Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Giles Watling Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Do the hon. Lady’s comments about the welfare of animals also apply to animals that are bred for slaughter?

[Sue Hayman]

All animals need to be looked after to the best of human ability and should not be abused. We need the highest standards possible in slaughterhouses and abattoirs.

The Opposition welcome the Bill and will support it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), whose stories of Baby and Scamp were very moving. They do not have a voice—we are their voice, and we must shout as loud as we can. I am grateful to be appearing in my first sequel—“Finn’s law: the sequel”. I will not take up too much of the House’s time this afternoon.

To put my position simply, I am in favour of this Bill and the changes that it will introduce, as are my constituents in Clacton, many of whom keep animals and have contacted me to ask that I support the Bill. I am pleased to do exactly that today, because an increase to the paltry maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment for animal welfare offences, some of which we have heard about today, is so long overdue. As the Dogs Trust put it, the current sentences are woefully inadequate and far too low to deter offenders. I agree with that depressing conclusion and know that this Bill will go some way to correcting the shortcomings in the current legislation.

Moreover, as has been mentioned, the Bill will bring us into line with the legislation in other countries and parts of the United Kingdom and restore parity to the law, which, curiously, currently affords some animals stronger protections through higher sentences for abuse.

Perhaps most crucially, the Bill will shift punishment away from fines and on to serious prison sentences. That is an important change, as the courts may not currently impose large fines unless the offender can repay them in a reasonable time. That leaves us with too many abusers evading proper justice through short custodial sentences or paltry fines. To my mind, that is not an effective deterrent and I believe that that is why cases of abuse remain stubbornly high; the RSPCA investigated nearly 140,000 cruelty complaints last year, with 1,678 convictions.

As a keen advocate of animal welfare, I have heard too many harrowing stories of animal abuse. I have some first-hand experience of the aftermath: I went out on patrol with our dedicated local RSPCA officer Sam Garvey. We came across an animal close to death—not because of deliberate cruelty, but due to ignorance and neglect. That is another issue that we must pick up and run with, to make sure people know what is happening. The Bill will go some way towards bringing that into focus.

Many years ago, as I have mentioned here before, I took part in breaking up a puppy farming ring in Wales, where I saw dogs and puppies kept in the most appalling conditions. However, it was like a game of whack-a-mole: once we had broken one up, another came up straight away. I know too much about animal abuse in this country—for me, any case of abuse is one too many. I will do all I can to stop this cruelty occurring. I am the owner of three wonderful, extremely noisy dogs, so this is a personal issue for me. I promise my dogs, when I get them, “I am going to give you the best life possible—I will look after you, and when that moment comes when I have to be firm, I will also do that too, and give you as good an end as possible.”

This Bill will introduce a strong deterrent. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we want to see the punishment fit the crime. The Bill will also, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned, give judges the option of a higher custodial penalty, which they have been asking for for some time. I am therefore grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Bill, which is another example of our positive record on animal welfare, having already secured key changes such as the ban on third-party puppy and kitten sales, the prohibition of wild animals in circuses, CCTV in slaughterhouses, and the new—rather complicated —regulations that came into force last October to protect animal welfare.

However, while I truly celebrate our past achievements, I still want us to go further and cement our status as a global leader in animal welfare by continuing to raise the bar. We can do that only by relentlessly moving forward on animal welfare. That needs to include a ban on live animal exports when we leave the EU, a proper recognition of animal sentience when we leave the EU, and better labelling of meat products to de-incentivise the overproduction of religiously slaughtered meat that is then brought inadvertently on to the mainstream market. We must also do all we can to stop the unbelievable cruelty to cats and dogs around the world by setting an example in introducing a ban on consumption of their meat here in the UK. Certainly, those are conversations for another day—perhaps when considering a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, which I look forward to seeing in this place soon.

However, there are also ways in which we can maintain the positive trend of animal welfare developments that we have seen under this Government. This Bill is another positive example, which is why I will vote for it today and hope that it makes speedy progress through Parliament. In doing so, though, I would like to raise a concern brought to my attention by the Dogs Trust, which set out—this has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—that although the increased penalties are welcome, they will inevitably see some cases taken to the High Court, with potentially lengthy proceedings to follow. That means that dogs seized during proceedings will spend protracted time in kennels while the cases goes through the courts. This has a potential impact on the dogs’ and cats’ welfare, and that seems to be counterproductive to the intention of this Bill. There are also capacity and cost issues involved in keeping a large number of dogs for such a long period. I assume that there will be a similar impact on other seized animals. Given that I have not yet been able to see an impact assessment for this Bill—I do not know whether one is planned—I do not yet know whether this has been considered by the Government. I therefore ask the Minister to say something about it in his closing remarks, or to me later, if possible.

I very much look forward to having the pleasure of voting for a piece of legislation that will do more to protect animals in the UK from abuse. As I have said many times before, it is a great honour to represent the constituents of Clacton. My mailbag is full of animal welfare concerns, and I know that today I am speaking for my constituents. For me personally, when I leave this place—in the hopefully very distant future— I will look back on debates and votes like this with pride at the positive action I was a part of taking, as Paul O’Grady so famously says, for the love of dogs.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come to how other countries address this challenge.

All sorts of difficulties arise through our current rules on halal and shechita or kosher meat production. There are a wide range of definitions of halal. As hon. Members have pointed out, some statistics suggest that 70% to 80% of all animals slaughtered under halal are stunned. The key requirement for halal is that animals receive an Islamic blessing and that any stun should be recoverable, so that in theory they could regain consciousness. It is very hard to define what is halal, because it ranges from simply playing a recording of an Islamic blessing, right through to non-stun slaughter.

In the case of kosher meat, there is a further problem. The hind quarters of an animal are not deemed kosher, even if the animal was slaughtered under kosher methods. That means that the rump of cattle and sheep ends up going into the mainstream market—usually the service trade through Smithfield, where unwitting customers in restaurants in London and other parts of the country buy the meat not knowing it has been slaughtered by kosher methods.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the labelling of meat, so that consumers know the exact method of slaughter when they order their food from restaurants or supermarkets, might be a way forward to address overproduction and allow consumers to make an informed choice?

[George Eustice]

Labelling is indeed one option, which I was going to come to. It does not get us all the way, because we have the service trade, where labelling would be ineffective at helping consumers to understand how their meat was slaughtered.

If we had a free vote in Parliament, what types of issues might we want to consider? Although this is a sensitive issue, it is important to ask whether our current derogation accommodates a religious need, or whether it is more a cultural interpretation of such a need. There is wide variance in what is defined as halal, depending on local imams.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I agree that adopting a German-style model, whereby we put in place the measures and mechanisms necessary to enforce something that has been a facet of our law since at least 1933, makes a lot of sense, and is probably the easiest option for the Government, given the alarm that there has been about the growth of religious slaughter.

We could increase the period of standstill time before chickens move on to the next process. There is a very real concern at the moment that there is typically a moving shackle line for chickens, whose throats are cut randomly by people as they go past, but what happens if they miss a chicken? What happens if the chicken is not stunned through a water bath and they fail to cut its throat? The answer is that it probably proceeds to the next stage of production, which if I am not mistaken is a scalding tank to remove the feathers. It could enter that while fully conscious, which is horrific. We should be doing more to check that those birds genuinely lose consciousness before they move on to the next stage. It should not just be a moving shackle line.

[Giles Watling]

It is known that in many cases stunning fails during the process. Should we not clean up our act on stunning, as well as taking on the issue of labelling? I hate to drag my hon. Friend back to that issue, but why can we not put labelling on menus too?

[George Eustice]

So-called mis-stunning is also an issue. I am not pretending that religious slaughter is the only welfare issue. Another area of concern, about which I commissioned some work when I was Minister, is the make-up of the gas mixture used in the slaughter of pigs, which was also problematic. Clearly, because it relates to pigs, it has no religious dimension whatever. There are other issues, and mis-stunning is one of them. The point about mis-stunning is that even if they get it wrong, they are there immediately afterwards with a second stun, which can resolve the issue.

I will conclude at that point, because we have only half an hour and the Minister will want to come back on some of these points. I seek to liberate him, the Government and all his successors from having to wrestle with this difficult issue. Instead, they should make it a free-vote issue and give it back to Parliament to decide.

Beer Duty Rates

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now move on to an important debate about differential rates of beer duty. Because of the suspension of the earlier debate for 15 minutes, this debate can run until 4.45 pm. I call Giles Watling to move the motion.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered differential rates of beer duty.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise, again, the importance of beer duty, and pleased to represent all the constituents who have contacted me to ask that we cut beer duty. It is a campaign I am delighted to support. Although I am certainly a keen supporter, I do not believe that an across-the-board cut in beer duty is the best option, as I shall argue in this speech. That is where a differential rate of beer duty is to be much desired. Simply put, it would differentiate between the duty rates for on-trade sales of beer in pubs and the rates for off-trade sales. I am keen for that proposal to be implemented, so I have written to the Chancellor to seek his support—as the Minister will know, having responded to my letter of 23 April. That was my second letter to the Treasury on the intriguing proposal, in which I carefully responded to the points that the Minister had raised in his reply to my first letter in November 2018.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I point out that my hon. Friend wrote to my predecessor, and it was my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who responded to him, rather than the present incumbent of this illustrious slot.

[Giles Watling]

I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I am well aware that it was his predecessor; it was the Minister incumbent at the time.

I sent a long and detailed reply to the letter, but the response was almost word for word the same as the first. Four words at the start of one sentence had been removed, and one word and one number—the date—had been changed. I am sure that that was just an oversight in the machinery of the Government; I hope it is not an indication of how much the Treasury wants to debate the matter. We must do more to protect our pubs.

The Minister will tell me that the Government have supported pubs in many ways, notably through the beer duty freeze, which means that beer duty is 18% lower than it was in 2012—hurrah! No doubt that is an impressive achievement, but if we have done so much, why have 11,000 pubs closed in the last decade and why does one pub still close every 12 hours?

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. The Government have delivered not just a duty freeze for our pubs, but three duty cuts followed by a number of duty freezes. The Government have taken positive action to support our pubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling]

I celebrate that positive action; it is great that the duty is 18% lower than in 2012.

The Alcohol Health Alliance concludes that previous across-the-board cuts in beer duty have helped supermarkets to continue to undermine on-trade sales, while failing to slow the rate of pub closures. Despite the Government’s valiant efforts, therefore, the important contributions that our pubs make to the economy and to community life by providing a place to socialise and encouraging responsible drinking remain at risk.

Most concerningly, analysis shows that it is small independent pubs that are disappearing as the big pub chains consolidate their businesses around larger bars, usually in town centres. Eventually, that will allow those big pub chains to monopolise the on-trade marketplace. That will give them a stranglehold over pricing and is unlikely to result in a cheaper pint for the consumer.

Moreover, the closure of any pub, especially a small community asset, endangers work on loneliness and social cohesion. Researchers have found that people who have a local pub are happier, have more friends and feel more engaged with their local communities, but closures are depriving some people of those benefits. That can be particularly acute in rural areas. The pub is a famous and traditional part of the British way of life. It is an essential part of the community. It deals with loneliness and is a form of social care. The traditional landlord knows his clientele. He knows who needs help, who is in trouble and what resources are available, and he is a friendly ear.

As a touring actor many years ago, I stayed in a small village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon that had a pub, a church and a community centre, and a pub landlord, a vicar and a policeman. Twenty years later, I went back and those three pillars of the community had gone, along with the pub. It was a sad reflection of that wonderful little community that I knew so well, where people talked over the garden fence, talked to one another in the pub, looked after each other and looked out for one another. Instead, the people of that little local community had disappeared into their silos. They went to the local town to work as commuters and came back to their houses to drink cheap supermarket booze in front of their widescreen televisions. The community had broken down. The loss of that community is a great shame, and I want to prevent that from happening elsewhere. We must do all we can to prevent the closure of any pub.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I worked in the pub trade for 10 years. One of my first and most enjoyable jobs was working at the Windmill Tavern and the Gates Bar in my constituency. That was a long time ago, but those pubs survive. Sadly, I know a lot of landlords who knew then, and know now, that business rates and the price of a pint are far too high. We are losing places to socialise and we are losing communities. Communities need pubs, so I strongly support the hon. Gentleman.

[Giles Watling]

I ran a pub with my wife—the Kings Head on Kings Head Hill, Chingford—in one of those moments when my acting career was not going too well.

Pubs are also positive for our high streets. They attract visitors, so closures are counterproductive to the Government’s efforts to revitalise our urban centres. Let us not forget the general economic impact of the beer and pub industries, which contribute £23 billion to GDP every year and support more than 900,000 jobs. Crucially, 44% of those jobs are held by 16 to 24-year-olds.

All that is at risk, however, because of beer duty rates. Even after the Government’s reductions, we still have one of the highest rates in Europe and pay 40% of all beer duty in the EU while consuming only 12% of the beer—despite my best efforts. That has contributed to the fact that, according to the Campaign for Real Ale, 56% of drinkers believe that the price of a pint of beer in a pub has become unaffordable.

Drinkaware notes the shifting preference of the consumer, who now purchases alcohol in the off-trade marketplace to consume at home, as per my example of the little village near Stratford-upon-Avon. When people can buy a pint of beer for less than £1 in some supermarkets, it is hardly surprising that many choose that option, especially when pubs simply cannot get near those rock-bottom prices. I believe that the average pint of beer is between £3.50 and £4, which is three or four times the amount.

The data supports that shifting preference and demonstrates that while high rates of beer duty have been pricing people out of drinking in pubs, off-trade sales have been thriving. Figures from the British Beer and Pub Association show that since 2000, on-trade consumption has fallen by a massive 47.2%, but off-trade consumption has risen by 29.3%. That is clearly inequitable and stems from the disparity in cost between the two. The Government’s across-the-board beer duty reductions have not addressed that disparity, given that they also benefit off-trade sales. Because pub closures largely derive from the surge in the sale of cheap alcohol, the disparity needs to be addressed.

An underlying potential public health concern could result from inaction, because people who drink at home without a responsible landlord to keep an eye on them are at risk of alcohol abuse. Today, the number of hospital admissions related to alcohol remains high at one million annually, and that places a strain on our precious resources. Most worryingly, the number of admissions has risen as a pint has become more expensive. Even if there is not a direct correlation, 73% of publicans think that increasing the price of off-trade alcohol is crucial to tackling alcohol problems.

We can do that with a differential rate of beer duty that skews the odds back in our pubs’ favour by cutting the on-trade beer duty rate to benefit those sales over off-trade sales. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said recently:

“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.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 635.]

We are shortly going to get that flexibility, and there must be a technological mechanism that we can use to track the destination of beer products when they leave the producer, and then add the tax accordingly. Such an approach would mean cutting the on-trade duty rate, before adding a stipend for beer products destined for the off-trade marketplace. It would also mean that the cut for on-trade sales would offset the increase in off-trade duty. I accept that such a change could impact all off-trade retailers, and therefore any such adjustment should be narrowed to large retailers only. For large retailers, sales of beer form only part of their turnover, whereas for small off-trade retailers, alcohol sales can be everything. That important point must be considered during any discussion of the proposal so that we do not damage our very valuable small businesses.

We must differentiate and cut beer duty for on-trade sales, because doing so will truly benefit our pubs. However, although I might be considered an expert on beer, I am not an expert on tax law. I hope that we can have a pledge from the Minister today that the Treasury will investigate this matter, so we can see whether such differential rates could hypothetically be used to support our pubs when we leave the EU. Moreover, when we investigate, we must find a way to ensure that producers pass on savings to the consumer. Many in the industry allege that previous savings have been retained by brewers, and that undermines efforts to save our pubs.

If I have convinced the Minister that there is still a strong argument for differential rates of beer duty—I am sure I have—I hope that one day he will join me for a drink in my local in Frinton to celebrate the introduction of this important change.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for allowing me to take part in this debate at the very last minute. I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) on his tour de force in defence of the great British beer industry and on the importance of the British pint. I only wish there were more Members of Parliament who spoke with such passion about what is a great British industry. Although the Americans or the Germans or the Belgians might claim it, I have no doubt that we produce the best beer in the world here in Britain and we should support the industry.

I will reiterate a few of the points that my hon. Friend made so well. First, there are the costs incurred in the on-trade and the off-trade. It is more cost-effective and cost-efficient to sell trays of lager or six-packs of beer from a supermarket, for them to go down the aisle, be beeped through by the assistant in the supermarket of one’s choice and for someone to take them home. There is clearly a much higher cost involved in delivering a wonderful pint of British cask ale. For a start, there is a great deal more work in keeping it, and there is the customer service that is needed in its delivery. There is a lot more science and work in delivering great customer service and a great pint of beer than one may imagine, and that costs the publican. It also, of course, provides excellent jobs, with good training, in the pub industry, which we should support and encourage.

[Giles Watling]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a great artisan skill in looking after beers, such as knowing how to tap and spile, when to leave the beer waiting, and serving it when it is just right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the previous speakers for giving me that opportunity. I intend to take full advantage of it. I stand corrected on the point about the Opposition, for which I am grateful.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) not merely for his ingenuity and brilliance in securing the debate and raising this topic, but for the vigour and energy that he has shown in pressing this issue over the several years he has been in the House. In doing so, although he may not realise it, he takes up a beacon that was held for many years in this House by my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who I am delighted had the chance to speak. I have no doubt that, in due course, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) will himself carry that beacon, or if not, will play an important role in making this argument, because it is an important one to advance. I thank all Members who have spoken for their contributions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton rightly said, and as colleagues from across the House know, beer and breweries are an important part of our national life, and the same is of course true for that essential accompaniment, the great British pub. As a Herefordshire man, I ought to point out that pubs do not merely serve beer. In my constituency we have Bulmers, while in Herefordshire we have Westons, Tom Oliver and Denis Gwatkin; we have a host of fantastic cider producers. Tragically, they are not the subject of this discussion; our attention must focus exclusively on beer and the beer duty. However, they contribute to the important presence of pubs in our national life.

[Giles Watling]

Might it not be worth consulting and finding out whether some sort of reduction in cider duty might also help to preserve the pub in the future?

[Jesse Norman]

That will certainly be of great interest to my constituents, both as consumers and producers. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a tremendous reinvigoration of the brewing industry over the last nine years. The number of brewers has this year risen dramatically to more than 2,200. The rise of craft beer has seen breweries grow and flourish in every part of this country, including microbreweries, and exports have reached more than £500 million a year.

Again, it would be wrong of me not to mention a personal interest in this context. Certainly, my county of Herefordshire is as amply endowed with fabulous breweries and pubs as any part of the country. It would be wrong not to mention Wye Valley Brewery, Golden Valley Brewery and Hereford Brewery—I have pulled a pint of its Hereford Best in the Strangers Bar. Notable pubs in Hereford are the Barrels, where I held an informal surgery last Friday afternoon for a considerable period; the Volunteer Inn, known as the Volly; the Lichfield Vaults, known as the Lich; the Grapes; and the Britannia. However, I also pay attention to the specialists that have come into the market in my constituency over the last few years, which picks out this wider process of economic and social change, including Beer in Hand and the Hereford Beer House—part of a panoply of pubs across the entire county, including the King’s Head Hotel, the Man of Ross, the Mill Race in Ross and many other fine houses.

It would also be wrong of me not to touch on the excellent work in the community of the local Campaign for Real Ale team, with my support, in saving, for the second time, the Broadleys pub in south Hereford from being turned into a Co-op. It sheds a very bad light on the Co-op, which is in many ways a fine institution that I otherwise rather admire, even if I did have the crystal Methodist in front of me at one point when I was on the Treasury Committee, if hon. Members remember him. It should not sponsor the closure of pubs in order to open new Co-ops merely a few hundred yards away from ones that already exist. I single it out personally, not as a matter of Government policy, for its misbehaviour in that regard.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Giles Watling Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robertson]

I agree entirely. That may be the compromise we settle on for now.

I do accept and understand that this is an emotive and sensitive issue, because it can overlap with religious belief. However, this debate is not about preventing people from practicing their faith. I do not want to incorrectly conflate non-stun slaughter with religious slaughter.

There are some misconceptions. For example, many people think that halal meat is all non-stunned. It is difficult to get exact figures, but I am advised that less than half of halal meat falls under that practice. However, shechita, the Jewish religious method of slaughter is solely non-stun. I am not concerned about expressions of religious belief, though I do think that our beliefs sometimes have to be tempered by the fact that we should not cause another living thing harm when that can be mitigated.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Are we not aiming for a civilised society in which we honour the meat that feeds us by giving it a good a life and as painless an end as possible?

[Mr Robertson]

I agree entirely. My concerns are therefore completely grounded in animal welfare. This topic is just one element of a wider debate we should be having on animal welfare at slaughter, including ensuring that the existing animal welfare standards that we have in place are met. I hope that we can encourage a sensible debate on this issue.

As a nation, we are increasingly concerned with animal welfare on a broad range of issues, and rightly so. The Government have an excellent record on animal welfare, responding to demands for mandatory CCTV in slaughter houses, addressing plastics in the oceans and tackling the illegal ivory trade. Today, we had a ten-minute rule Bill on animal sentience that will impose a duty on public bodies to have due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings when formulating or implementing policy. The Government are committed to doing that, so I ask them to consider some of the things that I am suggesting.

Consumers are rightly concerned about the quality of life of animals before slaughter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said. That also extends to concerns about the ending of animals’ lives, which is a concern for farmers across my constituency, who feel strongly that the animals they have carefully bred should not suffer unnecessarily in their final minutes. I therefore suggest that the Government look at banning non-stun slaughter, if they feel that the evidence points that way and that it would be appropriate. That is a position based on scientific evidence and supported by the BVA, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I made it clear at the beginning that the debate is about animal welfare, and I certainly do not want to suggest what is right and wrong with regard to religion; the debate should not be seen as that in any way. I have given way an awful lot, so I will have to move on a bit. I was going to go through the EU law on slaughter, which is contained in a Council regulation, but I will have to speed up, otherwise the Minister will not have a chance to respond.

In response to the hon. Lady’s point, as I have mentioned, while some slaughter practices do not allow pre-stunning, in accordance with religious rites, some halal authorities consider that pre-stunning is permissible, provided that the stun does not kill the animal and that the animal could have theoretically regained consciousness. That is an important point, because many consumers of meat may not buy it if it is signified as halal because they believe it is from an animal that was not stunned. That represents an unnecessary loss to the market.

I ask the Government to address the evidence being put forward by organisations such as the BVA and RSPCA. There have been a number of stark illustrations, which I referred to earlier. I will not go through them all again, but I am happy to send hon. Members copies of the BVA submission if they would like.

In the absence of a ban, we could move forward in other ways. The first way forward is to look at over-production. If non-stun slaughter is to continue, I ask that we ensure that supply only meets demand and does not exceed it. For example, in Germany, abattoirs are permitted to slaughter animals without stunning only if they show that they have local religious customers for the request. To obtain that permission, applicants need to fulfil several requirements, including on slaughter procedure, species and the number of animals. I ask that the Government take steps to require abattoirs to illustrate levels of demand and issue licences on that basis.

A second way forward is to ensure that the supply of non-stunned meat is for domestic demand. I ask the Government to examine export patterns and consider whether the export of non-stunned meat from the UK reflects the intentions of the derogation from EU law. Again, I could give figures on how the export of non-stunned animals has increased considerably over the past few years, but time does not permit it.

A third way forward relates to the important issue of labelling, which several hon. Members have raised. It is essential for a number of reasons, including the misconceptions that people may have about certain products such as halal, and on the basis that consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from, how it was reared and how it was slaughtered. There is a wider issue about food labelling, and many people want the country of origin of food to be labelled more precisely and accurately. That can form part of the discussions about labelling.

[Giles Watling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. If we introduce labelling on stun and non-stun meat in this country, will that not also send a message to countries where the actual torture of animals is a regular part of the slaughtering process? I speak of some of those places where dog meat is regularly consumed.

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it could make a difference. I have cut short my speech considerably to allow other hon. Members to join in, which I certainly do not object to doing, but I could have provided more evidence for my points if I had had time—never mind.

There is a divergence of opinion on the issue, so I ask the Minister to consider holding a number of roundtable meetings with stakeholders, such as religious groups, farmers, vets and anybody else who has something useful to contribute, including perhaps hon. Members. I ask him to engage in the discussions about the process —I am sure he is already taking it seriously—to see whether we can find a way forward. No matter what people’s backgrounds, religions, or anything else, they do not want to see the unnecessary suffering of animals. I am sure he will engage with the subject, and I hope he will get people round a table to talk about it in great detail and see what progress we can make.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this very important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), and I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing it.

I am particularly interested in this subject for several reasons, including as a constituency MP with a medium- sized family-run brewery in my constituency, J. W. Lees —John Willie Lees—which provides employment for about 1,100 people, owns 140 pubs across the north-west and north Wales, and is a major contributor to our local economy. My interest is also as the daughter of a landlady. My mother ran the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, north Wales, during the 1980s, and then she was allowed to return home to the Duke of York in Heyside, Oldham—they were both John Willie Lees pubs —where I spent many hours, most of them happy, helping out with bar work in the evenings and at weekends.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way because she has just reminded me of something. I have been to the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, when I was working at Theatr Clywd over the way. As an actor who toured the country for the best part of 50 years—I probably visited everybody’s constituency, apart perhaps from that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—I have visited many taverns in many towns and, much to my wife’s surprise, people know me by name. The tragedy is to revisit a place—as we know, at one period some 50 pubs a week were closing—and find that the heart of the community has been torn out because the pub has closed. In Kirby-le-Soken in my own constituency, two of the pubs closed, but they have now reopened. Should we not celebrate the fact that some publicans are being innovative and creating new business, and we should support them through taxation?

[Liz McInnes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a lot of publicans are having to be innovative in the way they run their pubs to keep them open. I do not know when he visited the Owain Glyndwr, but if it was in the 1980s, I may well have served him.

[Giles Watling]

In 1987.

[Liz McInnes]

Then it could well have been me who poured his pint.

As the hon. Gentleman has just said, pubs are at the heart of our communities. For me, there is no greater pleasure than going down to my local on a Sunday evening—I try to make it my night off from politics—fending off all the queries about Brexit and what on earth we are all doing in this place, as well as providing a sympathetic ear for the landlord’s often expressed concerns about business rates and the future of his pub.

The facts are simple: pubs are closing at a rate of two to three per day. Our high streets are already struggling from the effects of bank branch closures, post office closures and the rise of online shopping. This is just piling on the problems in the face, I am afraid, of this Government’s increasingly incoherent policy on the future of our high streets. Pubs are being taxed left, right and centre with duty, business rates and employment taxes, as well as full VAT at 20%, while people are shopping online, staying at home and not coming out to socialise with others. This is not good for society, and a healthy pub is the heartbeat of its community.

The Campaign for Real Ale is calling for a fundamental review of the tax system to stem the tide of pub closures. CAMRA welcomes the Government’s business rate relief introduced in the 2017 Budget, but has said recently—just this month—that more action is needed to ensure the survival of the remaining 50,000 pubs. I am pleased that the Treasury is reviewing small brewer’s relief, which hon. Members have already mentioned. I look forward to hearing the results of the consultation, which closed on 17 March.

While small brewer’s relief has been helpful in the start-up of many new micro-breweries, it has also meant a reduction of one third of brewers, such as John Willie Lees in my constituency, which are squeezed between the large international brewers, with huge economies of scale, and the smaller brewers that benefit from a beneficial duty rate. As has already been mentioned, business rates do not help, and many pubs are closing because of high costs.

Animal Rescue Homes

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of animal rescue homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for attending this debate, on an issue of great importance to our constituencies.

Many MPs will, like me, have rescue centres in their constituencies, serving to protect animals who have been abandoned or whose owners cannot look after them due to ill health. Such centres offer an invaluable service to communities across the UK, especially as we are a nation well known for our love of animals and pets. It is estimated that our pet population last year was an incredible 9 million dogs and 8 million cats. That means that an estimated 44% of households own a pet.

However, with so many pets across the country, sometimes things go wrong. For various reasons, an estimated 250,000 animals go to rescue centres each year. In their time of need, we expect those animals to receive the best possible care, and thankfully the vast majority do. I have had the pleasure of visiting some such rescue centres, and we all appreciate the amazing work that they carry out across the sector. Their work is invaluable, and it is a testament to the passion that those working in the field have for animal welfare that a great many of them do so voluntarily. Visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home recently brought into sharp relief for me the impact of rescue shelters and rehoming shelters, not just because of the high value that is placed on animal welfare, but because of the social impact of such well-run centres. In each of the clean and well-maintained rooms was a story. Some were sad—some made my heart ache—but I left there happy that day. I was happy that all the animals in the care of Battersea were being looked after to the highest of standards and by people who had the interests of the animals at heart.

My own cat, Lucky, who I got just over two years ago, was rescued from a building site by Cats Protection. I got to meet the amazing foster mum who was looking after him and other cats in her home. It was heart-warming to see the love and commitment from a volunteer, who helps cats to socialise and supports those who desperately need a home.

Although we have fantastic organisations and volunteers doing great work, there are some that take advantage of the lack of regulation or are simply not equipped to manage the welfare of already vulnerable and distressed animals. Without regulation, animals may not be adequately checked for diseases, they may live in cramped and overcrowded conditions and they may not be given the tailored support vulnerable animals need. It is often only after many complaints or accusations that the issue of competence or regulation is ever raised.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I am delighted that this debate is taking place. I visited Battersea Dogs and Cats Home only yesterday and came away with a very positive impression. I have been supporting the idea of reintroducing dog licensing, so that we know where dogs are, which would help to deal with any problems, but it was brought to my attention that when introducing legislation, we want to be awfully careful not to drive things underground. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to tread carefully as we consider introducing legislation?

[Jo Platt]

I will come on to the Government consultation later; smaller charities and those who do this work voluntarily, without the shelter of a larger organisation, do have concerns, and legislation is about supporting those people as well. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

We know that good guidance and transparency works. Membership of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes has raised standards in rescue centres—I am pleased to have seen the work of such organisations at first hand—but that is sadly not the case for a large number of shelters and refuges across the country. When I tried to research how many rescue centres operate in the UK and how many face any regulation or scrutiny at all, the statistics were simply not there. Nobody had any idea. I asked each local authority in England how many centres operated in their districts. About half of the councils that responded did not know how many rescue homes they had in their area. In those that did, only 18% of shelters had any regulation at all, through their voluntary membership of the ADCH—although the vast majority of those not taking part in the self-regulation scheme are beyond reproach in their efficacy and attention to the welfare of animals in their care.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) for securing this debate on a subject that I know is very dear to the hearts of many people, and is particularly close to her heart. I respect the amount of hard work she has put into fully understanding this subject and into pressing for further action, for which she is to be commended. I am also grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), with his particular interest in the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns).

The hon. Member for Leigh has set out clearly her concerns about regulation of animal rescue and rehoming centres. She has sincerely and strongly held views, and I agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that good welfare practices are in place in all animal rescue homes. With that in mind, I recognise that the vast majority of animal rescue homes up and down the country are legitimate, and I pay tribute to the valuable work they do in rescuing and rehoming thousands of sick, abandoned and stray animals each year. The work of rescue homes can too easily be taken for granted, and we should remember that most people working at them are volunteers who are incredibly dedicated to the welfare of the animals in their care.

The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have been referred to on a number of occasions. I was fortunate enough to visit Battersea just before Christmas, when we announced the third-party sales ban. Redwings Horse Sanctuary and World Horse Welfare are also well known to us, as is Cats Protection. They do a brilliant job of caring for and rehoming animals in a responsible and dedicated manner. We can be confident that the animals in these organisations are looked after to the very highest welfare standards, as the hon. Member for Leigh pointed out.

We should not forget that the smaller and lesser-known rescue homes also do really important work in taking care of unwanted and stray animals. The Government value the work of these legitimate, committed animal rescue homes. Without them, many animals would face abandonment and an uncertain future. From our preliminary work exploring this sector with the various bodies that have an interest, we know there is a large and diverse animal rescue and rehoming sector in the UK.

The hon. Member for Leigh indicated the findings of her research. We estimate that those organisations rescue and rehome somewhere in the region of 140,000 cats, 110,000 dogs and 3,000 horses per year. There are various types of organisations that operate according to different models. In addition to their relative size and the types of animals they rehome, one of the main differences between organisations is whether they care for animals in one central place or rely on other people to provide foster care for their animals. It is important to understand this distinction, because their regulation could be very different. We know that the majority of those organisations are registered charities, which means that they meet the requirements set by the Charity Commission—for example, in respect of their finances.

For some rehoming centres, membership of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes brings key benefits. The chair of the ADCH is Claire Horton, who I am sure is well known to many hon. Members present. She is the chief executive of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and a member of the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England, which reports to Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Under Claire’s skilled chairing, ADCH has developed clear good practice guidelines for the sector and encouraged more centres to come under its influence. I encourage other rehoming centres that are not members of ADCH to consider joining it for the benefits and advice that are available.

The hon. Member for Leigh set out her clear concerns about some rehoming centres and the need for them to be regulated. I agree that, sadly, some rescue homes, for whatever reason, fall below an acceptable standard of welfare. As with any keeper of animals, animal rescue homes must provide for the welfare needs of their animals, as required by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but they are not licensed in the same way as dog breeding or pet shops. In February 2018 we issued a call for evidence on our proposal to ban the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens. In response, many stakeholders pointed out that we should also consider closer regulation of rescue homes, as the hon. Lady pointed out. Their argument was that we need to address concerns about animal welfare standards in some unscrupulous rescue homes, and to address concerns that third-party sellers would simply set up as rescue homes to avoid proposed bans. The Government definitely share those concerns.

[Giles Watling]

The Minister mentioned unscrupulous rescue homes; are not many rescue homes set up by well-meaning people who want to do the very best, but who suddenly become overwhelmed by the number of animals they take on board? It is more to do with outreach—getting in touch with these people to inform and educate them, so that we can help them to run a proper home, rather than their filling their houses with many animals that they cannot manage.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Most of these homes—the vast majority—are set up with good intentions in mind, and sometimes those setting them up can be overwhelmed. However, there is support available, and in the months ahead we need to ensure that it is readily available and understood.

It is worth responding to the point on dog licensing made by the hon. Member for Leigh. We stopped dog licensing in 1988 due to low compliance. Those countries that have dog licensing schemes invariably still have low compliance rates. We have found it much more effective to rely on compulsory microchipping, and our focus is on increasing its uptake.

The consultation on the third-party sale ban, which we took forward in August 2018, attracted nearly 7,000 responses, and we published the summary of responses in December 2018. As a result of concerns being expressed similar to those articulated by the hon. Member for Leigh, the summary of responses document makes it clear that we will bring in a ban on third-party sellers of puppies and kittens as soon as possible. The document also made it clear that we would undertake further consultations with key stakeholders, such as welfare charities, vets and local authorities, on the idea of licensing rescue and rehoming centres, with a particular focus on centres that rescue and rehome dogs, cats and horses.

The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which came into force in October, already require licensing of commercial pet sellers, dog breeders and certain other activities involving animals. The regulations provide the tools for regulating rescue and rehoming centres. We would need to set out the necessary specific conditions for such centres, which the sector is happy to help develop. However, I want to make it clear that in regulating this sector, we need to be confident of the benefits and the impacts, particularly on some of the smaller rescue and rehoming charities, which is why we are exploring these issues with the organisations involved. The hon. Member for Leigh alluded to that in her speech, and I hope she will understand that we are taking some time to ensure that we get our approach to the various aspects of the sector absolutely right.

The RSPCA is a member of the ADCH. The charity says that in the past eight years it has investigated some 11 individuals and obtained 80 convictions against five persons involved in animal rescue. A further two people received a caution. These cases involved a total of over 150 animals of different species, including dogs, cats, horses, farm animals and birds. This is despite the ongoing assistance that the RSPCA gives to failing establishments to ensure that they meet the needs of the animals under their care. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton alluded to the fact that support was required. The RSPCA does fantastic work in this area, which can involve years of work in providing advice and education to the same establishment. Sometimes those organisations fall foul of the law, which is when the RSPCA can get involved, as can local authorities in some cases.

Although regulation could benefit the rehoming sector and, importantly, the welfare of animals involved, we must remember the work and contributions of smaller rescue centres, which in the vast majority of cases do all they can to promote the welfare of animals in their care. Many of these centres are not members of ADCH, and we are discovering that there are likely to be hundreds out there. The latest estimates indicate that there are over 1,000 organisations operating in England that rehome and rescue dogs, cats and equines. In a way, that fits with the analysis that the hon. Member for Leigh obtained through her freedom of information request.

Clearly, we are dealing with many hundreds of these organisations. DEFRA is working with them and other welfare organisations to build a better understanding of the issues for smaller organisations. We want to work with them to improve the standards of welfare in those that are operating genuinely with the best intentions. More can be done to address the work of well-intentioned rehoming centres in the context of puppy imports. I have zero tolerance for unscrupulous dealers—I am sure the hon. Member for Leigh and other hon. Members share my view—who clearly abuse the pet travel scheme to traffic underage puppies into the UK. These puppies travel long journeys in very poor conditions and are not effectively protected against serious diseases, such as rabies and tapeworm, which pose a risk to their health as well as to that of other animals and people. These puppies spend their early weeks of life facing unacceptable welfare and health conditions, and we must put a stop to this.

A key aspect of tackling puppy smuggling and assisting rehoming centres in their work is helping the public better to understand how to responsibly purchase or adopt a puppy and raising awareness of puppy smuggling. Through the umbrella body, the Canine and Feline Sector Group, we are in early discussions with key stakeholders on the development of a behaviour change campaign. I strongly believe that a unified message across Government and respected non-governmental organisations can have a real impact, and I look forward to working together with our partners and hon. Members to achieve this. We can work with them to share our early understanding of this and develop a better approach, and I look forward to engaging with them on this issue.

We must also guard against those who might be tempted to set up a rescue and rehoming operation with the primary intention of profiting from the public’s appetite for pets, and effectively operating a pet-selling business, rather than a genuine rescue and rehoming charity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood said. Pet-selling businesses should be regulated under the animal activity licensing regulations introduced in October 2018. We will help local authorities with clear guidance to help them distinguish between those selling pets and genuine rehoming centres.

The Government have made it clear that we take animal welfare very seriously. We have a clear, positive action plan and have followed it up with a series of plans and actions, including updating and improving the laws on the licensing of certain animal-related activities, increasing the maximum penalties for animal cruelty, banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens, and looking at the options for licensing rehoming centres to ensure all rescue homes meet good standards of animal welfare. We will take the steps necessary to address the concerns relating to the regulation of rehoming centres and animal rescue centres. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh for securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to debate these important issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Dog Meat in the UK

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. Without any shame at all, I hope to reinforce a lot of what he has said about this important issue. Some of those watching these proceedings might question why we are discussing it at all. I appreciate that view because I have had letters in my inbox saying that there are other important things going on at the moment that we should get on with, but this issue is important, and all of us, to a greater or lesser degree, have the ability to multitask.

Many of those watching will think that cat and dog meat is already illegal in this great, forward-looking country of ours. Sadly, as has been stated, that is not the case. Amazingly, it is still legal to personally slaughter your dog or cat and privately consume its meat here in the UK, and I am sure most people would think such an idea abhorrent. In 2018 there were 20 million dogs and cats in the UK, and those wonderful companions have a positive impact on our lives. In our culture, they are our friends, confidants and playmates. They are our companions, and they have a great, measurable and positive impact on mental health. They are not food and must be protected here and internationally. A proper and comprehensive ban on consumption in this country can do just that.

Granted, as the Prime Minister said in response to my question last week, there are extensive restrictions in place in the UK to prevent the commercial sale of dog meat for human consumption, and I understand that there are similar restrictions in place for cat meat. Yet there is a glaring loophole in the law, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, and as I touched on. That loophole must be closed. Thankfully, 33 colleagues from across the House agree and have signed my amendment to the Agriculture Bill. Of course—I am shamelessly advertising here—we would warmly welcome any others who wished to join us and pledge their support, too.

In the light of our shared desire to close that loophole, I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will look into this matter in the coming weeks, and I look forward to hearing what it comes up with. We can close the loophole quickly through secondary legislation, although that would require careful discussion to ensure we ticked all the necessary boxes.

I want to deal with the questions, some of which have been raised, about why we need to address this statutory deficiency at all. I recognise that some may say this is unnecessary or even just virtue signalling, given that there are no recorded instances of the consumption of dog or cat meat in the UK. However, even if it is virtue signalling, I say, “Why not? Let’s signal our virtue—our morality—on this issue to the rest of the world.” We can be ahead of the curve by getting legislation in place now, and can head off any possible incidents here.

Changing the law would also send a powerful signal internationally about our moral opposition to this horrific practice and encourage other nations to introduce similar measures. The most important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) when he introduced his Bill earlier this week. During his excellent speech, he told us that Chinese authorities have said, “Until you make it illegal, why should we?” They have a point. We should lead the world on this issue, as we do on other international issues. We have already led the world in opposing ivory poaching, even though we have no elephants roaming the south of England—or anywhere else in Britain, for that matter. We should seek to mirror that example, as we should our world-leading opposition to modern slavery, bull fighting and whaling.

Unfortunately, that is not happening with dog and cat meat. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, we are coming in behind Germany, Austria, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Australia and America, where possession and consumption became an offence this year even though the problem is not widespread in the US either. The US Congress believed it was right to pass a ban regardless, to demonstrate its support for global efforts to eradicate this cruel practice. I would like to thank publicly those Members of Congress who sent a letter supporting my amendment directly to the Prime Minister.

It is important to recognise that that ban in America provided a real boost to the international prohibition campaign. We now have an opportunity to do the same and to help lead the global effort to combat these sickening practices. All we need to do is take the minor legislative step of outlawing the consumption of dog and cat meat with a proper, comprehensive ban. That is the right thing for us to do, as a nation of animal lovers. As I said earlier—it is worth saying again—these are our companions. They are not food.

As the hon. Member for Strangford said, 30 million dogs and 4 million cats—more than all the dogs and cats in the UK—are still slaughtered every year around the world for their meat. Of those, 15,000 are killed during the 10-day Yulin festival in China, which is often accompanied by international condemnation. Those animals are often stolen and, as we heard, kept in small, filthy cages with little food or water. There is a strong but erroneous belief that if they are suffering, their meat is tastier and has medicinal qualities—it does not—and that if they experience high levels of stress when they are killed, they are better to eat. That is obviously wrong. It results in horrendous suffering.

Those animals are often boiled, skinned and blow-torched, and—the hon. Gentleman said it—that happens to them while they are alive. They are blow-torched alive. That is horrific animal cruelty. No animal should suffer such pain and trauma. No person should, either. We should be humane. We should honour these animals that live with us. I thank the World Dog Alliance for its efforts to raise awareness of this troubling issue.

I am sure that anyone with a pet who heard what I just said about animals, and what the hon. Member for Strangford said earlier, would be distressed. We all feel that our pets are to be valued. I, too, am a proud owner of three noisy dogs, and I want to get them into Hansard. They are Mini, a 19-year-old Jack Russell, and Herbie and Humphrey, who are indeterminate, but there is poodle in there somewhere.

Cherishing our pets is surely a very British value, which can be utilised to prevent animal welfare abuses abroad. The Government are keen to assert our values through the Global Britain scheme, and this is a great opportunity for us to do just that. I recognise that it will take time to change hearts and minds, but nothing worth having is ever easy. As to how to do that, I believe there are ways to achieve a proper ban through secondary legislation, as I said, so it could be done quickly, but I will not go into that in detail. I want to hear what proposals DEFRA will come back with.

To conclude, I grew up with animals—horses, dogs, cats and all sorts—and that personal experience ensures that I am a keen supporter of animal welfare. It is always high on my agenda. I am keen to see the Government continue their positive recent record on dealing with animal welfare, which has rightly led to international renown. Properly banning the consumption of dog meat in this country—that must include private consumption—will send an international message and set an example for others to follow.

To come back to my opening question, that is why we are present today: to show our moral opposition to such deplorable practices, and to do more than just offer words of distaste, which will do nothing to protect animals around the world—only concrete action and a proper and comprehensive ban here in the UK, followed by a sustained projection of our shared values globally, will do that.

I again thank the Minister for his answer this morning and for his constructive assistance so far. I look forward to continuing to discuss the matter with him in the coming weeks.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth).

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), I was a remainer, but I am a democrat and 72% of my constituents voted to leave. Oddly enough, 10 months later, some 60% or so voted for me, but they did that because they thought I would be part of a Government who would deliver on their wishes.

The withdrawal agreement ticks so many of the boxes demanded by the British public and my constituents in 2016: we regain control of our borders, we protect jobs, we will no longer be sending vast amounts of cash to bolster the European budget, and we will be able to strike free trade deals across the globe—hurrah. Like many others, however, I have serious concerns about one particular thing: the backstop. I know, having spent most of the last fortnight speaking to residents in my area—I held a rumbustious open meeting last Saturday—that my constituents share these concerns.

As we all know, the Attorney General conceded earlier this week that there is no unilateral right for either party to terminate the backstop, so if no superseding agreement on our future relationship can be reached during the transition, the backstop would be activated and would subsist even if negotiations break down. So what has been the point of the last two years of uncertainty and pain if, in the final analysis, we will still be under the dominion of the European Court of Justice? That, to my mind, is not taking back our sovereignty.

That is why I have tabled amendment (d), which will make the House’s approval contingent on the Government negotiating absolute guarantees within the withdrawal agreement, to ensure that a deal on our future relationship is in place, in full, before the transition ends. Such guarantees would negate the need for any backstop.

I do, of course, recognise that under article 184 both sides are required to use “best endeavours” to conclude an agreement, as far as is possible, before transition ends, but although that means that both sides must do everything in their power to reach an agreement, it does not impose a strict legal obligation. Some might say that the transition period is not long enough to conclude such an agreement, but I disagree, and the Government concur with my stance: the Secretary of State said that it is the Government’s ambition to have a deal concluded by July 2020. That will be a challenge, no doubt, but our negotiating teams have already achieved far more in a short space of time than any of us expected, or, quite frankly, have even given them credit for.

I am of the firm belief that a deal is doable during transition. After all, we all want to do a deal, on both sides of the channel. Therefore, in tabling my amendment I simply ask why we cannot have a guarantee that the agreement will be signed, thereby circumventing any backstop. Evidently, both sides are happy with “best endeavours”; in my view, however, best endeavours are not good enough, as they are not cast-iron.

I hope that colleagues will support my amendment, and should this deal fail to pass the House next week I hope that the Government will look closely at securing these guarantees. Moreover, I believe this change would also address the fears of my constituents, and those highlighted by my colleagues during this debate; and we would, at last, get this agreement over the line and find a way forward that delivers on the result of the referendum. The good people of the sunshine coast of Clacton want a good deal, so let us get this deal done and move towards a brighter future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

I rise to remind people that it was only two months ago that there was a debate on “Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement”, when I cited the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), and his ambition for

“a smooth transition to a comprehensive future economic and security partnership for business and citizens”.

It was admirable and convincing, and it recognised the 2016 referendum. That day, I argued that we should look for a free trade arrangement—perhaps Canada plus—because I believed that that was deliverable. The Prime Minister said that she was more ambitious than that, and we now have a different deal before us.

Industries in my Gordon seat have embraced Brexit. They have prepared for change and considered the solvable problems of Brexit, and they have done so in good faith. Today, we can consider supporting the withdrawal agreement, fundamentally because of good faith.

In the Treasury Committee hearing yesterday, I asked the Chancellor whether, had we prepared in 2016, we could have had regulatory and certification preparation in place for WTO rules. That, at least, would have given us a realistic backstop from which to negotiate.

The industries in my constituency—the oil and gas majors, which employ 280,000 people, plus farming, the food sector, tourism and the financial and service sectors—need us to behave like grown-ups. They need us to recognise that they need a deal that works for businesses and jobs.

The Bank of England has run comprehensive stress testing, which the Chancellor recognised earlier. The good news is that under every circumstance and every scenario, our financial system is safe and robust. As I said to the Chancellor earlier, in future negotiations we should be extremely robust with the EU.

The stress tests were not forecasts. I have heard many Opposition Members say how damaging Brexit will be to our GDP, but I would like to remind them why this country is the second highest destination for foreign direct investment: it is among the top 10 freest markets in the world and it has a legal system and rule of law that mean that people want to be based here. In the first half of 2018, only China had higher levels of FDI than the United Kingdom; we were in front of the US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Spain and Holland. This is a country in which people are investing now and will invest in future.

What are the upsides if we get an agreement with the EU? The foreign exchange has discounted the pound so significantly that we could see a currency bounce. The stock market is falling again today because of the concern about no deal. As a businessperson, I recognise that concern. There is pent up investment in the system of potentially hundreds of billions of pounds, because companies have held back.

Fundamentally, I can support this deal because I support the Brexit vote. Being a Scot, I was involved in another referendum. Opposition parties seem unwilling to recognise that the people have spoken. I believe, democratically, in what they have said.

[Giles Watling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that yet another referendum would cause greater degrees of pain, uncertainty and delay, when what we need to do is move on?

A120 Dualling

Giles Watling Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The A120 has long been in my heart as something needing improvement since well before I became involved in local or national politics.

Driving from my constituency—where we have wonderful beaches; it is a great tourist venue—and going westbound, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) said, it becomes completely blocked up at the section between Marks Tey and what we call cholesterol corner. I am sorry that I have to iterate that. Going from my constituency along the A120 has been a regular commute of mine. It sort of peters out beyond Bishop’s Stortford, where it goes back to being a two-way road, and then it peters out altogether in the middle of the countryside. The section between Stansted and Harwich is an absolute nightmare and has been for years.

We are now celebrating the decision on a preferred route, in which the A120 will be dualled between Braintree and Marks Tey—or south of Kelvedon, I should say. That is not ideal for me, but it is light years ahead of what we have to put up with now. I commend the application for RIS2 funding for this and I hope the Minister will take it further. It also should not be forgotten, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that the A120 is trans-European network route. It is a curious thing—all the major cities are supposed to be linked, east to west, from Moscow to Dublin. This section of the A120 is part of that, and it is a two-way road. It is nonsense. This is a major step towards realising that ambition.

I take this opportunity to call for further work, further down the line, to complete the A120 in an area that does not go through my constituency but that affects it hugely. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) knows all about it. It was built in the ’70s and it is now crumbling and beginning to fall apart. It needs a renewal, so why not get the whole thing done, from Harwich all the way to Stansted, and finish the job?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that part of the A120—from Horsley Cross to Parkeston— which is vital for the economy of north Essex and is crumbling, as he says. However, I believe the Government should be able to say something this afternoon about the Highways Agency activity on that bit of the road and the resources that will be committed to it in the short term, if not the long term.

[Giles Watling]

My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted to hear that the Government can say something about that section, because it is still holding us up. Cars can still bowl along it at about 55 mph most of the time, but it is still a single lane on either side. It takes forever.

I look forward to our delivering a new, world-beating infrastructure across Britain, east to west, which we need now more than ever. We have not had that over the years. The A14 was improved many years ago, and it is about time the A120 was brought into line, so let us get that infrastructure in place. While I am standing here, I might as well mention that we ought to improve the railways in our area, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions to this important debate, and not least the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) for initiating it. I think we can agree that the case made by all hon. Members was very compelling. The link between the port and airport serving Essex is at the heart of the economic strategy presented today. The economic opportunity that such an enterprise corridor could deliver, in terms of real growth in the region, has been cited by some to be worth as much as £1.3 billion, I have read, and all for a cost of £555 million in its creation. It is clear that domiciliary development is occurring, and that brings an opportunity to see industrial investment to provide jobs for those communities as well as the wider economy. Clearly, where such development takes place, there has to be well developed transport infrastructure, but that certainly is not currently the case, especially at some of the pinch points on the A120 route where there is significant congestion.

[Giles Watling]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only industrial development—manufacturing and so on—that would benefit from this scheme and that there is a massive tourism offer? I am thinking of the wonderful beaches of the east coast. At Parkeston Quay, we have so many cruise ships that come in every year. It is a pity that the people who arrive there have to struggle with our dreadful infrastructure to get to other parts of the country such as London and across to the central midlands.

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree that tourism is a really important consideration when we are looking at infrastructure investment. It should be at the heart of the wider discussions and seen as an economic piece all by itself.

The debate on how the A120 can be improved to alleviate much of the congestion has been a long time coming. Five options were originally presented. I appreciate that those have been whittled down to four, and option D has been favoured by Essex County Council as the preferred route for the new A120. I also note that option C, interestingly, would see approximately one third of the route bifurcating Bradwell quarry and therefore would relieve some of the environmental impact should that scheme go ahead. We must also note the importance of farmland and agribusiness. In the Government’s planning of development, whether rail or road, they should take on board the need to ensure fertile land is maintained for the purposes of growing our food. I know there is much debate on that point.

The second compelling case made by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) was about road safety. With 53 fatalities and 325 serious injuries on this stretch, it is clear that not intervening would allow those risks to continue. That is a serious consideration.

It is worth saying, however, that we cannot look at road improvement without looking at intermodal and alternative modes of transport, and seeing the improvements that can be brought in from other schemes—particularly our rail, but also other forms of transport—in serving communities. While I understand that all hon. Members are trying to promote their local scheme for RIS2, I say to the Minister that we need to look at intermodal options before we look at road. It appears we have shifted to a road-first policy, as opposed to looking at public transport as the preferred option. Evidence from Newbury, Blackburn, Lincoln and other similar cases has shown how induced capacity is having a serious impact on their local economies, so we have to be careful as we make these decisions and look at them in an integrated-transport way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Lady is again taking my words and not using them in the way they were said. We will look at intermodal first and at the wider options of ensuring properly integrated transport. Any Government should do that, to ensure that we have the most sustainable and usable rail, bus, active travel and road system that there is. Intermodal integration will give us the best transportation system. Talk to anyone across the transport sector: they would agree with that approach, as do many Government Ministers, who say that they want to see an intermodal shift, too. I have heard such words many times from the Government. I am sure they would agree that is also important, if they are looking at proper economic and residential investment, such as is being suggested by the scheme presented today. That is the approach Labour would take.

We need to ensure that improvements made today do not call for further improvements and widening just a few years down the road, as has happened in many of these schemes. We need long-term solutions and investment put in place, to ensure there is not chaos in the future.

[Giles Watling]

The hon. Lady is being gracious in giving way. Is she suggesting that people would give up taking their cars to their holiday destination? That is an essential part, in many cases, of a holiday in the UK, so that people can explore the countryside.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am not suggesting that at all. I am talking about intermodal choice, which is important. Going forward, people need to have real options in how they travel, whether for work or leisure. We want to see those choices expanded. Many people at the moment, as I highlighted, have such limited choices that they have no option but to use the car. If we truly are to make the intermodal shift, we need to see more options being made available for commuters and people travelling for leisure.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Giles Watling Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). Let me thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), along with the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, for securing the debate. This is an incredibly significant issue. As we have heard this afternoon, it has affected many of our constituents, and one of my own, Julia Barrington-Fuller, has informed me that she has been caught up in this terrible episode.

I am here to support a motion that will ensure that if it all goes wrong, such victims of banking malpractice, who, by definition, tend to have limited financial resources, can have sufficient access to justice. I am also here to support a motion that will help us to learn the necessary lessons from this painful episode, while beefing up and altering the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority, which is not up to scratch. Above all, I am here to support a motion that will increase confidence in our financial system, in which small and medium-sized enterprises currently seem to have little faith, as they are reluctant to borrow from financial institutions. That, in turn, has a negative impact on productivity and growth, and anything that has a detrimental impact on the Great British economy is simply unacceptable.

It is clear to me that passing the motion would go a long way to deliver change by creating an environment in which some of our financial institutions are no longer able to abuse hard-working business owners. That is, unfortunately, what we saw in Ms Barrington-Fuller’s case. There have been clear examples of mis-selling during her dealings with the Royal Bank of Scotland. For example, she asked RBS for a fixed-rate loan in 2008, but was instead given an agreement that included swap protection for 10 years. That meant that her business was now fully exposed to interest-rate variance, leaving it with crippling monthly swap payments of £7,000 per quarter, on top of her loan repayments. Moreover, the continuation of the loan agreement was dependent on an RBS renewal after five years, which was then refused. As a result the swap agreement was broken, and the penalties for breaking that agreement were levied—penalties that Ms Barrington-Fuller was told did not exist when she took out her loan.

Those penalties and charges forced Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers to close their family business, while RBS is continuing to seek a repayment of £250,000, along with any moneys outstanding on the loan and six years’ interest. In her words,

“these people are deceiving small businesses and ruining lives for their own personal gain.”

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that poor lending practices and the selling of interest-rate swaps, combined with no examination whatsoever—absolutely no redress apart from, perhaps, repayment of the cost of the swaps—has forced some of our constituents, such as my constituent Mr Steve Gray, to close their businesses?

[Giles Watling]

I do agree, and that is why I am supporting the motion today. Julia Barrington-Fuller requested an agreement, but that was not the agreement that she finally received. We must have an inquiry into this misconduct; we must ensure that there is sufficient compensation for victims; and we must ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority is truly fit for purpose. We can only rebuild trust in our financial services by ensuring that institutions are held responsible in situations like the one I have described.

We hear too often about how our banks have been caught up in yet another scandal, the victims of which are not the bankers themselves but the hard-working people who rely on them to support their aspirations. People like Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers, who ran a successful business, are now struggling in circumstances not of their making. It is so disappointing that we are constantly revisiting this situation, especially in the case of RBS. This is a bank that the taxpayers paid £45 billion to bail out, and which now appears to be seeking to exploit those very taxpayers. It seems that the banks have learned nothing from the 2008 crash, an episode that Simon Jack of the BBC described this morning as

“the biggest banking debacle in UK corporate history.”

Indeed it was. It would appear that, if anything, all that the banks have done is move from a period of selling risky products to a period of mis-selling. Banks cannot be allowed to conduct their business in that way.

What is, perhaps, more ironic is that the loan that Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers took out was taken out as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. I understand that they did not need it as such. However, because of RBS misconduct, it was not long before they were in serious financial trouble, which led to their being put into RBS’s Global Restructuring Group. GRG, as we all know, was supposedly there to deal with firms that were in financial trouble, but there was no attempt to rescue the firms once they were put there. Instead, it is alleged, its focus was on liquidating companies rather than supporting them through further prudent lending. That is not good for business, and not good for the country as a whole.