Puppy Smuggling

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come to some of the recommendations later on. Although much of the focus of my recommendations will be on what the UK Government can do, we also need to lobby internationally to ensure that there is fair treatment and awareness across countries.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

On that specific point, there is a particular issue with the Irish border; it is estimated that about 30,000 puppies cross it every year. So, although we can secure the borders of the United Kingdom, we also need to co-operate with other countries, including the Republic of Ireland, to see what can be done to ensure that the likes of that land border, which is very difficult to put checks along, can still have checks in operation, and it is also particularly important to have checks at ports in the Republic of Ireland as well.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady is making another very important point. Of course, there are particular sensitivities around the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that we are all aware of. Her point is very important, and it deserves very careful consideration, so I thank her again for raising it.

Dog Meat in the UK

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered banning the consumption of dog meat in the UK.

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. This is, unfortunately, the Thursday afternoon slot—I often refer to it as “the graveyard slot”, and today it certainly is. This is the recess week, and many people who signed the petition and added their names to the early-day motion are away. It is a pleasure to see hon. Members here to make a contribution to this debate on a very important issue.

Like my hon. Members, I am a dog lover, and so is my wife. She is a volunteer at Assisi Animal Sanctuary, just outside Newtownards. Since I was a young boy, dogs have played a huge part in my life. I cannot remember not having a dog; I have had them all my life. I remember my first dog, in Ballywalter when I was a four-year-old, very well. It was a collie dog called Flash. Its name has never escaped my mind. It was probably called that because it was like greased lightning; collies usually are. I also recall vividly a story of letting the dog into the back kitchen. We lived in a fishing village. Someone had left us fish for tea, and the dog ate half of it. We never realised what it was all about; we thought we had eaten the other half, but unfortunately that was not how it was.

We can share small stories about our dogs over the years. I remember as a child—I wonder sometimes how I survived my childhood—having an ice cream with the dog sitting alongside me. Every now and again, I gave the dog a wee lick as well, and I just kept on eating. It never did me any harm; that is a fact. I would not recommend it, but as children we did not have the precautionary attitude to life that we do now.

Dogs are and have always been an extension of my family. My dog—really my wife’s dog—is Autumn. We got it from Assisi. It had been badly treated, and she took it in. I remember that when it first came to our house, it was very nervous and scared. It obviously had a very difficult entry into this world. After it came to our house, it gained confidence. It had our love, and all of a sudden its attitude changed.

Dogs have two things in life that they want: they want to be loved and to love. It is as simple as that. A dog sees things very simply. We had a collie dog early on, and then we had Pomeranians and Jack Russells, and now we have springer spaniels. The reason why we have springer spaniels is that we love hunting and shooting. That is where I come from. Therefore, our dogs have a purpose in life. They say that you never own a Jack Russell; a Jack Russell owns you. As the owner of a Jack Russell, I can say that that is true. We have had many Jack Russells over the years, and they have taken over our lives.

Over the past weeks and months, I have heard enough about the horrifying practices of the dog meat trade to upset any animal lover. I thank animal welfare charities such as the World Dog Alliance for highlighting this issue, and for the work they are doing to stop this horrific practice. I am here today to call on the Government to enact a ban on the consumption of dog meat in the UK. That is why we are all here. It is unfortunate that others could not be here. They wanted to be, but they made other arrangements for the recess week.

Each year, about 30 million dogs are slaughtered for human consumption around the world. In China, it is estimated that 70% of those dogs are stolen pets. That horrific practice has a big impact on families.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is unfortunate that more people could not be here; it is probably because of the timing. I have known many people over the years who have campaigned on this issue, particularly about the dog festivals outside the UK. They are horrified by that. Once it comes to light that it is not illegal to consume dog and cat meat in the UK, they are shocked. They have been campaigning for the law to change in another country, but they have not realised that it is not illegal here. That is one reason why legislation should be brought forward.

[Jim Shannon]

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. Many of us are horrified. I see the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) in his place. He has tabled an amendment to the Agriculture Bill that I and my hon. Friend have put our names to. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) would have liked to have been here, but as we all know, unfortunately he hurt himself this week and had to go home early. He moved a ten-minute rule Bill this week.

Many of us have suddenly realised that there is a technical loophole in the legislation in the United Kingdom, and we want to use this occasion to highlight the issue and alert people so that they realise that we have not made it illegal to eat dogs or cats in the United Kingdom. It is against the law to kill them and to sell the meat, but it is not against the law to eat them, and that is why we want to bring legislation forward.

My hon. Friend and I, and others here to contribute to the debate, are well aware of the background information. It is truly horrific to observe how dogs are killed and the inhuman treatment they go through. During their short lives, they are treated horrifically and inhumanely. Treated like cargo, they are cramped in small cages and put under physical and mental torment as they wait to be killed for their meat. Worse still are the misplaced beliefs dictating that dogs are tastier and that their meat is filled with better properties if the animals are stressed or in pain at the moment of death. That results in the widespread torture of these poor animals. In many cases, dogs are skinned, boiled or even blowtorched alive. If that is not animal cruelty, what is? It is horrific, horrendous and should not be allowed anywhere in the world.

How can we as a proud nation of animal lovers—we make that gesture and statement many times—stand aside as millions of dogs are subjected to that fate? The Government will say that it is illegal to sell dog and cat meat in the UK and that no abattoirs can be issued with a licence to slaughter dogs. That is true, but the fact remains that it is legal for an individual to kill a dog or cat and eat it here in the UK in their own homes. We want to look towards change. That is why the hon. Member for Clacton tabled the amendment to the Agriculture Bill, why the ten-minute rule Bill was moved and why we are here today.

Many others support what we are saying. Thankfully, there are no official cases of dog or cat meat being eaten in the United Kingdom, but we should make explicitly clear that the totally unnecessary practice of eating dogs will never be welcome. Nor can we condone the cruel practice elsewhere in the world.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Although in the debate thus far people have made the case that there is no evidence that dog or cat meat is eaten within the UK, it can be very difficult to prosecute that type of crime. Surely the key thing is that it gives the UK the opportunity to be a world leader and join those other countries that have stepped forward to legislate, despite the fact it is not a problem in their countries. It sends a message to those countries where it is a common practice that we believe it is not acceptable. It also sends a message clearly across the UK that we do not want this practice to grow here either.

[Jim Shannon]

What my hon. Friend says is very true. I will speak later about the number of countries that have signed up and changed the law, as will other Members. It indicates why we are looking for change. Our reputation as a leader on animal welfare is testament to our national love of animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was pioneering legislation in this country. We led the world. It outlined our national duty of care to those unable to speak for themselves, and it set the international standard. Under the legislation, animals in the UK are protected from pain, injury and suffering. I beg the House and the Government to consider our canine companions in the same light.

As anyone who grew up with a pet dog or cat will know, they can, and do, take up a lot of our lives. When I met my wife, she was a cat lover and I was a dog lover. I was not all that fond of cats, to be honest, but it was simple: “Love me, love my cat.” I acquired an affection for cats, and we now have four or five in our house. More often than not, people will say that the cats or dogs are members of the family. Our companions are treasured, loved and spoiled, yet around the world millions of dogs live short, unimaginable lives and are subject to incredibly cruel practices. I wonder if many Members here could imagine the same fate for their pets.

In Prime Minister’s questions just last week, the Prime Minister said:

“Animal welfare is a priority for this Government.”—

We welcome that commitment, which I think was in response to a question from an hon. Member here. She said she hoped

“that other countries will join the UK in upholding the highest standards of animal welfare.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 887.]

To maintain that position, we must show, in unequivocal terms, that we cannot tolerate the consumption of dog meat.

Last night, in an Adjournment debate on horse tethering, the Minister referred to legislation in Northern Ireland, where we can impose penalties of up to five years for animal cruelty. We have a positive and enlightening attitude towards animal cruelty in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the five-year sentence; I think he hopes that it can be introduced in the mainland as well.

Introducing a ban on consuming dog meat would have a tremendous effect worldwide. Animal welfare charities such as the World Dog Alliance tell us that they face key barriers in their efforts to ban the practice worldwide. A ban would send a powerful message to countries where this horrific and disturbing practice takes place. We can no longer stand idly by. Enacting the ban would demonstrate the UK’s willingness to join global efforts to ban this horrific practice, standing shoulder to shoulder with the many animal rights and welfare charities working day and night to protect our beloved companions and it would save millions of dogs from torture and unspeakable death.

I will say again—I mean this sincerely and honestly; I am a dog lover—that dogs are our companions. They are not, and should never be, food. In practical terms, I ask the Government to consider a simple thing. A ban would put no additional pressure on the Government’s purse strings. We know that no dogs are eaten in the United Kingdom, and therefore that no additional resources would be required to police such a ban. Instead, by simply closing this legal loophole, we would send a powerful signal internationally that we do not condone the human consumption of dogs.

There is a great depth of feeling in Parliament to ban this practice. To date, more than 60 MPs have demonstrated cross-party support in various forms, with 32 backing an amendment to the Agriculture Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Clacton. Both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) have added our names to that. We hope that the Government will take that amendment on board when the Agriculture Bill is next debated.

As hon. Members will have seen in recent coverage in The Sun, the Daily Express and in the popular online magazine, LADbible, a ban on the consumption of dog meat also has widespread support from the general public. I believe that what we ask the Government to look towards reflects the opinion of the general public. Widespread support for banning the human consumption of dog meat was clearly demonstrated in 2016, when a parliamentary petition protesting the dog meat trade in South Korea received more than 100,000 signatures, resulting in a parliamentary debate in that country. Many of my colleagues have spoken against the practice and have called for action.

I am pleased to say that, since then, South Korea’s largest dog farm has been closed down, and the Mayor of Seoul vowed last week to shut down all dog slaughterhouses. This shows a clear and increasing demand for change from east Asian countries. Last year, a Gallup survey found that only 15% of people felt positively about the dog meat trade. I do not think we can ignore those opinions where we see something wrong happening. There is a change coming there as well.

The movement against dog meat is also visible in China, where 64% of the population support a ban on the Yulin dog meat festival, which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South mentioned. One in seven people in China has never eaten dog meat and nine out of 10 people in Shanghai want a ban, so even in China, attitudes and trends are changing. If we take the stance that other countries have taken, it would be a positive step in the right direction. Sending powerful international messages and applying pressure can and does make a difference and would add to the momentum.

In September, following mounting international pressure against the dog meat trade, the Hanoi people’s committee urged residents to stop eating dog meat, as it was concerned that the horrific practice was tarnishing the city’s image as a modern and civilised capital. What we do here has influence over there, which is why this debate is so important. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to have the debate and for giving us the chance to be here. I look forward to what other hon. Members have to say, particularly the shadow Minister and the Minister, about how we can move the campaign forward.

Taiwanese and Japanese officials have already written to the Secretary of State to persuade our Government to support a ban. A member of the House of Councillors, Kusuo Oshima, highlighted the similar legal loophole that allows the consumption of dogs in Japan. With the 2020 Tokyo Olympics close at hand, he feels that it would be an honour to work closely with our country, as a leader in animal welfare, to make the change and put legislation in place.

The Environment Minister Yoshiaki Harada and his officials have already committed to follow the progress of the ban in the UK as an animal welfare leader. The introduction of legislation in the UK, as well as in the US, would help to give them the confidence to outlaw dog meat consumption in Japan. Collectively and singly, in this country and across the world, we can make the change that many people clearly wish to see.

Our influence in animal welfare has also been shown through efforts by Chinese officials to introduce a pet theft Bill to tackle the dog meat trade. Two people’s representatives have introduced the Bill because stolen dogs are generally sold to be eaten. It is tragic that when dogs go missing in some parts of the world, they can end up on somebody’s table, although I am mindful that, in many cases, dogs are treated as part of the family. As such, the Bill is a major first step towards introducing a ban on the human consumption of dog meat. I am informed that it was partly inspired by our Pets (Theft) Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. I thank the Government and the Minister in particular for the changes they are making there.

The United States of America is the latest country to enact a ban on the consumption of dog and cat meat. In December, the US House of Representatives took the lead in passing the farm Bill, which states that no person may

“ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, possess, purchase, sell, or donate…a dog or cat to be slaughtered for human consumption; or a dog or cat part for human consumption.”

That Bill laid the law down and made the change.

Let us be clear: the US ban is significantly stronger than the UK’s current legal situation. They have gone a step further and I believe that we need to match that. The US ban explicitly forbids the human consumption of dog meat by covering the personal use and possession of dog meat, not just its commercial sale. The recent US regulations, therefore, far outstrip our current legislation. In practice, it is now illegal in the US for an individual to kill a dog or cat to consume its flesh. At the moment, we cannot say the same in the United Kingdom.

Through that pioneering legislation, the US joins the ranks of Germany, Austria, Taiwan, South Australia and Hong Kong, which all have bans in place. The US ban is important because of the motivation involved—clearly, eating dog or cat meat is not a problem in the US. US lawmakers passed the ban solely because of the impact it would have on the international efforts to eradicate the cruel practice.

That is made clear in the letters to the Prime Minister from the Congressman who introduced the law in the US. Congressman Jeff Denham, a proponent of the legislation in the US, has said that adopting this policy signals that

“the U.S. will not tolerate this disturbing practice in our country”.

It also demonstrates

“our unity with other nations that have banned dog and cat meat, and it bolsters existing international efforts to crack down on the practice worldwide.”

Hopefully today in this House, through this debate and through our Minister and Government, we can add our support and our names to similar legislation, raising awareness and moving forward.

In their letter to the Prime Minister, Alcee Hastings, Vern Buchanan, Theodore Deutch and Lee Zeldin—all Congressmen of the House of Representatives—said:

“The adoption of this important legislation not only sent a message to people in the United States, but also, those around the world, putting all who engage in this heinous practice on notice that it will no longer be tolerated regardless of where it is found to occur...the slaughter of dogs”—

and cats—

“does not prevent hunger or improve human welfare, nor is there any economic justification to continue this horrific practice.”

In enacting the ban, the US has played an important role in influencing the international animal welfare agenda. We are here today to highlight that and to raise awareness. Again, I look to the Minister and our Government to do the same.

As we look towards the end of March and our departure from the European Union—the Brexit question is at least part of this—we must consider what type of nation we want the UK to be. Do we want to be outward-looking or insular? Active or idle? A global leader or one that lags behind our peers? I think of all those here today who will go back to their constituencies and homes to be with pets and loved ones this weekend. Do we not owe it to our companions across the great continents and countries of the world to take these steps? We look for the Government to match the change in the USA and the countries mentioned earlier. We look to match the change in South Korea. We look to highlight the issues.

I call on the Government to enact a ban as soon as possible, either through primary or secondary legislation—as long as it is a full and explicit ban on the human consumption of dog and cat meat. Further, any person found to be in violation of such a ban should be subject to a fine and/or a prison sentence of six months. It is time this House sent the message and changed the law, and I believe the Government will find a way to do that.

Mr Bailey, I thank you for giving me the chance to speak. I look forward to the contributions from other hon. Members, and particularly to the comments of the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin)—and the Minister.

Childcare Vouchers

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I welcome this debate. I will speak from a Northern Ireland perspective and contribute to it in that regard, but many of the issues are relevant across the United Kingdom.

In Northern Ireland, as across the rest of the UK, childcare costs are one of the most significant challenges faced by young and working families. Affordable childcare comes up time and time again when I talk to parents, when I rap on the doors and when I listen to constituents, because of the significant burden that it puts on young families and working parents.

I worked as a policy adviser to the First Minister of Northern Ireland for around 10 years and had the privilege to have policy responsibility for childcare and affordable childcare. I have sympathy with the Treasury and others who have worked on this problem because it is very difficult to find solutions. One of the issues that came across very strongly in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minster was that the complexity of the problem is partly because of the different variables of the families who need childcare within the overall cohort. There is no one solution that fits all, which is critical when it comes to childcare vouchers.

From that work and from listening to parents, I am absolutely convinced that we need a comprehensive and holistic range of solutions to address the market challenges faced by parents. The reality is that families requiring childcare come in so many different varieties—I will touch on just some of those different types of families and how they are impacted. The variety of incomes and situations has been outlined well—single-parent families, families with two parents working, unemployed families and families with one parent working—so I do not want to go into too much detail. However, I will touch on the range of different families and the challenges that they face. I will do so because I believe that, dependent on the variables, there are good policy reasons why there needs to be a set of tailored solutions for all of those groups and not just for one or two of the groups within the overall cohort.

I am strongly convinced that there needs to be not just a Northern Ireland solution or a Scottish solution or an English solution. We need a United Kingdom solution that provides affordable, good-quality and accessible childcare for all families.

I preface my comments by agreeing with those already made. The childcare vouchers system was not a perfect system—I know that from looking at it from a Government Department perspective and from listening to parents—but flaws within a process can be addressed. The existence of such flaws is not a good reason to throw out the scheme and impact detrimentally on a significant number of parents, including in my own constituency of Belfast South, where well over 200 parents have signed the petition that is the basis of the debate.

Low-income working families—single-income families or families with two very low incomes—is very much the group at which tax-free childcare was targeted. Undoubtedly, that group requires the most support and help in terms of a Government intervention—hon. Members from all parties would agree with that. We need to keep those low-income families in work, and also to keep them progressing and advancing so that they move out of being a low-income family and in to being a middle-income family.

There is no doubt that childcare is a significant barrier for those low-income families. It is not just a barrier in terms of the normal nine to five. Again, I know that we will all be aware of this, but many of those low-income families work in shift-work, work at night and work at weekends, whether they are nurses, care assistants or working in Tesco or other stores. It can be even more challenging for them to find childcare that is flexible, accessible and affordable outside what would be termed normal working hours. We want and need to support those families, which, for me, are a priority group.

I commend the efforts that have been made to look at tax-free childcare, acknowledging the complexity of the childcare voucher system and how it depended on employers. I welcome how the new initiative has been framed to target and support those parents. However, that some parents might lose their eligibility for tax credits or universal credit if they claim tax-free childcare seems, to many, absolutely bizarre—it makes little or no sense. It is not clear whether there is a flaw in the system, but an urgent examination is needed. I suggest that the scheduled closure of the childcare voucher scheme be delayed to enable all the issues to be identified and considered in detail.

The second group is unemployed parents or those on very low incomes. When looking at the policy area of affordable childcare, it did not strike me that that group required childcare, but when I went out to speak to parents—to groups working within communities—they made it clear that the lack of affordable childcare was a barrier to getting qualifications, doing apprenticeships, and accessing and fully participating in the range of back-to-work and into-work schemes they need to get on to the first step of being a working family. In particular, it was a significant barrier for women in their late teens and early 20s who were single parents. I give huge credit to the many groups across Belfast and Northern Ireland—and, I am sure, across the United Kingdom—that have found creative ways to support those women by partnering them up with settings that can provide affordable childcare.

The second issue that became very clear when talking to people in this cohort—families facing challenges, teenage parents, and unemployed parents, with perhaps transgenerational unemployment—was the huge benefit to child development of a good-quality childcare setting. I am passionate about tackling educational under- achievement, and what has struck me starkly in my work in that area is that, if a child is a certain percentage behind at the age of three or four, that continues to be the case right through primary school and post-primary, unless there is significant intervention. Early intervention is critical, and a huge amount of evidence shows that a good-quality childcare setting is absolutely instrumental in supporting a child’s development. It is an invest-to-save policy: we are investing in early education, which will hopefully prevent the need for significant educational intervention at a later stage. There is no doubt that the affordability of childcare comes into play when a parent is motivated to seek work. We need to ask how we can remove the barrier of childcare. Looking at affordability and accessibility is critical. It is also important to offer that cohort of families support and a solution within a holistic childcare setting.

I thank Employers for Childcare, which has been a huge support right from when I started working on childcare policy, feeding through data and information to parents and encouraging knowledge about childcare vouchers and other initiatives. It has supported huge numbers of families in Northern Ireland to take up childcare vouchers in a flawed system that was very complicated for parents. It has also encouraged employers to offer the scheme to their employees.

Finally, the group I believe is most affected by the proposed scheme closure is what would be termed the middle-income families. We know, as do I from talking to families in my constituency, that those families often feel the pressures and the squeeze, particularly if they have two or three children requiring childcare. Childcare is a huge cost for families who are struggling to pay their mortgages and are fearful about what will happen, with bills going up. They pay a huge range of bills and are under a lot of pressure.

A big issue here is keeping women in the workplace. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates that it is still very much the case that, when it comes to caring responsibilities, it is much more likely the woman who decides to opt out of the workplace to look after children. When we looked at the research in Northern Ireland, those women were third-level educated with good qualifications—perhaps working as teachers or in other professions. The Government had invested right across the United Kingdom in that third-level education, and yet women were having to make a choice. They said to me: “I’m simply working to pay the childminder, to pay for childcare. There’s such a small margin that it’s not worth my while, so I’ll opt out of the workforce to look after the children”. We need to avoid that, for a number of reasons. As has been indicated, to grow our economy and productivity we need to keep those strong, intelligent, capable women in our workforce, and contributing to our economy. There has been investment in third-level education, and losing those women from the workforce is detrimental to the economy.

The second issue is gender equal pay. When we looked into that, it came out that caring responsibilities affect women’s decision to go to part-time work because of childcare costs or to opt out of their employment setting in their 20s and 30s, before coming back in their late 30s and early 40s. They miss a significant amount of time, during which their male colleagues get promotions and apply for managerial positions. In highly skilled and professional posts, that is a huge factor in the gender pay gap. We want, and I think we need, women to stay within the workforce, build their careers and apply for managerial and board positions as appropriate, as opposed to losing at least five if not 10 or more years of their working lives. The third issue is that a significant percentage of women who come back into the workplace decide to come in part time, and we know that part-time work is a significant factor in the gender pay gap.

In summary, middle-income families, for a range of reasons, are squeezed and are under huge pressure and we need to look at solutions for them. There is an agreement that there is a market dysfunctionality in relation to finding both affordable and flexible childcare, and that is an important issue in equal gender participation in the workforce and in the roll-out of tax-free childcare. It has become apparent that a number of families—not particularly high-income families—will be worse off, and issues need to be addressed regarding the targeting of the roll-out for that group.

Those two fundamental issues should at least give the Government something to think about in relation to pushing back the proposed closure to allow for a full inquiry—I understand an inquiry is taking place—and to have conversations and discussions about how we introduce a truly holistic and comprehensive childcare strategy that deals with all the variables and component parts, in order to grow our economy and support all our hardworking families across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically sensible point, and I am happy to look into the matter and write to him. I do not have a detailed answer that I am happy to give him now.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Although I welcome the fact that female participation in the workforce is at record high levels of about 70%, male participation in the same age cohort is about 79% to 80%—a significant gap. The Minister has outlined the targeting of measures at those most in need, but has the Treasury given consideration to the productivity gap between males and females? Research has indicated that a significant percentage of women, when asked about participation, give caring for children in the home as the primary reason, but there is a significant economic impact. That policy agenda should also be targeted by a childcare policy.

[John Glen]

As a former policy person, I acknowledge the detail of the hon. Lady’s analysis, and that there is more work to be done. I shall take that back to the Treasury as we try to address all dimensions of the productivity challenge.

The Government think it is right that we replace childcare vouchers with tax-free childcare from April 2018. However, I would like to reassure any parent who is currently receiving vouchers but is not eligible for tax-free childcare that there will be no automatic withdrawal of the voucher scheme. If they currently receive vouchers and their employer continues to provide them, they can continue to receive vouchers as long as they stay with that employer.

Budget Resolutions

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We have heard considerable pessimism from Opposition Members, but I rise to welcome the Chancellor’s statement. In particular, I welcome the increased investment across the United Kingdom, which will bring an additional £660 million of benefit to Northern Ireland. That is much needed, because it has been a difficult few years. Significant budget pressures across all Departments in Northern Ireland, combined with constricted or limited real-terms budget growth year on year, have led to significant challenges. Difficult decisions had to be made, and people and services in Northern Ireland suffered.

I fully support the principle of fiscal responsibility, but austerity has felt punishing to many. It has been particularly acute in Northern Ireland, because we have been struggling to emerge from the decades of underinvestment that resulted from a long period of violence. We have been trying to rebalance our economy, which is still too reliant on the public sector. I welcome the fiscal loosening that is outlined in the Budget. Of course, we would like to see further loosening in the years ahead, and particular reference has been made to pensions and the plight of the WASPI women. In addition, we feel there needs to be some acknowledgement that additional public sector pay award funds should not come from within budgets, putting pressure on frontline services.

In this Budget, there is an emphasis on capital. In Northern Ireland we have huge pressures, particularly in education and health, which require revenue and resource investment, along with capital. I acknowledge that capital is incredibly important in growing our economy and investing in our infrastructure, but resource pressures often impact the most on frontline services. In the years ahead, I hope that we will continue to have very positive conversations about easing those matters. As has been indicated, our public services, particularly health, need significant investment to transform and become truly fit for purpose. I suppose Northern Ireland’s situation is slightly different from that of some areas represented in the House in that we will have a Barnett consequential from this Budget, so there will be flexibility on the prioritisation of those funds—the £660 million.

There are aspects of this Budget that will benefit Northern Ireland in a positive way. For example, Northern Ireland stands ready to play its part in the technological revolution and the drive to make the United Kingdom the true world leader in this area. This is indeed the future, and Northern Ireland has an excellent offering to make. We have a very highly skilled employment base, with low staff turnover, and we have much innovation. Our universities, such as Queen’s University in my constituency of Belfast South, are prepared and determined to play a full part in this digital and tech revolution.

I welcome the fact that the Budget goes some way to acknowledge how difficult the past few years have been for many, including in Northern Ireland. The relaxation of the pay cap, particularly the welcome indications in relation to nurses’ pay, the stamp duty exemption and the increases in the personal allowance and the national living wage will bring much wanted and deeply desired financial support to many who are genuinely struggling.

Such matters apply directly in Northern Ireland, but I want to mention the Barnett consequential and the decisions that need to be made in Northern Ireland in relation to the Budget. It grieves me that there is no Executive in place to examine today’s proposals and make such decisions. We need an Executive to look at what is coming from this Budget, to listen to the people on the ground in Northern Ireland—organisations, those who benefit from public services, businesses that need to grow—and feed that back into and prioritise it for our own Northern Ireland budget.

We in the Democratic Unionist party are doing everything we can to bring government back to Northern Ireland, but we will not and we cannot be held to ransom by narrow and divisive cultural and identity politics. This is a terrible situation in Northern Ireland, and although there has been much talk in the House today about Brexit and its impact, in Northern Ireland we are in the twilight zone: we have a senior civil service in charge of Departments, with no accountability, because we have neither direct rule Ministers nor local Ministers. There is no constitutional or democratic accountability in Northern Ireland for public spending, and there has not been for 10 months. This is an appalling situation, and I urge the Government to step in and do everything they can to support the re-establishment of the Executive or to bring in direct rule Ministers, because this lack of democratic accountability cannot continue.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point about democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. Does she agree with the suggestion made by some that the pay of Members of the Legislative Assembly should be suspended until they manage to get together and form the Executive?

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I have only three minutes left, so I will not get into that specific issue, save to say that very many MLAs across Northern Ireland are working hard to try to restore government in Northern Ireland and to deliver for people in very difficult circumstances, but the entirety of Northern Ireland is being held to ransom—health and education are being held to ransom.

This is all the more important in relation to Brexit. I welcome the investment announced in the Budget today for ensuring a sensible and positive Brexit. Such a Brexit will require investment, and it is particularly important for Northern Ireland. However, because of the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive, it is incredibly difficult to make our case and ensure that we get the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland. A lot of nonsense has been spoken about this issue in recent days. In fact, what amounts almost to hysteria has been whipped up about it in the Republic of Ireland. This is vital to our economy. As has been reported today, things will be challenging on growth and productivity, but we are keen to fight for Northern Ireland through all this and get the best possible Brexit.

In conclusion, it is a disgrace that we have no Northern Ireland Finance Committee in place to examine this Budget and no Ministers to make decisions. The people on the ground are suffering, and it is because Sinn Féin is refusing to go back into government. At this time, a budget should be being brought forward for the Northern Ireland Assembly for next year. I was astounded that today, instead of examining this Budget and bringing forward proposals, our erstwhile Finance Minister, who is not in place, is standing outside Queen’s University at a student protest. That is a disgrace, as people are suffering.

I welcome today’s Budget statement and the fiscal loosening indicated within it. We will continue to raise issues of concern to Northern Ireland to ensure that we get the best deal. This is a bad situation, and the Government need to work with us to try to find solutions and deliver for all across all communities in Northern Ireland.

Finance Bill

Emma Little Pengelly Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the proposal in the Finance Bill, which adds to the previous decision about devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland and giving us autonomy to make decisions about what the appropriate level may be.

I am a bit bemused by new clause 2. The argument is that devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland and our having a different rate will somehow or other open the door to abuse. That objection could of course have been made, and more appropriately made, when the decision was made to devolve the tax in the first place. If it is open to abuse, it will create the kind of problems described by the shadow Minister, but if that were the case, I cannot understand why these issues were not raised at the time we voted on the principle of devolution. I suspect this is more to do with the fact that the Labour party is opposed to any reduction in corporation tax.

Let me address a couple of the points that have been made about extending this to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Minister made it quite clear that the criteria are, first, that they have to have a physical presence in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, that they have to register profits commensurate with the activities they engage in in Northern Ireland. That of course will have to be shown—by accounts, by employment, by the physical infrastructure that such a business would have in Northern Ireland—so there are already safeguards anyway. It can be measured whether an SME is simply moving paper money to register profits in Northern Ireland, or whether it is creating genuine jobs.

The biggest safeguard will be the decisions made by the Executive in Northern Ireland—if, indeed, an Executive is ever up and running again in Northern Ireland. We hope there will be, but that is one of the problems at the moment. It is not in the interests of the Northern Ireland Government to allow the situation that has been described by the Labour spokesman, for the simple reason that the payment for the devolution of corporation tax comes from the block grant. If we allow companies simply to migrate their business to Northern Ireland, register their accounts in Northern Ireland and declare their profits in Northern Ireland, but they do not actually create any physical activity in Northern Ireland, we will have to pay the amount of tax lost from the block grant. There will be no better policeman or policewoman of this than the Northern Ireland Executive themselves.

The review asked for—if there is any point in a review after a year—is therefore superfluous. First, there is the evidence that the company has to produce, and then there will be the scrutiny of HMRC. When we negotiated the devolution of corporation tax, compliance costs were built in, because of the additional scrutiny. It will also be in the interests of the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the system is not abused. For all those reasons, I believe that the new clause is superfluous. It is not needed, and we will therefore vote against it.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I want to raise one additional point. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has set out very well a number of our concerns about the proposed new clause. We have looked at this issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I had the privilege of being the Chairperson of the Finance Committee when we considered the detail of it. We listened to concerns from small business and to those outlined by the Opposition spokesperson, but the key objective is to attract new business and jobs to the UK. We do not necessarily want movement from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland. This is about foreign direct investment, trying to create new jobs and contributing positively to the economy of Northern Ireland and of the UK.

In Northern Ireland, we have looked at this issue for many years. It has been scrutinised by committees. We have had a range of consultants and others look at the detail of the proposal because we want it to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim said, we do not want it to be simply an exercise in brass-plating or anything like that. We want jobs, employment and further investment in Northern Ireland.

One of the big issues in terms of the movement and type of jobs we want is certainty. Certainty is essential if we are to get commitment from companies—hopefully, big companies—to move into the UK for the first time and to invest in plant and staff recruitment. The proposal in new clause 2 to have a review after 12 months will create uncertainty. What international business would look at the UK and invest in plant, employees and recruitment when one of the big incentives to moving—the lower corporation tax rate—could be removed following a review after just 12 months? It is essential that we remain positive about the measure and have certainty about it. I reiterate: we want new jobs for the UK, and we want them in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Review of changes to chargeability of trading profits to corporation tax at Northern Ireland rate

‘(1) CTA 2010 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 357WH (Allocation of Northern Ireland profits etc of firm to company), insert—

“357WI  Review of changes to chargeability of trading profits to corporation tax at Northern Ireland rate

(1) As soon as practicable after the completion of the first financial year in respect of which the Northern Ireland rate is set by the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the provisions of section 357IA, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the changes to chargeability of trading profits to corporation tax at the Northern Ireland rate made in Schedule 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

(2) A review under this section shall consider in particular the effect of those changes on the extent to which companies are based in—

(a) Northern Ireland, and

(b) Great Britain.

(3) A review under this section shall also consider the effect of those changes on the extent to which the profits or losses of companies and firms are Northern Ireland profits or losses.

(4) A review under this section shall also consider the effect on employment in—

(a) Northern Ireland, and

(b) Great Britain.

(5) A report of the review under this section shall be laid before the House of Commons within one calendar month of its completion.”” —(Jonathan Reynolds.)

This new clause requires HMRC to carry out a review after the first year of operation of the Northern Ireland rate of the effect of the changes in Schedule 7 on the location of companies in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, the extent to which trading profits and losses are treated as subject to the Northern Ireland rate and on employment in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.