Social Mobility: Treasury Reform

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social mobility and Treasury reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I called this debate because I passionately believe that this country’s most powerful and most important resource is its people, and it is simply unacceptable that in the 21st century we still do not have equality of opportunity for people in Britain.

I am someone who knows what it is like not to have all the opportunities you want on the doorstep and not to be connected to those opportunities. I came into politics to get change on the ground for people, not just to debate what needs to happen. That is why about a year ago, with the Harrison Centre for Social Mobility, I established the social mobility pledge—to get action on the ground, working with businesses.

Hundreds of businesses have now stepped up to the plate to provide more opportunity for more young people, by getting into schools and helping to raise aspiration, talking about careers, allowing young people to come into the workplace to get work experience or apprenticeships and, crucially, looking at recruitment practices. Those companies are making sure that their approach on recruitment means they are open to all the talent out there. Hundreds of companies are involved. Already, social mobility pledge companies collectively employ more than 2.5 million people.

That work has taken me all over the country, from Sunderland to Hull, from Bradford to Manchester. With those companies and organisations, we are a coalition of the willing. We are finding out what works on the ground and are then spreading that insight and knowledge further and faster and creating a race to the top. The social mobility pledge is doing practical work to get more opportunity to millions of young people. I thank the businesses and organisations that are part of it, and part of this push.

This is a debate about social mobility and, of course, I noticed the announcement from the great leader, Jeremy Corbyn, at the weekend, ditching improving social mobility. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to respond on that, but clearly social mobility is just a distraction from the class war that Corbyn’s Labour party is engaged in.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the right hon. Lady please refer to Members by their constituency?

[Justine Greening]

Of course. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has the sense, I think, that aspiration is a dirty word and is therefore not something that other people should feel is a good thing. That is wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which is that, when it comes to paying the money that is due, HMRC has a duty to be proportionate and to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place. There is no maximum limit for the time over which repayments can occur—there are often arrangements that come into place that are well in excess of 10 years. HMRC will continue to approach these matters on that basis.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I also thank the Minister for the way that he is engaging on this issue? Although I certainly do agree that anybody who has tried to avoid tax in this way needs to be held accountable, I do ask whether it is right that HMRC can go back 20 years to reopen accounts that were accepted. If this tax was due then, why did HMRC not obtain that tax then? Why did it not charge it then? Why has it taken it 20 years to get to this point?

[Mel Stride]

I have already dealt with the issue of retrospection. As to why tax may not have been paid at the time that it was due, there are a multitude of reasons for that not least of which is the fact that many taxpayers simply do not volunteer the correct information or they claim that their scheme works when clearly it does not. HMRC has, over many, many years, pursued these various schemes through the courts, including the Supreme Court, and on each occasion, these schemes have been found not to work.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered non-stun slaughter of animals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue, which is of concern to me personally, as well as many of my constituents and the wider public. I thank the British Veterinary Association for campaigning on this issue and its guidance ahead of this debate. I declare that I am an honorary member of the BVA, for which there is no reward other than regular contact, which is available to all hon. Members. Many constituents have contacted me on this subject, including quite a few from the farming community.

Like many other people I am a consumer of meat and an animal lover, and I do not believe those two positions are mutually exclusive. A discussion of the non-stun slaughter of animals must be based not on strength of feeling, but on evidence. Having considered some of the evidence, I feel that there is a strong case to be made for the banning of non-stun slaughter. The BVA believes

“that slaughter without pre-stunning unnecessarily compromises animal welfare and that animals should be stunned before slaughter.”

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation could be vastly improved in the short term by changing our labelling laws and requiring products to be labelled to show whether stunning has taken place? Does he further agree that one benefit of leaving the EU is regaining control of our food-labelling laws?

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on both of those points. I will come on to say more about the former point; I suspect that I will be called out of order if I go too far down the latter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I eat red meat regularly and I am also an animal lover. However, I do believe we can accommodate people. If we had the labelling to indicate whether stunning was used, people would have the opportunity to choose whether to buy that meat.

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Pre-stunning renders animals immediately unconscious and insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. In the absence of stunning, animals can feel the pain of the neck cut, experience a delay to loss of consciousness and experience the pain and distress of aspirating blood into the respiratory tract. While there is no nice way to end an animal’s life, many would agree that that is a particularly distressing account of the last moments of an animal’s life.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about stunning, but unfortunately, it does not always work. Something like 26,000 cattle, 100,000 pigs and 9.5 million chickens are mis-stunned each year. How do we solve that problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend raises a good and important point. I do not pretend for one moment that the practice is absolutely perfect. It does need to be improved, but the objective should be to go down that road, rather than have animals slaughtered without stunning. He raises a perfectly good point.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on many occasions stunning involves sending a very strong electric shock to the animal, which can suffer for about 20 or 25 minutes while it is being made unconscious, causing excruciating pain?

[Mr Robertson]

That should not be the case, but if it is, that practice needs outlawing as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Robertson]

I will give way as often as I am requested to do so. However, I am not yet on my second page. I am sure you will agree, Sir Henry, that time is limited as this is a half-hour debate and we have already used five minutes. I will give way to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), then the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and then my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann).

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

I will be brief. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one way to deal with this issue is to look at labelling from the potential of blockchain technology, which could provide complete traceability within the system and help to identify those abattoirs that are identified as having those issues, thus putting consumer power at the heart of the process?

[Mr Robertson]

That is a good point. I will come on to say that all this needs discussing in detail.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

Many of my constituents have contacted me about this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional methods of slaughter, which are used in the Muslim and Jewish religions, are in fact more humane than some of the modern practices, which either do not work properly or do not give due consideration to the welfare of the animal?

[Mr Robertson]

That point has been raised with me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen appendix one to the briefing from the BVA, which gives quite a bit of distressing evidence about the non-stun slaughter of animals. Let us try to move on.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate and taking my intervention. Does he agree that many residents in my constituency want proper labelling—as has been mentioned—so that they can make a conscious choice about how their animals are killed? I am a great believer in labelling, and I hope that the Minister is listening. We should push for better labelling for slaughtered animals.

[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.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is saying this, but does he agree that the truth is that the debate about banning slaughter has an impact on, and is correlated with, the rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism? It is used as a tool by Tommy Robinson et al. and by newspapers to propagate headlines such as “Halal secret of Pizza Express” and “Brit kids forced to eat Halal school dinners”. It goes into that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I am glad the hon. Lady excludes me from any suggestion of that. If anybody takes up the issue on that basis, they are completely wrong and ignorant of the debate—including the reasonable debate we are having in this Chamber.

Action has been taken by several countries, whether through a ban, clearer labelling or ensuring that production is based on demand. Slaughter without pre-stunning has been banned in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. Other countries such as Austria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia require post-cut stunning immediately after the incision if the animal has not already been stunned.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I have been a vegetarian for 20-odd years, which is why I support banning this method because of the animal rights issue. Does he agree that we must ensure that there are strict customs checks on animal products imported from third countries into the UK and that those products have the same high standards as we require from our farmers?

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point.

As I was saying, a range of approaches are being taken and a ban would not be unprecedented. As we have already heard, there is considerable support for clearer labelling and for preventing the production of non-stunned meat beyond the needs of our domestic market. I ask the Government to consider the full range of approaches that has been taken across the world and, if they are not prepared to consider a ban, to investigate those other options.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while we are having the debate, we must ensure—I cannot speak for the other countries that he named—the religious freedom that our democracy is so proud of? In this instance, we are talking about two religious communities, the Jewish community and the Muslim community, which are directly affected by the debate and what he is proposing.

[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.

Christmas Adjournment

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard]

I am glad to hear it. I know that Home-Start is a very fine charity in all its branches across the country, so I am happy to pay tribute to it.

I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is such a fan of the Glasgow School of Art. The one time I went to Glasgow was especially to see that very building, so I certainly wish him well with that.

I will end by making the observation that one of our biggest challenges as Members is to maintain our good will, even in this season of good will. I always try, particularly when participating in this debate, to recognise that we all ultimately want the same thing: to make the lives of our constituents better and to make the common future of the country a better place. We may differ over the paths that we take to get there—some of us more than most, perhaps—but I like to think that for the vast bulk of us in the moderate mainstream, there is far more that unites us than divides us.

When I hear the rancour of some debates, it genuinely saddens me, because it makes it harder to reach the best decision in the national interest. When we have had such a divisive and rancorous period since the referendum, it is incumbent on all Members, even when we disagree on the fundamentals, to recognise that what underlies that is a desire for the best outcome for the nation as a whole.

In the final minute, it would be remiss of me not to thank you, Mr Robertson, for chairing the debate, the whole Panel of Chairs, the Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker himself, the House staff, the catering staff, the parliamentary security, the cleaners, the librarians, and everyone else. I apologise to anyone I have missed out, but I thank them anyway as well.

I end by asking us all to remember those who are facing their first Christmas alone, those who may have lost loved ones over the course of the year, and those who may face significant hardship at this time of year. It is a time when we turn to our families, but some people have no family to turn to and do not have those opportunities. Although it is a time of great good will to all and good cheer, it can also be a very bleak time for many people, and I am sure that what will unite all of us in the Chamber is to think of everyone in our constituencies and to wish them the best for the year to come, and to hope that we get the very best outcome that we can, whatever happens in our crystal ball, on 14 January.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Best wishes to everyone from the Chair as well.

Racehorse Protection

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I declare my registered interests, in that I receive hospitality from racecourses and racing bodies from time to time, and I am co-chairman, with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), of the all-party parliamentary racing and bloodstock industries group. I very much welcome this debate, which gives us the opportunity to discuss how to improve the welfare of racehorses in the United Kingdom, because I am also the proud Member of Parliament for Tewkesbury, which includes the Cheltenham racecourse—one of the greatest in the world. It generates a lot of income, which helps the whole area. Tewkesbury is a rural area, and horses are very much part of the rural scene. The petition attracted 313 signatories from Tewkesbury, demonstrating that there is a love of horses there and a concern that they should be properly looked after.

I have a personal interest in this issue: my wife owns horses and has done so all her life. She trains them and competes, not in racing but in other sports. I am an animal lover—we keep farm animals as pets, and we have had pets all our lives—so I want to see what we can do to build on the good work that has already been done to ensure that racehorses are well cared for, not only during their racing careers but afterwards.

It will be heartwarming to the BHA, as I do not always agree with it on everything, to hear me say that I believe it is doing a good and improving job of looking after the welfare of racehorses. Although it is involved in racing, it is independent of racecourses, jockeys, owners and the other racing bodies. It does work on the fixture list, the integrity of the sport—it makes sure it is clean—and welfare. It has a board of 10 members. One comes from racecourses and one from another body connected to racing, but the majority are independent of those bodies, so they can carry out their work completely without bias. They investigate jockeys and trainers, and sometimes come down very hard on them. They have demonstrated their ability to do that as well as their independence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) mentioned, the Irish racehorse sector already has self-regulated through law. Does the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) feel that, to safeguard the lucrative racehorse sector in the United Kingdom, it is vital that we follow the Republic of Ireland’s lead?

[Mr Robertson]

I will come to that issue in a minute, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Everybody in racing wants horses to be protected, largely because they love them. Owners pay a lot of money for racehorses, and training fees are some £20,000 a year, so purely from a financial point of view the last thing they want is for anything bad to happen to their horses. That is not what motivates them, but they put an awful lot of money into the sport.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) said that racing is a rich industry, but those of us who know it know that it is impoverished. The top 1% are rich, but lots of trainers and jockeys earn very little. Owners get back an average of 23% of the total cost. That is not a return—they lose 77% of everything they put in. They do it for the love of the sport, and it costs them a lot of money, so the last thing they want is for horses to be treated badly on the racecourse or in the stables. They simply would not allow that to happen.

A number of charities care for racehorses, some of which might have been involved in motivating this petition, and the all-party parliamentary group, which I have co-chaired for a number of years, raises money for some of them at a charity dinner in the House of Commons. Retraining of Racehorses, which is not one that we raise money for, does an excellent job of looking after racehorses after they have finished their racing careers. Greatwood—from memory, I think we raised about £50,000 for it in this place a few years ago—does great work in bringing retired racehorses together with disadvantaged young people. It is unfortunate that that work is not recognised as often as it should be.

Even people who are not as into racing as me are captured by the excitement, particularly that of the big race meetings. I mentioned the Cheltenham festival, but there is also the Grand National, Royal Ascot and the Derby. Those races capture the imagination of people not just in this country but across the world, who take a great interest in it. I have travelled the world to watch racing—I was in France just the other week—and, without question, British racing is the best in the world, although Irish racing is also extremely good. In this country, racing contributes some £3.5 billion to the economy and £275 million in tax. Some 17,400 people are directly employed in the industry full time, and another 85,000 are indirectly employed. It really does do a lot for this country, particularly in rural areas.

I am concerned to ensure that we do the absolute best for racehorses, so I am not instinctively against having an extra body to look after them, but I wonder if it is the best way forward. As I have said, the BHA, which is independent of other bodies in racing, is doing a good and improving job. One of the problems in racing is that there are already too many bodies. As well as the BHA, there is the Horsemen’s Group, the Racecourse Association, the Racehorse Owners Association, the Professional Jockeys Association, the National Trainers Federation, racecourse groups and probably a few other organisations that I have not remembered. I am not convinced therefore that bringing in another body would help and I am not sure to whom it would report or how independent it would actually be.

That goes back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who asked whether it is not better for people with long-standing expertise in racing and caring for horses to carry out that overview and supervise the work with racehorses. I am persuaded that that is probably the best way to continue, but that is not to say that improvements cannot be made. They have been made over the past few years: the number of fallers has, on average, been reduced, the fatality rate has thankfully been reduced, and there have been changes to the layout of racecourses, to the fences, and to whip regulations. Although those big improvements have been made, I emphasise that I am not satisfied with where we are. We must continue to move forward and I certainly want to continue working with the BHA in order to help it to do so, but that is the best way forward rather than creating another body.

Cheltenham spends hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on veterinary and welfare fees, and other racecourses spend an awful lot of money ensuring that the horses are properly checked and fit to run and that there are no problems. I accept that there is some way to go, but I think that racing is a very clean sport in this country. There are very few examples of drugs being given to horses, of any wrongdoing in betting, or of race fixing—they all happen very rarely. It is a good and clean sport but one that can and should improve, and I believe that it is doing so.

I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion. My view is that the BHA should take the issue forward and, perhaps, its structure could be altered or it could report more to the Government. I am not saying that changes are not needed in that respect, but I think that is the way forward. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hartlepool for introducing the debate in the way that he did, and I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I was not planning to speak in this debate, because I had tabled some amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill, but the party Whips decided against holding that debate, presumably so that I might speak in this one. I therefore thought it would be rude not to take up the opportunity.

I do not want to speak for long, but I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who set out clearly the case not only for horse-racing but for how well the BHA regulates horse-racing and in particular horse welfare. Like him, I have had my disagreements with the BHA, so I am not someone who automatically and naturally jumps to support it.

I should make it clear, as my hon. Friend did, that people ought to refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests because, on a number of occasions, I too have received hospitality at the races, including at York racecourse, where I was on Saturday—as was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I should add that I do not own any racehorses at the moment, although I have done so in the past. I would say that I was a modest owner of racehorses and an owner of very modest horses at that. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), who led the debate, talked about the great riches in racing, but I assure everyone that I was not participating at that kind of level. My horses participated at the standard not of the Ebor meeting at York, but more of a Saturday evening at Wolverhampton. I should make that clear.

I will add to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury and respond to a few of the other points made so far. I shall do the latter first, if I may. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, has Cartmel racecourse in his constituency—I might be wrong about that, but I do not think so—and I hope that he is a supporter of it, but he said something quite extraordinary. He said that it was incompatible for a regulator to promote a sport and to be responsible for animal welfare, but I think that the two go essentially hand in hand. How on earth can a body promote a sport such as horse-racing without a clear commitment to animal welfare? For the life of me, I could not understand his argument. For me, the two are perfectly compatible and must go hand in hand.

We also heard earlier, I think from the hon. Member for Hartlepool, that horses have no choice, unlike jockeys and so on. I have to say, that that is not entirely true, for two reasons. For example, a few years ago there was a terrible tragedy when the Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised, favourite for the Grand National that very same year, died. Synchronised ran in the Grand National and fell, but it did not die when it fell with the jockey on board; it died afterwards, after it fell for a second time, running loose and jumping the fences with the rest of the field. That horse did have a choice. It was loose—it had no jockey on its back. It carried on because horses love jumping. They love running, they love racing and they love jumping. There was a terrible outcome in that case—it is in the figures the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to—but that horse did have a choice. It wanted to carry on with the rest of the field, because horses love running, racing and jumping.

[Mr Robertson]

I was at Aintree when that sad incident took place. Has my hon. Friend ever sat on a horse? If he has, he will know that it is simply not possible to get a horse to do anything it does not want to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I am delighted to hear that, because organisations have sought to find out how Members of Parliament would vote on a repeal of the Hunting Act and the hon. Gentleman was down as being in favour. However, we digress, because we are not here to talk about blood sports.

A self-governing body in any area leaves a lot to be desired. We see it in a host of things, from financial regulation to the governing of the horse-racing industry. The British Horseracing Authority has a range of different responsibilities, including race planning; disciplinary procedures; protecting the integrity of the sport; licensing and registering racing participants; setting and enforcing standards of medical care for jockeys and other participants; setting and enforcing common standards for British racecourses; research and improvements in equine science and welfare; regulating point-to-point racing in the UK; the compilation of the fixture list; and setting and enforcing the rules and orders of racing. There is only one reference to welfare, and that is in the context of research and improvements in equine science and welfare.

To be frank, I do not understand why any hon. Member would have a difficulty with an independent body having oversight of welfare in the industry. If a body is dedicated exclusively at looking at the welfare of horses, surely that would make it more accountable and better at the job. The BHA’s responsibilities include a host of things, which I have just listed, and welfare receives just a minor reference. Having an organisation dedicated to enforcing and improving welfare standards would improve the welfare of horses.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) tried to widen the debate and question the motives of the organisation behind the petition. He suggested that it wanted to abolish horse-racing, but that is not what we are debating today. All we are debating is whether an independent body should oversee the welfare of horses that participate in horse-racing. Why would anybody have a problem with that?

[Mr Robertson]

I certainly do not have a problem with a body overseeing this issue. However, the BHA can suspend a jockey for overuse of the whip—which is about not only disciplining jockeys but the welfare of the horse—and it is also responsible for the integrity of the sport. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that those functions fit rather nicely with welfare issues? A new body would take away those functions from the BHA and isolate the issue, when the fact is that other issues also come into play. Does he understand that point?

[Chris Williamson]

I take the point to an extent, but having an independent body would not mean that the BHA would then have no interest in or responsibility for welfare. An independent body would make sure that the BHA did its job properly and it would also have an overarching responsibility to prevent the same number of horses being killed or dying during horseraces. There have been 2,000 deaths since the BHA was founded and there does not seem to be any sign that the barbaric use of the whip is diminishing, notwithstanding the view of the hon. Member for Shipley that it is all lovely when a horse is hit with a cushioned whip and it does not hurt. The case for an independent body is unanswerable, in my opinion and that of many thousands of British people, whom we represent. Many hundreds of my constituents feel strongly about the issue, to the point that a number of them have lobbied me about it.

In conclusion, an independent body dedicated to stopping the tide of death and abuse in the horse-racing industry, is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on introducing this debate so well, and thank all hon. Members on both sides for their passionate discussion. This issue spans not only my brief, in the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, but that of the shadow Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who I thank for her input, as this is not only a welfare issue but an issue for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Plymouth, which I represent, has many fantastic things, but it does not have a racecourse. It is 27 miles to Newton Abbot, or a little further on to see a race at Exeter. However, that does not mean that the issues are not pertinent to the people I represent, as has been shown by the sheer depth and breadth of numbers of signatories on this petition.

It is important to mention from the outset what an important contribution horse-racing makes to the UK economy and to local economies across the country, providing jobs as well as entertaining punters. Horse-racing estimates that it employs 85,000 people around Great Britain and measures its contribution to the economy at over £3 billion. No one doubts its contribution, but the welfare of horses needs to be an important part of that contribution if it is to continue supporting those economies.

While horse-riding is an extremely dangerous sport for horses and their riders, according to Horse & Hound—which I admit might not be at the top of every Labour MP’s reading list—around one in 17 jump jockey rides ends in a fall. Many jockeys suffer life-changing injuries and mental health problems as a result, as they compete for prize money in a hotly contested sport. As was mentioned earlier, however, while being a jockey is a voluntary occupation, being a racehorse is not.

As Peter Singer put it in the 1975 book, “Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals”, animals do not have a voice to speak up for themselves, so I firmly believe that as parliamentarians we have a duty to give them that voice. Today, this House has spoken: every horse matters. In their welfare, their health, their conditions and their life from birth to death—before racing, during racing and once their racing days are over—every horse should matter. If every horse matters, as we have heard today, then we need robust and constantly improving equine welfare regulation to ensure that that happens.

We will shortly hear from the Minister about the Government’s position, but when this petition reached 10,000 signatures back in March, the Government responded by saying that they did not consider it necessary to establish a new welfare body, as

“overall racehorse welfare is improving and fatalities at racecourses are falling”.

Both those statements are true; my question is, how ambitious are we in wanting to see those improvements? I appreciate that DEFRA is a busy Department, but we must not be casual or cautious when it comes to animal welfare. We must be bold, ambitious and demanding. I think the Minister will have heard that from both sides in this debate.

The Government response at that time also pointed out:

“Racehorses, like all domestic and captive animals, are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under this legislation, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or for an owner, or keeper, to fail to provide for its welfare needs.”

That is right, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted the argument that sentences for those who fail to provide for the welfare of their animal should increase. Will the Minister say when he expects that to come online and when we can expect our courts to be able to use those sentencing powers in cases of poor animal welfare in horse-racing and elsewhere?

It is clear that the Government wholeheartedly back the British Horseracing Authority, but the crux of the debate is whether the BHA is conflicted in its mission between its support for the industry and animal welfare. I agree with hon. Members from across the House that we must have an integrated welfare component to all sports. We cannot have the idea that animal welfare is not something that anyone running a race is responsible for. It is the core thing that everyone running a race is responsible for.

This goes to the heart of what the BHA is there for. In its briefing paper it stated:

“Thoroughbreds are the centre of our sport, they are its very heart and soul.”

It is right. To its credit, the BHA does not hide from concerns raised about this sector. I met with its team earlier to go line by line through many of the concerns raised, and it is clear that the BHA understands the acute challenges ahead for the industry and what it needs to do to put it right. The BHA has been around since 2007 and was brought in by the Labour Government of the time. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated in 2016 that the BHA

“is recognised around the world as having implemented a high standard in equine care.”

Key to that is the BHA’s role in improving animal welfare and equine care in particular. That is where we need to ask ourselves at what pace this improvement is happening and whether it could go faster. Although we have seen improvements in the number of deaths, down from 0.3% to less than 0.2% of runners in 2017, the question at the heart of this debate is: where next? If we are to legitimise the BHA continuing to govern the regulatory approach, when will that figure be halved? When will we get to 0.1%—by what date? What steps will be taken to get there? What happens if we do not get there? When will the target be zero?

We have heard some great speeches today from my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), but the purpose of today’s debate and all those contributions is to look at how we can improve equine welfare faster than we are at the moment. In a highly charged, high-pressure competitive sport, where financial gains can be made by winning or going faster, we must ask ourselves whether there is a profit motive in not ensuring the best animal welfare as part of that.

We must ensure at all times not only that equine care is the foremost of the industry’s concerns, but that it is seen to be the foremost, with the industry communicating how to do that. I am sure there is agreement across the House that animals should not suffer for our entertainment. What separates horse-racing from banned sports such as foxhunting, cockfighting and dogfighting is that it does not include unnecessary pain or suffering to the animals used. That is the heart of the social contract on the basis of which horse-racing is permitted.

The World Horse Welfare organisation believes that

“the role of horses in sport is legitimate and right, as well as mutually beneficial—so long as their welfare is put first.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, while some racehorses are treated like kings, horse-racing still causes death, pain, distress and suffering for many horses. While progress has been made on making the sport safer for horses, are we comfortable with the pace of change to date?

While the Labour party is still developing its full animal welfare position, hon. Members will know that we have consulted on our 50-point animal welfare plan, “Animal Welfare For The Many, Not The Few”. During the consultation period in the summer we received 5,000 responses, which is quite a lot for an Opposition consultation on this subject. At the heart of that plan was a desire to see an independent animal welfare commissioner introduced as a safeguard to ensure that all Government policy is not only compliant with animal welfare but is being enforced and that, where animal welfare is entrusted to self-regulatory bodies, that body is maintaining high animal welfare standards. That should be at the heart of this debate and goes to the heart of some of the petitioners’ concerns to ensure that animal welfare in the horse-racing sector is put front and centre and delivered.

If the BHA commits to always putting horse welfare above the interests of commercial sport, as it has done and says it does, if it can properly separate those sides of the organisation and always act to protect horses in line with the latest scientific evidence, it should have nothing to fear from enhanced scrutiny, inspection and transparency. Indeed, it has told me that it wants that, and an animal welfare commissioner would be a step towards achieving it.

The crux of the concerns of those who signed the petition and those who have spoken in the debate can be split into two broad themes. One is independence. Although the BHA has gone to great lengths to make its animal welfare bodies independent and separate, I believe it needs to do more to communicate that governance to the public and to continue to drive for those bodies’ greater independence and separation from the sector. The second theme is standards, and the demand that they should be world-class, world-leading and so ambitious that they set the UK out a furlong ahead, not edging it by a nose. I also want to see faster and further progress on the key equine welfare issues raised. The social contract that allows the use of animals in sport is changing. Consumers are more demanding, and welfare standards are rightly being pushed higher in response.

Having spent many years working for the Association of British Travel Agents, the travel trade body, I know about the power of self-regulation. However, I also know about the responsibility to ensure that, where an organisation regulates members who pay its wages, that organisation should remain one step ahead, in a leadership position, not following the pack. There can be no dash from last place to win the day in good governance or vision. Good governance and independence is not a destination but a constant journey. Standing still is not an option. The BHA should welcome this debate as an opportunity to improve not only its standards but its communication.

I suspect that the Minister will argue that the BHA is the right body to oversee equine welfare. If so, what ambitious and stretching targets does he have for the sector? How can the deaths of 0.2% of runners be halved in the next five years? If they cannot, what will the public response be? I believe in self-regulation, but it has to work and has to carry consumer confidence to remain relevant. As we have heard, there is still a challenge with self-regulation in the sector, and more needs to be done for it to continue. That is why I want the BHA to publish ambitious plans to further reduce racehorse deaths, to set out how new technologies will help to support better behaviour, and to review the use of the whip. Many sound voices in the racing industry want change in that regard.

When our animal welfare plan was put out for consultation, we received countless responses on the use of the whip in racing, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central mentioned. The BHA has taken steps to reduce the use of the whip, limiting it to seven strikes in a flat race and eight in a national hunt, or jump, race. However, we need to look again at whether that is right. I mentioned the changing social contract between those who participate in the sport, those who watch the sport and, importantly, those who bet on horse-racing. The use of the whip is one element of the social contract that has recently changed and that will continue to change. I know that there are voices within the industry that would like the use of the whip to be further reduced, if not outlawed, except in cases of safety. There is a strong argument in support of that.

The RSPCA believes that the only whips permissible should be those of proven shock-absorbing designs. I must admit that I think replacing whips in horse-racing with MPs whipping each other may soon become more fashionable, given the exchange that we heard earlier. However, it is important that whips are used with minimal force and on minimal occasions, and only for genuine safety purposes. If everyone in horse-racing stopped using whips, the horse that wins a race would be the one that is best trained, has the most energy and is most focused. The best jockeys with the best tactics would win the race, not necessarily those who strike the most with their whip. That has been happening in Norway since 1982, and British and Irish jockeys adhere to those rules when riding there.

The social contract is changing. We need to look at it and in particular at the number of deaths. At the moment, the deaths of 0.2% of runners is too high, equating to roughly one in 500 racehorses. The only reason that it is accepted is because they are horses. Were they humans, that level of fatality in a sport would not be accepted. We have to ask whether, if we applied the same standards to animal welfare as we do to human welfare, as is increasingly the case in animal welfare policy, we would accept the same number of deaths in cricketers or rugby players.

Labour demands that the industry comes up with more stringent and ambitious targets. I want the BHA to bring together its frequently good work, which we have heard about during this debate, into a more ambitious plan.

[Mr Robertson]

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. Is his conclusion that a separate, independent body is not necessarily the way forward, and that bolstering the BHA and perhaps making it more accountable is probably the best way forward?

[Luke Pollard]

At the moment, there is a strong case for reform and greater ambition. A self-regulatory system needs to carry the confidence of the public. I think that the BHA has heard the concerns voiced by Members on both sides of the House, including those who support its role, in wanting a more demanding and ambitious set of policies. We need to look at what will happen if that is not put in place. Organisations that do not keep pace with changing consumer demands on animal welfare and the changing social contract will see their business model effectively erode from the bottom up, as we have seen with SeaWorld in the tourism sector. If there continue to be more deaths, there is a real danger that the industry’s legitimacy could be threatened, as mentioned by Members on both sides of this debate.

Much more needs to be done on improving animal welfare. We should be clear that British horse-racing is a national success story, but we want the industry to work harder, faster and smarter to improve equine welfare and to set transparent targets that can be independently verified. The public have a right to know if activities only pay lip service to that or are genuine—ambitious plans or simply pedestrian. The industry has a lot of good stories to tell about animal welfare and safety, but it can also do a lot more to improve them.

If Labour was in government and I were in the Minister’s place, I would be demanding a greater set of targets from the industry, looking at how we can halve the deaths of horses involved in horse-racing. When will we reach the 0.1% target, and can it be a numerical target, not just a percentage target? As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, Brexit could have an impact on the number of runners for races, so we want to make sure that we are not simply hitting a percentage target but talking about the number horses that die in the trade.

There is an awful lot of good news from the sector. However, there are an awful lot of improvements that Members on both sides should rightly demand if the industry is to continue to adapt and flex to meet the changing social contract and changing consumer demands that our electorate are making.

Business Banking Fraud

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Wragg to move the motion, I say to Members that I will ask Back Benchers following him to take just five minutes each initially. That is not a time limit imposed from the Chair, but I ask for self-restraint, and we will see how we go so that we can get everyone in.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the investigation of business banking fraud.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. We have had many debates in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber that have focused on the mistreatment of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises at the hands of financial institutions which, in the wake of the financial crisis, sought to shore up their balance sheets as they plundered those of their business customers.

The subject is becoming an all too familiar one for debate. Indeed, this is the fourth such debate in which I have spoken. Looking around at my distinguished colleagues from across the House I see many familiar faces who have taken part in previous debates. Many Members will be familiar with the cases of hard-working businessmen and women who have had their businesses broken up and livelihoods destroyed by acts of deliberate deception and fraud, systemic asset stripping and inflated charges and fees, all at the hands of their banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very good point. Of course it does. We need to get on and sort this matter out.

In the 18th century, highwaymen used to stop coaches, get people outside them and say, “Stand and deliver. Your money or your life.” Those guys had a choice. Now, the 21st century equivalent of highwaymen—some in the banks—shout, “Your money or your lifestyles”, and they take both. Thank you, Mr Robertson.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their self-restraint and to Opposition Front Benchers for offering to make slightly shorter speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for securing today’s debate. Colleagues will know that he and I are constituency neighbours. The powerful case study that he gave on behalf of his constituent could quite easily have been on behalf of one of mine. I first became aware of the scale of the issues through constituency examples. Every Member who has spoken in today’s debate has presented those testimonies extremely well. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, especially for the efforts of its chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who gave an authoritative and powerful account of some of the problems that have come to the group’s attention.

Many of us have participated in similar debates before, but as we mark the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis it is a good time to consider the relationship between businesses and their banks. All of us in the Chamber, even though we have come today with powerful case studies of inappropriate behaviour, want to see a strong relationship between businesses and banks. Having a good relationship between banks and businesses is critical to our economic growth, prosperity, employment and much more.

Unfortunately, research shows that frighteningly low numbers of small businesses trust their bank to do the right thing for them. That is unsurprising given some of what we have heard today. We have to improve that. We have to look at why that is, and how we can change it. We have to restore confidence that the regulatory system is fair, and crucially that there will be a level playing field for businesses when they find themselves in conflict with their bank, especially if their bank is suspected of having committed fraud, as we are discussing today.

The central premise of today’s debate and of all the speeches has been that there are insufficient resources available to tackle business banking fraud. Colleagues will be aware that I agree with that premise. The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, local police forces and the Financial Conduct Authority do not have sufficient capacity, either individually or collectively, to look into the matter with the attention that it deserves. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the new National Economic Crime Centre—the NECC—a new unit of the National Crime Agency. An initial budget of £6 million does not seem sufficient when compared with, as I think the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) mentioned, the £7 million cost of the Thames Valley police investigation into HBOS in Reading, and given the scale of the issues raised today.

I want to say quite a bit more, because I do not think that we can simply say, “This issue requires more resources and that will solve the problem.” It is about how we can change the culture that has led to such outrages happening time and again. I will talk about three different ways in which I believe we could contribute to achieving that. First, we could launch a full public inquiry into recent business banking scandals. Secondly, we could introduce an independent tribunal system for small and medium-sized enterprises to resolve disputes. Lastly, we could put in place a more robust system to better protect and enable whistleblowing.

The first step has to be securing proper redress for SMEs that have been mistreated by their banks. Scandals such as GRG and HBOS mis-selling have been outrages, and have seriously dented business and customer confidence. The shadow Treasury team has consistently called for a judge-led independent inquiry into RBS GRG and other small business banking scandals, so that victims can get proper redress. I know that several colleagues in the Chamber have argued strongly for the same measure. There is clearly cross-party support for that to take place.

Such an inquiry would not just get to the bottom of the case studies that have been raised today; it would establish whether there is further criminal liability to be addressed, and examine the wider systemic issues that have allowed such events to take place. We are talking about people’s livelihoods, homes and relationships. Some people have simply been ruined. These issues are too important for us to sweep under the carpet, with the risk that such events could happen again. We have to be able to go out from a debate such as today’s and promise constituents that this will not happen again. In my view, a full public inquiry is required to do that.

Secondly, in terms of disputes, part of the problem is that it is well recognised that the gap between the financial ombudsman for individuals and the full legal process for very big firms is just too great. I support the all-party parliamentary group’s proposal to establish an independent tribunal to help create a level playing field between businesses and the banks in order to fill that gap.

We all await with interest the outcome of the UK Finance independent review, chaired by Mr Simon Walker, into complaints handling and alternative dispute resolution for SMEs. I have met Mr Walker and I understand that he will report very soon. The review will examine dispute resolution processes in different sectors and countries, and provide some evidence-based conclusions on how we can meet the needs of businesses for larger or more complex disputes.

Other initiatives are under way that will hopefully progress the situation. In July 2017, 20 banks signed up to the new standards of lending practice for business customers, which outlined what businesses should expect from their bank when in financial difficulty. Although such moves are welcome, my view is that ultimately we cannot rely on the industry to self-regulate. Look at the RBS GRG complaints resolution process as evidence. Concerns are being raised about how the goalposts have been moved regarding compensation, and how the process has been subject to quite a lot of individual discretion. That is why an independent tribunal system is necessary.

Lastly, an answer could lie in exploring a change in our approach to whistleblowing in financial services in this country. Whistleblowing will never be a substitute for effective action by regulators, but it can play a part. That is especially important in a time of scarcer resources as a result of public spending cuts. The Dodd-Frank Act in the US, which was introduced as a central piece of post-financial crisis legislation in 2010, is a demonstration of how much more robust the whistleblower protection framework could be. Whistleblowers in the US are entitled to awards where their information leads to enforcement action. The framework is structured in such a way as to disincentivise false reports, but to provide protection in the event of dismissal.

The UK legislation, on the other hand, is much weaker. Although the Financial Conduct Authority can assist whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, it has not been enshrined in regulation in the way the Dodd-Frank Act has been used in the US. There is a case for examining how we could introduce specific financial services whistleblower protection in order to seriously improve conduct in banking. I have encountered significant support for that within the sector itself. I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned that many good people are working in the sector who want to see such issues improved so that today’s debate does not have to happen again.

Having a banking system that we can trust is essential to our economy. Entrepreneurs who have taken the risk of setting up their own businesses deserve to know that there will be proper redress if they have been the victim of unscrupulous practices. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy. If they cannot trust the financial institutions that are meant to serve them, we will all pay a price.

If we are to begin to restore trust to UK business banking, there are two outcomes we have to achieve. The first is to ensure that the victims of the GRG and HBOS banking scandals get proper redress for the damage done to their businesses and livelihoods, and individuals, as well as the institutions they worked for, must face sanctions for their actions. The second outcome is that we must create a framework in which such a flagrant abuse of the bank and business relationship can never happen again.

With the combination of a full public inquiry, the establishment of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and a radical rethink of how we treat whistleblowers, we could begin that process. These businesspeople, many of whom are in Parliament today, were badly let down. We must all commit to less talk and more action to get them the redress that they deserve.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I would like Mr Wragg to be left a minute to wind up at the end. I call the Minister.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is in my name and those of my right hon and hon. Friends. I will press the new clause at the appropriate time. It would make it

“unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.”

The purpose is simple: it is to secure the future of the United Kingdom. I speak as a proud Unionist and a friend of Northern Ireland. I have had the honour of working closely with people across Northern Ireland, having been Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years and, before that, a shadow Northern Ireland Minister for five years. Interestingly, I also co-chaired the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly for some five years. We have a lot to fight for in Northern Ireland.

This new clause would provide a guarantee that shows we value the Union and recognise the importance of strengthening it, but also acknowledge the importance and the value of our most important trading arrangement, the UK internal market. Above all, it would contribute to upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguard the Union for the future.

New clause 37 reinforces a view that I am confident is shared on both sides of the House, which is that we cannot accept a deal that would allow Northern Ireland to be considered a separate customs territory from Great Britain. I recognise that this is the view the Prime Minister has put at the forefront of our negotiations.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate the point that new clause 37 simply underlines and reaffirms what the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on four separate occasions? The hon. Gentleman is right to seek to nail this into the Bill because we might not always have the luxury of having a Unionist Prime Minister.

[Mr Robertson]

Of course I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I hope we always do have a Unionist Prime Minister. Many of us will be working towards that end for many, many years.

The Prime Minister said in December

“the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will leave the EU customs union and the EU single market. Nothing in the agreement I have reached alters that fundamental fact.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 27.]

If nothing has changed, I am confident—and I understand it is the case—that the Government will support this amendment.

During the past two years, we have had many polarising debates on our withdrawal from the European Union, but this amendment is straightforward and should be supported by anyone who values and believes in the Union. This is not a matter of leave or remain; it is about protecting the Union and ensuring that any deal we secure with the European Union upholds the constitutional integrity of the UK.

As well as protecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the UK, new clause 37 is also about protecting the economy of Northern Ireland by securing our most important single market, the UK itself. There are no absolute figures, but estimates from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency suggest that external sales of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK were worth £14 billion in 2016, which represents approximately 58% of Northern Ireland’s total external sales. To jeopardise that by subjecting Northern Ireland to extra border arrangements, effectively down the Irish sea, would be foolish.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister rightly rejected the European Commission’s proposed version of the backstop, which would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said a number of times, no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. I understand that is still the Government’s view.

New clause 37 does not look to tie the Government’s hands. Rather, it will galvanise the Government’s position on this issue and signal to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be left behind or left out. The Irish border is being used as a red herring by the European Union. As the Prime Minister has agreed on a number of occasions, we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the border until we know the details of any deal with the European Union. To think the opposite of that is to put the cart before the horse.

Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and politicians of all colours in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want to see a hard border in Ireland. When we say “hard border,” we are not talking about troops being stationed along the border—that is not going to happen. Nor will whatever arrangements we reach with the EU provoke violence along the border—those years have surely gone.

What will happen, though, is what has been happening for a very long time. The two jurisdictions already have different laws, different currencies, different VAT rates, different levels of corporation tax, different fuel duties, different levels of tourism tax and different levels of air passenger duty, yet trade takes place. People cross the border each day, with some people crossing several times a day. Some checks are carried out at various places in the north and south, which is how it will continue to be, without the disruption to trade and to everyday life that some people predict.

There is, therefore, no need for discussions about the border in Ireland to hold up the wider trade talks with the European Union, nor is there any need to threaten Northern Ireland’s position within the UK or Northern Ireland’s economy during these talks. New clause 37 will ensure that will not be the case.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the backstop proposals for Northern Ireland are something no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could ever agree to, and this new clause will enshrine that policy in law.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I support all those who have been arguing for continued membership of the customs union, and therefore I support new clause 1. It is clear from everything we have heard today that, if we are to avoid serious economic hardship, membership of the customs union is essential. Frankly, the wrecking ball that the hard Brexiteers would bring to British business and industry is pretty extraordinary, and all for what?

The Prime Minister had it pretty much right when she spelled out:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly 3 times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

She said that in April 2016, and I contend, as the Prime Minister herself is fond of saying, that nothing has changed.

In the brief time available to me, I will raise the issue of standards, particularly in relation to my amendment 71. Clause 8 sets out factors to which the Treasury must have regard when considering the rate of import duties that apply to goods. Those factors include the interests of UK consumers and the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity and external trade.

Amendment 71 would add to those factors. First, it would add the interests of UK producers, particularly farmers. Secondly, it would add the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.

The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions in February 2017, and many times since:

“We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that…we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 424.]

Similarly, we have heard the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say on many occasions that we need to maintain, and where possible enhance, environmental and animal welfare standards. However, if the UK is unable to protect its farmers from being undermined by lower-quality imports, those farmers are likely to find it hard to be competitive and to go further on improving their animal welfare and environmental standards. Accordingly, when negotiating new trade agreements, it will be vital that the UK insists on the inclusion of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK animal welfare and environmental standards. I have tabled an amendment to the Trade Bill to that effect.

If that were not to happen and we were to lose the principle of prohibiting products that do not meet our standards, we would need some kind of backstop, which is where amendment 71 comes in. It would give Ministers the power to place differential tariffs on imports. Imports that do not conform to UK welfare standards would be subject to tariffs high enough to safeguard UK farmers. It would ensure that UK farm businesses were not undermined by low-quality products and that UK consumers would be protected from goods of a lower standard—chlorine-washed chicken, ractopamine-fed pork and hormone-treated beef, to name but a few—through tariffs on imports that do not meet UK standards. These tariffs would effectively make the cost of these lower-welfare products an awful lot higher to protect our standards here in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets the letter as soon as possible. It is right to focus on groups that are using structures for non-compliance or purposes that we would wish to deter, and HMRC will always do so. I will update her by letter, hopefully later today.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

2. If he will reduce taxes on small businesses.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are bearing down tirelessly on the tax burden on businesses of all sizes, reducing corporation tax from 28% for large companies in 2010 to 19% today, and for small businesses from 21% to 19%. We will go still further, reducing the burden to 17% by 2020. For unincorporated businesses, we are, of course, increasing the personal allowance, in the previous Budget, to £11,850. That will increase further to £12,500 in 2020—further relief to many small businesses.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. Businesses are, of course, unpaid tax collectors for the Exchequer and the Federation of Small Businesses recently estimated that businesses spend, on average, three working weeks a year on tax compliance. Is there anything further that the Minister can do to reduce that kind of expensive burden on businesses?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the FSB’s report. I have not only read it, but met the FSB to discuss the report in detail. I highlight to the House two of its important recommendations: one is around better guidance on taxation, and I have tasked officials on that mission within HMRC; and the second is Making Tax Digital, which we are rolling out for VAT-registered companies in 2019. The report states that this

“presents an opportunity to simplify and speed up tax compliance.”