to do that. It is worrying when a lot people drink high ABVs—5%-plus. Drinking a pint of beer is good for one’s health, but drinking too much beer with a higher ABV is not.

Tomorrow night, I was due to be in a pub celebrating a big event, but that big event is not happening; it is being deferred. All I can say is that, on 22 May, I hope to be saying, “Cheers, Brexit!”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for bringing this debate before us. As other Members have said, this is light relief compared with the dark place we have been in for far too long—let me put it that way.

Many of the points I would have made have already been made, so I will crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and tell a little anecdote from the past. As some Members know, prior to appearing rather unexpectedly in this place, I was much involved in amateur dramatics and the local pantomime group—I have, indeed, been the dame in my time. On a Thursday night—to go back to the halcyon days of pubs—we would repair to a particularly famous old pub in my home town. At 11 o’clock, the barman, Sandy, would say, “Well, well, boys and girls, I think we will need to lock the door.” He would shut the massive, great door, turn the key and then carry on pulling the pints. One Thursday, I turned to a new member of the cast beside me at the bar and said, “Goodness me, do you think the bobbies might come knocking on the door tonight?” He laughed and said, “Ha, I’m an off-duty police sergeant,” which caused a slight reaction around the bar. Then, a voice further down the bar said, “That’s nothing. I’m an honorary sheriff’s substitute.” They were lax days, but I just wanted to tell Members that anecdote.

There are two points I want to pick up on in my brief contribution. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) made the point that publicans and their staff are trained, and they know the danger signs when somebody is drinking too much. As often as not, they will refuse to serve them, or they will get them into a taxi and get them out of the place. How much better is that, as she said, than having some lonely bloke drinking himself into a stupor at home on cheap White Lightning or cheap wine? We all know that far too many household fires are caused by somebody being blootered in their seat and dropping a fag down the back of the settee or whatever. There is therefore a safety aspect to this.

If someone goes on holiday to Spain, Italy, or wherever, if they are like me, fairly quickly they think, “I’ll pop down the village”. It is a hot day, there is a place with nice wee tables outside, and they have a pint of lager. Let us switch that the other way round. Visitors come to the highlands of Scotland and find no pubs—are you kidding? Tourism is crucial to the highlands, and the one industry that is fundamentally sustainable in the long term. If there are no pubs, the visitor experience will be much impoverished, to say the least, and the bad news is that the next year, people will think, “Perhaps I’ll not go there again”. Pubs have a far wider role than has yet been touched on in this debate, and I echo all that has been said about pubs being part of the social fabric of our communities.

[Bob Stewart]

The Jolly Woodman in Chancery Lane in my constituency is the nearest pub to my house, and it provides quality real ale. People come from miles around to visit that pub, and that is the sort of reaction we want to pubs in our areas.

[Jamie Stone]

I could not agree more, and I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will take me to that splendid place and introduce me to the delights of that nectar.

I have said enough. As soon as I have the opportunity, I shall invite the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling)—he is not in his place at the moment—to my constituency, and introduce him to its local delights, of which there are many. I hope there will carry on being many, because if we lost them it would be a tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

It certainly is, and I will talk shortly about the relief the hon. Gentleman mentions, which has played a significant part in that flowering and which I believe we can make better and fit for purpose for the future.

The value of beer exports has risen now to £500 million a year, and we heard earlier about the tremendous results also with respect to Scotch whisky and other spirits.

Small brewer’s relief gives the smallest brewers across the country a 50% reduction in duty and, as we have heard, it has helped fuel the explosion in the number of local breweries; we now have over 2,000 breweries across the country. At the autumn Budget we announced a review of this relief to give brewers the opportunity to share their thoughts on a relief that is now 17 years old and which has not been reviewed systematically over the course of that period. We have opened the review and had over 500 responses which we will carefully consider and report back on in due course.

Our motives at the Treasury have not been to extract more revenue from the sector, and certainly not to end the relief. However, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) and others mentioned, there is some evidence that although the relief has been hugely positive in some respects, it has limited the growth of some businesses that would like to expand and employ more people and that are concerned about the cliff edge that the relief creates. I hope that we will be able to work with breweries and organisations such as the Society of Independent Brewers to work through that and to do something positive for the industry.

With respect to beer duty, we have taken a number of steps over the past nine years to improve the situation in a country that has been widely acknowledged to have high levels of alcohol taxation. We removed the beer escalator, and we have either cut or frozen beer duty in six of the last seven fiscal events, so that the duty on a pint is lower now than it was in 2012. In real terms, this long-term and significant action by the Government has kept prices low for everyone, in contrast to the period from 1997 to 2010, during which beer duty increased by 60%. This was underlined at the most recent Budget with another freeze on beer duty, meaning that the price of a typical pint of beer is now 2p lower than if prices had risen with inflation. I appreciate that there is always more that we could do this respect.

We are also focusing on other alcohol, such as cider and spirits. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the importance of spirits to his constituency and to many others across Scotland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about their importance to the wider Scottish economy. She also asked me a question about post-duty point dilution. We have given this matter considerable thought for some time, and we announced at the Budget that we will be bringing this practice to an end from April 2020. She also asked, as did the hon. Member for Oxford East, about a wider review of alcohol duty more generally. This is a complex area, and there are clearly no easy answers. There are certainly few answers that are fiscally neutral and that would create no losers, which would be important to many who work or own businesses in the sector. It is perhaps premature to conduct a review at this moment, because the greatest flexibility will be available to us after we leave the European Union. A future Chancellor might then have the choice to take action.

We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about responsible drinking, and they asked whether we could lower the duty on low-alcohol beers. We are somewhat constrained in that respect by EU law. The EU alcohol structures directive sets the maximum threshold for reduced duty on low-alcohol beer at 2.8%. Her Majesty’s Government charge a reduced duty of 6p a pint on beers with a strength between 1.2% and 2.8%. Until we leave the EU, we cannot raise the threshold for low-alcohol beer above 2.8%, but this is something that we will work on with our partners across Europe, and we could have further flexibility in the years ahead. The Government have taken action in some specific circumstances—with respect to white cider, for example—and our approach is that we will continue to take action as necessary where there is clear evidence that certain alcohol duty rates are causing difficulties for society.

We have heard a great deal about pubs, which are, as we heard from numerous colleagues, the bedrock of many rural and urban communities. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) rightly highlighted, they boost the economy, create jobs and, crucially, act as hubs for our communities. We have heard about their importance in tackling loneliness, and about the issues for older people, whether older gentlemen or others. They are great places for people to work and start their careers in. The pub industry currently employs about 450,000 people, many of whom are younger people, as has been said.

[Bob Stewart]

I rise, again, as an older gentleman. We have been talking about what pubs do. Let us imagine people who live in pretty awful accommodation—a bedsit or something like that. The local pub can provide a really nice, friendly, warm environment. That is the sort of place that those people can go to, and in my view that is the real advantage of local pubs.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said.

I will talk briefly about business rates in the short amount of time available to me because they have been an important element of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) brought some of her publicans to see me at the Treasury to discuss the matter. We have taken several actions to support pubs by lowering their tax burden. The most important of them—this comes into effect on 1 April—is the Chancellor’s Budget announcement that the business rates bills of small and medium-sized retailers, including pubs, will be cut by a third. The policy has been set for maximum impact among retailers and pubs with a rateable value of £51,000 or below. I appreciate that that will have less impact in communities such as my hon. Friend’s, where rateable values are high, but 90% of retailers and between 70% and 85% of pubs across the United Kingdom will benefit, with pubs seeing a tax saving of up to £8,000. We also previously had the £1,000 discount for small and medium-sized pubs, and many pubs will also benefit from up to 100% small business rates relief or the 100% rural rate relief. Of course, all ratepayers are benefiting from the switch from RPI to CPI.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) mentioned the request of many, including the industry, to create a rate of beer duty that differentiates between people drinking in a pub and people purchasing beer in a supermarket or convenience store. I can see the strong argument for that, but it is unfortunately not possible under EU law. Duty is levied on production, not on the place of consumption. However, we might be able to turn to that should we have sufficient flexibility.

I conclude by thanking the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, both of whom gave superb speeches. This debate unified the House and demonstrated the important role that pubs can play in our communities. I will certainly relay the strong feelings from across the House to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor with respect to the next Budget and the future of beer duty. The House’s voice is clear that it wants, like people the length and breadth of the country, further and continued support for beer, breweries and our important pubs.

Horse Tethering

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

It is a genuine pleasure be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to some examples of how long-term tethering has been detrimental and caused death to animals in a number of cases. The nature of tethering means that it does not require large amounts of land, so horses can end up tethered in inner-city locations. A pony in south Bristol spent years tied to a tree on a grass verge and was harassed by local children and frequently escaped on to roads. The reality is that that was not a one-off.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Do the majority of such incidents involve horses or ponies owned by Travellers who are just moving through?

[Luke Hall]

That can often be the case. If we are looking to change the legislation, we must ensure that we stamp out tethering and animal welfare abuses regardless of who owns the animal, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point.

As I said, such incidents are a regular occurrence. In 2016, a pony was found tethered among fly-tipped rubbish. It was so badly tangled up in a discarded bicycle that it could not even stand. This pony, which had a life-threatening injury, was lost to the authorities after the owner simply moved it and tethered it in another location before they could arrive. Sadly, just before Christmas last year, a member of the public came across a pony that had been tethered in a wooded area. The tether had become tangled around the surrounding trees and, in a desperate effort to break free, the one-year-old pony had strangled himself and lay dead in the mud at the end of his tether. It is therefore clear that the practice desperately requires stricter regulation.

HorseWorld, the charity that started the campaign, was spurred into action by the alarming case of a mare that gave birth to her foal while she was tethered. Unable to protect her foal from the other horses who roamed free in the same field, the mare became seriously distressed. Of course, protection of the young is one of our most basic instincts. Research into tethered horses in Wales, where tethering is rife, showed that 10% of tethered horses had young foals. Those are just a few examples of the horrors associated with long-term tethering, but because tethering is not restricted by law, people can tether horses unchecked beyond the reach of the law, resulting in tethered horses reaching despicable stages of neglect before they can be rescued.

I want to touch on the current regulations and legislation surrounding equine welfare and explain why they are not protecting tethered horses in practice. The Minister may refer to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs code of practice, which acts as a guide to safely tethering horses, but the code is not being adhered to in reality, as demonstrated by an investigation conducted in south Wales in 2014 by the excellent University of Bristol’s veterinary school, which gave five main conclusions.

First, the code of practice states that water should be made available on a regular basis in a spill-proof container, but the research concluded that up to 90% of animals were not given water regularly. Secondly, the code states that animals should, as a minimum, have shelter from the sun and wind and that the area should be well drained in the event of heavy rain, but the research tells us that no shelter was provided in over 80% of cases. Thirdly, animals should be given the freedom to exercise off the tether for a reasonable period at least once a day. In reality, however, less than 3% of horses spent more than five minutes a day off the tether, and no one would argue that five minutes is a reasonable amount of time. Fourthly, according to the code of practice, the tethering site should not contain anything that might injure the animal, but the reality is that sites contained potential hazards in 50% of cases. Fifthly, the code states that tethered horses require a high level of supervision, with inspections

“no less frequently than every 6 hours”.

However, it was found that only a third of horses were visited that regularly. While we have a code of practice, it is clearly not being adhered to, and the fact that an individual can move an animal before they ever reach the stage of being prosecuted renders the code of practice redundant.

[Bob Stewart]

If a horse is tethered and left, the area around the tether will soon have no grass and will become muddy if it is wet, hugely damaging the horse. That is one of the other problems of tethering.

[Luke Hall]

My hon. Friend is right about damage to the environment, and I urge colleagues to look at some of the photos of horses that have been treated so badly. I mentioned the pony in south Bristol that was tied to a tree, and the surrounding area was a small stretch of grass between a pavement and the road. Yes, there was huge damage to the local environment, but there was damage to the pony, too.

The code of practice informs us that tethering is not a suitable long-term method of managing horses, as does the RSPCA, the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and Redwings, but absolutely nothing can be done legally to prevent someone from tethering a horse for its whole life.

Further, long-term tethering directly infringes the five freedoms set out by the Animal Welfare Act 2006: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

A tethered horse is not free to express natural behaviours. A horse that is free to roam will, on average, walk or run 10.6 miles a day, and the reality is that a tethered horse can come nowhere near that. As my many colleagues who keep horses can attest to, horses are flight animals. A horse’s most basic instinct is to flee from danger, which tethering does not allow. Tethering restricts a horse’s most natural behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his campaigning activity in this House, on this issue and on many others, and to the hard work he does in the House.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the issues relating to horse tethering. I know it is an issue of concern to many, not only because of the important welfare issues involved, but because of the visibility of tethered horses in our countryside and by our roads and the many challenges that can arise if tethering is not undertaken properly and in line with established guidance and good practice.

As the Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, I am clear that we have to uphold, and continue to drive up, our already high standards of welfare in this country, including in relation to the tethering of animals, and I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate and highlighting the issues that can arise. As he has so clearly set out, some people are not tethering their horses appropriately and are causing these poor animals distress and suffering. I was horrified to hear of the cases he set out of the suffering that poor tethering practice can cause our much loved horses and other equines. The practices in the examples he gave must be stamped out so that these noble animals can live without the threat of cruelty or a life of misery. I applaud the work that HorseWorld is doing to look after these horses, and I welcome the aims of its effective Break the Chain campaign which focuses on ending all inappropriate and long-term tethering of horses, and in particular on seeing a ban on the tethering of equines for longer than 24 hours.

As my hon. Friend clearly pointed out, it is an offence under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to fail to provide for an animal’s welfare. As he mentioned, that means that a person who cares for an animal—whether it is a pet, a working animal or a farm animal—must provide for its five welfare needs, as set out in the Act. Those needs are a suitable environment to live in; a healthy diet, including fresh, clean water; the ability to exhibit normal behaviours; appropriate company —for example, some animals need to live in social groups; and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Section 4 of the Act goes even further and makes it an offence to cause a protected animal any unnecessary suffering—commonly known as animal cruelty.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister mentioned the requirement for horses to live among their own kind. We can vividly understand how difficult it must be for a lone horse. Were a man or woman put in a herd of horses on our own for 24 hours, we would understand how lonely that can be. It is lonely for a horse, too.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The aim of the Government’s work in this policy area is to highlight that tethering should be for the short term. We want these animals to be as socialised as possible.

The 2006 Act is backed up by a number of statutory codes of practice, including the code for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids. The code provides owners and keepers with information on how to meet their animals’ welfare needs and includes a specific section on how to tether horses and other animals covered by the code. Although it is not a specific offence to breach a provision of the code, if proceedings are brought against someone, the court will look at whether they complied with the statutory code in deciding whether they have committed an offence. That makes the code a key document in relation to prosecutions for animal welfare offences. We are very grateful for the input and assistance from the British Horse Council and the Horse Trust in particular and for their advice last year on the changes we made to the code, which was updated in April 2018.

I should clarify that tethering is not a banned activity, as there are circumstances in which tethering may avoid a greater risk of harm arising—for example, if a horse strayed into a place of danger. That point was made by World Horse Welfare in the statement issued this week, which said:

“We are concerned that banning tethering could lead to more horses kept indoors where their welfare cannot be monitored, or left to wander freely, endangering both themselves and the general public.”

Tethering is defined under the code as

“securing an animal by an appropriately attached chain, to a centre point or anchorage, causing it to be confined to a desired area.”

Furthermore, the code states that tethering

“is not a suitable method of long-term management of an animal,”

but

“may be useful as an exceptional short-term method of animal management”.

I think that goes a long way towards addressing the first and third changes that my hon. Friend proposed.

Although tethering is not prevented or illegal under the code, the code does include detailed specific advice on tethering and how it should be done properly. It details which animals are not suitable for tethering and provides advice on a suitable and appropriate site—for example, a site should not allow the horse access to a public highway or public footpaths. That helps to address the second change proposed by my hon. Friend. To tether a horse in such a way that it can physically be on a pavement or road is clearly contrary to the code and therefore open to enforcement action.

In addition to the statutory welfare code, other organisations provide advice on tethering. For example, World Horse Welfare has drawn attention to the code of practice produced by the National Equine Welfare Council specifically on tethering. In addition, the British Horse Society has produced a helpful leaflet that is available online and provides advice to anyone with concerns. The Redwings equine welfare charity also has useful advice on tethering, as does the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has also produced guidance on tethering. Our concern today, though, is not with necessary tethering that is undertaken in the short term, in the right way and in exceptional circumstances, to avoid a greater risk of harm arising; it is with avoidable and unacceptable tethering.

Under the 2006 Act, local authorities have powers to investigate concerns about the welfare of animals and if necessary to seize them—if they are suffering, for example. They can also prosecute if someone is neglecting an animal in their care. In addition, the way the Act is drafted means that anyone can bring forward a prosecution under the Act, and it is on this basis that the RSPCA prosecutes many hundreds of people each year for animal cruelty or neglect. It is important that we all recognise the important work the RSPCA does in this area.

Those convicted of such crimes under the Act can be subject to an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to six months. I am pleased to say that the Government have announced that they are increasing the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty from six months to five years of imprisonment. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be very aware that the five-year penalty is already in place in Northern Ireland and we look forward to having it in England, too.

If anyone is concerned about how a horse or other animal has been tethered, they should report the matter either to the relevant local authority or to the RSPCA, which can investigate and if necessary take the matter further. If a horse or other animal is found not to be tethered appropriately, that could lead to a prosecution under the 2006 Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned the important role of local authorities in this area and the need for them to appoint animal welfare officers. Local authorities have strong powers to enforce welfare controls and often work in partnership with the RSPCA or other welfare charities, or indeed with other local authorities that have expertise in horse management.

Enforcement can be targeted according to local priorities and needs. In some areas, for example, horse abandonment or poor tethering practice might be an issue. In others, it may be non-existent. We encourage all interested parties to work together at local level to use the available powers to address the problem of abandoned or incorrectly tethered horses. Local authorities have powers under the 2006 Act to appoint welfare inspectors, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and I encourage them to do so to meet the needs of residents and equines in their area.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister refers to reporting to local authorities. A weekend is a long time, and local authorities close down. I should have thought that reporting it to the police might result in more action.

[David Rutley]

Local authorities often have emergency contact numbers, and the RSPCA can give a 24/7—or at least seven day a week—response. I think my hon. Friend’s concerns are addressed.

I am conscious that, in the short time I have left to speak, it is also important to highlight that the Control of Horses Act 2015 is also relevant. It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) with support from the Government and introduced more flexible options for the management of unlawfully placed or abandoned horses—often known as fly-grazing horses—some of which might be tethered. It has been welcomed by landowners, local authorities, countryside bodies and animal welfare charities.

In summary, the appropriate tethering of horses is an important issue that the Government are taking action to address. We have put a number of protections in the 2006 Act, the code for the welfare of horses and the 2015 Act. The strong arguments made today and the concerns that have been raised mean that I shall call for a meeting with key stakeholders in the months ahead to see what more can be done in sharing and documenting best practice on horse tethering and ensuring that messages on best practice are more actively disseminated to horse owners. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate on these matters in the months ahead and I am sure that that will help us to deliver animal welfare at a continued high standard now and in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

Absolutely. That is exactly the point, because we know that the best way to address poverty is to make sure that more people can earn their way out of poverty. That does not work for everyone, but for those who can do so, this makes a significant difference, and that is exactly why poverty is now at record lows.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

According to Department for Work and Pensions figures, there are 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty since 2010, with 300,000 fewer children in the same situation.

[Vicky Ford]

Absolutely. That is exactly the point: absolute poverty is now at record lows. That also has an impact on children—my hon. Friend made that point— because the number of children living in workless homes has fallen to the lowest level since records started.