Summer Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for whom I have so much respect.

I want to raise several issues briefly. The first is electric scooters. There is a Transport for London/Greater London Authority consultation on these illegal items. The Paris Mayor recently tightened regulations, not only because these scooters have been littering the streets of that great European city, as well as others which have licensed them—we see the same happening in London now, with more cycle hires available—but because in Paris they have killed five people and seriously injured more than 300, according to reports. We saw our own tragic first casualty recently in London.

The police, unsurprisingly, are not making this a priority. We need more clarity, and extending a licence to such scooters would be regrettable. The penalty for using e-scooters on land other than private land is a £300 fine and six points on a licence. For drivers who have recently passed their test, a six-point penalty means a driving ban, which means they have to pass their test again. That needs more publicity.

On leasehold, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), co-chair of the all-party group on leasehold reform, got a positive answer from the new Prime Minister earlier. We have a full programme of Government promises on ground rents, the right to manage, the ban on leasehold houses being sold, service charge and refurbishment cost protection, banning events fees and introducing commonhold. The previous Secretary of State engaged the Law Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority, and we await the Best report, which is due out at the end of this month. Hopefully, we will see the first legislation soon.

On connected matters, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who opened the debate, covered cladding and sprinklers. On the Government’s £200 million, which they have made available to the private sector, questions are still being asked about how to apply for the money, when it will be available and who will be able to access it. An update on progress with that, as well as on the failed non-ACM cladding which is being tested this summer by the Government, would be very welcome.

On ombudsman issues, recently I had an Adjournment debate on the accountability of housing associations. I raised the lack of clarity about the role of the local government and social care ombudsman and the housing ombudsman in holding housing associations to account. This week, I had a very good meeting with Mr Michael King, the chair and ombudsman at the local government and social care ombudsman organisation. I am grateful to him for clarifying the position for me.

Mr King advised me that the Government had introduced an ombudsman Bill in 2016, which would have merged some of the ombudsman services, but that it was a casualty of the 2016 referendum and the 2017 general election. Since then, Wales and Northern Ireland have gone down that route. Indeed, they have gone further and included the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in the same service. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House’s office could advise me whether the Bill might reappear at some point to streamline and strengthen ombudsman services, which hold to account so many public services and servants in England on the public’s behalf.

In the past two weeks, we have seen the refreshed road safety statement, which is very welcome. However, it has initiated another two-year study on a graduated licensing scheme and targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads, which inevitably means more delays in making progress on those issues.

On deaf issues, news on the British Sign Language GCSE has gone quiet, which I hope means that work is being undertaken. We are still awaiting an outcome on deaf access to NHS services, bursaries for teachers of the deaf and other issues.

We also await an outcome on better support from the Department for International Development for small charities in the UK that are doing such great work across the world.

Following the Prime Minister’s statement, I look forward to more support for my local authority, Tower Hamlets, and our local schools, which are both suffering from years of severe cuts, and to the extra police officers to address antisocial behaviour, although I am not hugely optimistic that we will get all that.

As a Labour MP, I want to say that I am embarrassed and ashamed at my party’s response to the antisemitism allegations against us. I do not think we will get past this until the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry reports.

Finally, we know that we are not going on holiday for six weeks—it is the summer recess. One colleague in this debate last year finished her speech by saying “Happy holidays,” which was not entirely helpful. I wish everybody associated with the Palace, including all colleagues, a decent break during the summer recess.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I understand that some residual concerns have been raised by welfare groups, but I assure the hon. Lady that the definition set out will be adequate. In fact, the Scottish Government arrived at a very similar definition.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he believes that the definition is adequate, but surely he will concede that such matters can be explored and tested in Committee. If it can be demonstrated that the definition is not as clear as it ought to be, will the Government be open to amending the Bill before Third Reading?

[David Rutley]

Of course, in Committee, we will have the chance to review these things in more detail. There has been ongoing discussion with Opposition Front Benchers about the Committee process.

Clause 1(2) defines “use” as either performance or exhibition. It should cover circumstances in which wild animals are put on display at the circus, usually just adjacent to the big top, as well as performances in the ring. The penalty for a circus operator who is found guilty of using a wild animal in a travelling circus is an unlimited fine; the Animal Welfare Act 2006 also provides powers to seize animals where there are grounds to do so.

Subsection (4) provides for corporate liability where the circus operator is a corporate entity. Subsection (5) sets out definitions of terms used throughout clause 1, including “wild animal”—a term that is well understood and has already been defined in other legislation such as the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. We have largely replicated that approach in the Bill:

“‘wild animal’ means an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain”.

To meet that definition, an animal does not have to have been born in the wild. Most of the wild animals currently in English circuses have been bred in captivity, usually from several generations of circus animals, but that does not make them domesticated. Domestication is a process that happens over many generations—hundreds of years, if not thousands.

To return to a question asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), clause 1 does not define “travelling circus”. The term is left to take its common meaning, which we believe the courts will have no trouble in interpreting. Indeed, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s July 2013 report on the draft Bill agreed that we did not need to include a definition of the term; nor was a circus itself defined by the Scottish Parliament in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018. Defining a circus in a specific way might be unhelpful, because it could provide parameters for an operator to seek to evade the ban.

The common meaning of “circus” is

“a company of performers who put on shows with diverse entertainments, often of a daring or exciting nature, that may include, for example, acts such as…acrobats, trapeze acts…tightrope walkers, jugglers, unicyclists”.

The role of wild animals in a circus, when they are used, is to provide an entertaining spectacle for our amusement, often as a way to demonstrate the skill or dominance of the trainer. That is outdated, and it is what we are legislating against.

Clause 2 relates to inspections, for which powers are set out in the schedule. Inspectors will be appointed by the Secretary of State, although we envisage that the numbers required will be small. We already have a small panel of inspectors to enforce the interim wild animals in circuses licensing regime, all of whom are drawn from the Department’s list of zoo licensing veterinary inspectors and are highly experienced in the handling and treatment of wild animals in captivity. Inspectors will be appointed on a case-by-case basis by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to investigate evidence of any offence.

Clause 3 will make a minor consequential amendment to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which requires persons who wish to keep dangerous wild animals to be licensed. Those who keep dangerous wild animals in a circus are currently exempted from that requirement, but once the new ban comes into force, there should no longer be any vertebrate dangerous wild animals in travelling circuses. We have therefore taken a belt-and-braces approach to make it clear that using dangerous wild vertebrate animals in a travelling circus is not allowed.

The Scottish Government, who have already introduced a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland, have asked us to extend to Scotland our amendment to the 1976 Act, and we are pleased to enable that request. Once again, we are grateful for the Scottish Government’s work on this and many other aspects of animal welfare. The Welsh Government are considering their own ban; we have also discussed the matter with the Northern Ireland Government, who are not in a position to consider a ban at this point.

Clause 4 provides for the Bill to come into force on 20 January 2020, the day after the interim circus licensing regulations expire. I hope that I have already reassured hon. Members that it will come into effect in a timely way.

It is worth clarifying what the Bill will not do. First, I make it absolutely clear that we are not proposing to ban circuses, only their use of wild animals. Plenty of travelling circuses do not use wild animals, or indeed any animals, in their acts; the Bill will have no impact on them. Nor will it stop circus operators owning wild animals. If circuses wish to continue to own them after the ban is enacted, they will be subject to the appropriate licensing requirements, for example under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or under the Department’s 2018 licensing regulations for animals hired out for TV or film productions. If a circus does not intend to continue using wild animals in other work, we expect to see retirement plans being deployed under the interim licensing regulations.

Nor will the ban lead to the banning of other animal exhibits such as falconry displays, zoos, farm parks or the sort of displays that we might see at summer fêtes in our constituencies. Even though such activities may move animal displays from one place to another, they do not fall within the ordinary interpretation of a circus and will therefore not meet the definition of a travelling circus. We do not wish to ban them, because we acknowledge that they have a role to play in education. The important distinction is that circuses move from A to B to C, whereas other displays may go to one place, come back to a home base and go to another place some time later—they are a very different activity.

Lastly, the Bill will apply only to wild animals. I know from parliamentary debates and from my Department’s postbag that the overriding concern is about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, which is precisely what the Bill will address. Other domestic animals such as horses and dogs will continue to be subject to inspections under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 to ensure that the highest welfare standards are met.

Continuing to allow wild animals to perform often absurd and unnecessary behaviours for our amusement in travelling circuses goes against the Government’s efforts towards—and the House’s interests in—raising awareness and respect for animals. People can continue to enjoy the experience of going to a circus, but we must move on from the age when wild animals were paraded around as a spectacle. We want people to see animals in a more dignified and natural setting. We cannot make that message clearer than by introducing this Bill to ban that practice. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I support the Bill, not least because, as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I spoke in favour of such a Bill on many occasions. As a number of Members have pointed out, it has been on the agenda for some time—it was a manifesto commitment in both 2015 and 2017—and, as the Minister said, the existing licensing regulations will expire in 2020, so it is necessary to ensure that we have something with which to replace them.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member before I became a Minister, examined this issue in some detail. At that point, the committee proposed a slightly different approach to dealing with this challenge. It proposed an annexe to the Bill listing the animals that would not be allowed to be in travelling circuses: a negative list. We envisaged that the most controversial species—lions, tigers and elephants—would be banned immediately, and that other species, such as snakes and camels, could also be removed in due course. I understand that, in the event, DEFRA took the view that that was over-complicating the issue, given that 19 species were involved, and that a simple ban was what was needed.

As the Minister said, this has been on the agenda since 2011. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who has just left the Chamber, initiated a number of debates at that time. The initial debate followed a public reaction to the terrible abuse of Anne the elephant in one of the circuses in this country. I am happy to say that a couple of years ago I visited Longleat safari park, where Anne now has a new home, is being properly cared for, and is ending her days in a suitable fashion.

Now that the Bill is before us, I think it important for us to perform our role as legislators: to scrutinise it, and to ensure that there are no inconsistencies in its application. As the Minister pointed out, it is a rather unusual Bill to deal with the regulation of animal welfare and the way in which we manage animals. It imposes a ban not on the grounds of animal welfare, but on ethical grounds.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have great respect for the former Minister, as he knows. Does he share my lack of understanding of the fact that animal welfare was never a reason for us to ban wild animals in circuses, and that—as he has just mentioned—we had to find alternative ethical grounds? Surely the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was the appropriate vehicle for these measures.

[George Eustice]

It was, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, the legal advice was that these were not necessarily animal welfare issues per se.

I support the Bill. I have argued for it, and I want it to be passed. A number of Members have said that it is perhaps a little overdue; I was in the Department and it took time for this to be done, so I cannot criticise others on that front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called to participate briefly in this uncontroversial and consensual debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish); although we sit on opposite sides of the House, we are on very good terms and share a lot of common ground, especially on animal welfare issues. Like him, and everyone else who has spoken and is likely to speak, I support the Bill, and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on bringing it forward. I am grateful to the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation and the Commons Library for their briefings and assistance.

This Bill has been quite a long time getting here. Its provisions were omitted from the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and picked up again by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2009, following continued lobbying by animal welfare groups. I was Minister of State then, and the consultation in 2009 that we held on this issue, as mentioned by the Minister, led me and the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to say approaching the 2010 general election that if re-elected we were minded to ban wild animals in circuses, but of course we never got the chance. The coalition then ran into a number of the same obstacles Labour had encountered when in office, and immediately the Bill was back in the slow lane.

Various explanations followed, such as that it was a European matter, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and that it could not be determined by nation states. The suspicion arose that there was a departmental disagreement between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and DEFRA and the Government could not agree on a unified position, or it was said that a licensing regime could do the job better. However, as has been said, neither side of the House was persuaded by any of the explanations and there were various debates, oral questions, written parliamentary questions, ten-minute rule Bills, lobbies and public pressure, all the way to the next general election in 2015. At that time, every main political party went into the general election committed to a ban. Public support has always been high, at more than 70%, and the consultation we held in 2009 showed that more than 94% were in support of a ban.

It is not difficult to conclude that transporting wild animals around the country in heavy goods vehicles and keeping them in temporary confined spaces for the duration of visits to various locations is not in the best interest of the animals, physically or psychologically, and that it is contrary to their welfare. I am sure that the public got that before the Government did. There is confusion as to whether this is an animal welfare issue or an ethical one. I understand that there are some separations, but locking wild animals up in HGVs and transporting them around the country, then putting them in small temporary enclosures for the duration of visits, is primarily an animal welfare issue. If taking the ethics route gets the job done, I am happy to do that, but I believe that there is a fundamental animal welfare question here as well.

The British Veterinary Association concludes:

“The welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within a travelling circus—in terms of housing or being able to express normal behaviour.”

That is what I think is called a no-brainer. The RSPCA has raised four issues that it wants to see addressed in Committee. Several of them have already been mentioned, so I will not repeat the arguments, but the headings are: the definition of a travelling circus; the power of the courts to disqualify individuals from keeping wild animals; the limits of appointed inspectors; and the powers to seize animals. The Minister has generously indicated that both Ministers will be prepared to discuss all those matters in Committee.

Given that we have all waited so long, we want the best conclusion and the best Bill. We want to ensure that it is as fit for purpose as we can make it. Given the assurances that we have received from the Minister, I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Bill. I am confident that we will continue to adopt the consensual tone that has characterised this Second Reading debate and that we will get the Bill on the statute book in less time than it has taken to get to this point.

Puppy Smuggling

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I was a member of his Committee for three years, and I spent a long time following him, so this is not a novel experience. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on having secured this debate.

Suffice it to say, the illegal transportation of puppies is a serious issue. Underage and unvaccinated animals are being smuggled from mainland Europe for sale in the UK, causing suffering to those puppies and endangering the health of animals here. Concerns about the illegal transportation of puppies include underage puppies being removed from their mothers too young and fears that some vets are falsifying data on pet passports for the pet travel scheme, including falsely declaring that puppies are more than eight weeks of age. Illegal importation is putting pressure on animal rescue centres, particularly in the south-east of England, and controls at border inspection posts are few and ineffective. It is still unclear how those will operate as Britain leaves the EU. There are also concerns about consumer protection and the risk to human health.

The RSPCA believes that the market for the puppy trade in Britain is anywhere from 700,000 to 1.9 million pups annually. Poor breeding, dealing and trading practices can have a long-term impact on animal welfare, leading to chronic health and behaviour problems and disappointed consumers, who find their new puppies falling ill or dying not long after purchase. Many would like to see the reintroduction of the requirement for a rabies blood test, which would reduce the risk of disease spreading, and the introduction of a wait period. Will the Minister comment on that?

Puppy smuggling is a shameful practice that causes trauma to innocent dogs and can lead to the spread of diseases to other dogs and humans in the UK. Puppies ought to be protected from that treatment, and consumers ought to be prevented from unwittingly purchasing an animal that may be unhealthy and badly behaved. It is time to raise sentences, bring in more rigorous border checks and increase consumer understanding to ensure that this immoral trade is stamped out and that animals are kept free from harm. I thank Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA for their briefings.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I could not resist the opportunity to say what a delight it is to see you, Ms Buck, in the Chair. We both came into Parliament in 1997 and this is the first time I have served on a Committee where you have been in the Chair. May I say how expertly you have handled proceedings this morning?

I am sorry for not being here at the start. I wish I could blame Southeastern trains. The only accusation I can make against them is that they caught me out by being on time this morning.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I just want to say, as someone who has served under Ms Buck, she always does a great job.

[Clive Efford]

Yes, and I would not suggest that she falls down in her performance in any way.

I wanted to rise to say congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. I call him my friend because, although others might not know this, we have known each other for 40 years. We used to run a football team in south-east London together when I was a youth worker. What a tremendous job he did back then, being very compassionate and committed to the young people from that part of London. I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but it is a pleasure to see him here and I wish him all success with his Bill. I hope that he succeeds in steering it through and getting it on to the statute book. Congratulations to him.

Animal Rescue Centres

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered animal rescue centres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Having lost two thirds of my first minute, I am pleased that my speech will go on for only 12 minutes, so I should be able to accommodate one or two colleagues who have indicated that they might wish to intervene. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and Blue Cross for their briefings, and Richard Mitchell in my office for pulling them all together. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place.

This is a relatively simple issue: animal cruelty is wrong, we recognise that in our laws, and there are penalties for those who break those laws. But there is an ongoing debate in Government about whether those laws need strengthening. There seems to be a consensus across most animal welfare organisations, which have long campaigned for increased sentences for animal cruelty and are working to change legislation, to increase the maximum sentence from six months to five years’ imprisonment. Some 250,000 pets who have been badly treated, abused or abandoned enter their centres every year, yet the custodial penalty of six months on conviction is the lowest custodial penalty in 100 jurisdictions across four continents.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the consensus on the need for change reaches this side of the House too? Does he agree that there is a good case for setting up an animal abuse register, so that those who abuse animals can be tracked down and prevented from keeping animals in future?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I very much take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not a party political issue. Indeed, most of my comments do not attack the Government but commend them for the comments and proposals they have made. However, we need to move on. He makes an interesting suggestion, and perhaps the Minister will respond to it.

Animal cruelty offenders are five times more likely to have a violent crime record. Welfare organisations were pleased when the Government issued the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill in December 2018. Those organisations have long argued that several of the activities covered by the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 were in serious need of review.

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

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern that there is no statutory regulation of animal rescue centres in the UK. Since local authorities do not collect that information, I submitted a freedom of information request to every local authority in England and found that only 18% of rescue homes are regulated, through their membership of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. Does he agree that is extremely concerning, and does he welcome the efforts of the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and others to implement statutory regulations?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend has been assiduous on this issue. I will move on to the ADCH later on and will recognise the work of the RSPCA and others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward a good issue for us to debate in Westminster Hall, as he always does. I told him earlier that my wife is a volunteer at Assisi Animal Sanctuary. There are many organisations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that do exceptional work and are regularly monitored. Assisi is one of those, as is the RSPCA, PAWS and Dogs Trust—there are some good examples. Does he think that the Government should perhaps look at the good examples when bringing together the legislation?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on her work. I mentioned four of the main organisations, but there are many across the country working in this field and I pay tribute to them all; they do fantastic work and we appreciate it.

The 2018 regulations refresh the licensing regime for: selling animals as pets; dog breeding; boarding kennels; boarding for cats; home boarding for dogs; day care for dogs—regulated for the first time—hiring horses; and keeping animals for exhibition.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Next week I will visit Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, as I do nearly every Christmas, to look at the fantastic work it does. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an onus on breeders? When dogs have breeding problems, often the rescue centres or the adopting families have to sort them out. Once the breeders have sold the dogs, the unscrupulous ones will forget about that dog even if it has a breeding problem. Does my hon. Friend believe that breeders have a responsibility?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a relevant and eloquent point. I can add to his criticism of unscrupulous breeders. That problem needs to be addressed.

The 2018 regulations do not address the regulation of rescue centres. The RSPCA has issued a position statement on licensing animal rescue and rehoming centres. It believes that the Government should introduce licensing of animal rescue and rehoming centres under the 2018 regulations. It feels that would close a legal loophole as well as drive up standards and allow for enforcement. Usefully, there are standards already in existence that would assist with licensing and reduce the burden on local authorities.

It is important to get the definition of an animal sanctuary or rescue or rehoming centre right, to ensure the correct establishments are captured by any new law. Blue Cross comments that there is a growing trend for the establishment of “rescue centres” to import dogs from abroad to sell on to members of the public—not genuine rescue centres as we would understand them.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is a former colleague from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, where we have raised this issue many times. Northern Ireland has different legislation—we toughened our legislation over the past few years. Does he agree that stiffer penalties need to be introduced for those found using dogs for dog fighting and gambling?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. The Select Committee on which we served—he is still a distinguished member—has looked at the issue, which is troubling for welfare organisations and needs Government attention.

The RSPCA believes that all rescue and rehoming centres and sanctuaries should be licensed under the animal regulations, first, to close the loophole in the third-party ban on sales and prevent third-party sellers from setting up as animal rescue centres. Secondly, it would improve the welfare of animals kept in such establishments by creating a legislative structure that drives improvements and standards of keeping and allows the enforcement of such standards. Thirdly, standards already exist that would assist licensing to reduce the burden on local authorities.

The RSPCA also believes there is a risk that third-party sellers could become rescue centres, to evade the ban on third-party sales, so it would welcome the licensing of rescue centres and sanctuaries. Indeed, some pet shops already have a charitable arm, such as Pets at Home, which has the Support Adoption for Pets operation that sells animals that have been abandoned and rescued, such as rabbits, to rescue organisations or gives them back to Pets at Home.

The RSPCA stresses that if a charity’s aims are generic and those aims are—on the face of it—being followed, the Charity Commission could be limited in the actions it could take, even if the organisation is a front that was set up to avoid the third-party ban. It argues that licensing rescue centres would close that loophole. Specialist knowledge is required to operate an animal sanctuary or rescue or rehoming centre, in terms of management and administrative skills as well as expertise in caring for animals. All sanctuaries should be required to obtain a licence to carry on such activities. The RSPCA does not believe that there should be a size or animal number threshold below which establishments should be excluded from licensing. Organisations and individuals operating as rescue centres can, despite their laudable original aims, become overwhelmed and struggle to meet welfare standards.

The RSPCA undertakes around 85% of enforcement action deriving from the Animal Welfare Act 2006. As well as the standards coming into force as part of the 2018 regulations, ADCH, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) mentioned, has a code of practice, which sets standards of animal care. That may be a good basis for the licensing of rescue and rehoming centres, and may aid local authorities to enforce any licensing regime.

ADCH has 132 members in eight countries. The majority—more than 80—are located in England. ADCH, which is 33 years old, has had enforceable standards since 2015. Those standards, which are both self-audited and externally audited, cover the management and governance of a centre, as well as the health and welfare of the cats and dogs in it and transported to it. However, membership of ADCH is voluntary, so rehoming organisations and animal sanctuaries are not required to adhere to the code of practice unless they choose to become a member and meet those requirements.

Although self-regulation is an important step in the right direction, formal regulation is required to ensure that all establishments, as opposed to just those that want to, meet suitable levels of animal welfare. One possibility is for ADCH members that apply and are audited against the ADCH standards to be defined as low risk in a licensing regime.

The RSPCA understands that discussions are under way in Scotland and Wales about improving standards in sanctuaries and in rescue and rehoming centres, and, in Scotland, about introducing a licensing system. In Wales, a definition of places called “animal welfare establishments” has been proposed for the Government to consider, based on discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Dogs Trust has also weighed in. It points out that there is currently no legislation in place, so anyone can set themselves up as a rehoming organisation or sanctuary. Furthermore, there is little proactively to safeguard the animals involved, as local authorities are not required to inspect those premises, so they do not do so. It adds that poor welfare can have a knock-on effect when an animal is rehomed.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech about why we need better regulation. The Hope sanctuary in Llanharan is in my constituency, where the local authority simply does not have the money or the capacity to check licences. That is part of a wider cuts agenda in local government. Does he agree that, in some cases, these services are there to try to support local government because it no longer has the capacity to protect animals?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend has much better knowledge of his local centre than I do, and the fact that he is concerned about it concerns me. I am glad that he called my speech impassioned—I am actually hastening to try to get through it, having taken a number of interventions. I hope to get to the end, and I hope the Minister understands that I may run over by a few minutes.

Dogs Trust calls on the Government to address the lack of regulation of the rehoming sector as a means of protecting our nation’s animals and creating transparency in the industry. It wants the Government to regulate all rehoming organisations and animal sanctuaries through a system of registration and licensing. It also recommends that the Government should develop an independent, centrally accessible team of appropriately trained inspectors that can be utilised by all local authorities to inspect animal establishments—not only rehoming centres and sanctuaries, but those involved in activities such as boarding, breeding and selling.

The Pet Advertising Advisory Group, which is chaired by Dogs Trust, also operates a system of self-regulation for online adverts offering pets for sale. Owing to its voluntary nature, PAAG has reached a plateau in the progress it can achieve, as some websites are unwilling to engage and apply the group’s minimum standards for online adverts. With no obligation on those who do not want to engage to improve, self-regulation will always be limited to those who want to do more to protect animal welfare.

In late 2017, the Scottish Government consulted on introducing a registration and licensing system for animal sanctuaries and rehoming activities in Scotland, following the discovery of bad practice at Ayrshire Ark and the subsequent “Sort Our Shelters” campaign by The Scottish Sun. The Scottish Government published a summary of responses and are now drafting regulations. The RSPCA recently conducted multiple operations, which Dogs Trust supported to ensure that there was sufficient capacity to house all the animals seized. In 2013, six members of staff at Crunchy’s animal rescue centre in Oxfordshire were convicted of nearly 100 counts of animal cruelty.

Although the regulations do not cover rescue centres, the Government have committed to banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens under six months of age, with an exemption for rescue centres. It is essential that regulation of rescue centres is delivered hand in hand with that ban to prevent damaging unintended consequences, which may include such places being prevented from rehoming puppies and kittens legally and third-party dealers passing themselves off as rescue centres to circumvent the ban. I welcome the news that the Government are minded to make that change.

Currently, any person, organisation or animal welfare establishment that regularly receives vulnerable animals with a view to rehoming them, rehabilitating them or providing them with long-term care can do so across the UK without licensing or regulation. The only organisation that provides mentorship to smaller rescue centres and actively works to raise standards is ADCH, which is run by Battersea and has already been mentioned.

Another example of worst practice was highlighted at Capricorn Animal Rescue in Mold, north Wales. The Charity Commission had been investigating governance issues, but RSPCA Cymru had to step in following a request for support. In the past couple of years, Capricorn has been subject to protests and petitions by former volunteers concerned about its animal welfare standards. Those issues have been raised locally with my right hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (David Hanson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and they are on the case.

The most senior animal welfare charities are very concerned about the vacuum in this area of animal protection. The Government have made reassuring noises on the issue—their consultation indicated that they are minded to provide stiffer sentences and to look at the absence of regulation—and Scotland and Wales are moving on it, too. As I said, this is not an attack on the Government. I welcome what they have said, and I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us about what action he plans to take and the expected timeframe for that action.

2019 Loan Charge

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on setting up this important debate. I, too, am grateful to the Loan Charge Action Group for its briefing and, in particular, to our former colleague in the House, Greg Mulholland, for his assistance in preparing for the debate.

A number of constituents have contacted me about this issue, and I will focus on the questions that they wish me to put to the Minister at the end of my remarks. I will make a few comments beforehand, though, first on the numbers of people affected, which seem to be in dispute. There has already been mention of several figures: 40,000, 50,000 and 100,000. If I read the Library briefing correctly, Mr David Richardson, director of customer strategy at HMRC, said to the Treasury Committee that there were 105,000 cases, 80,000 of which were unresolved. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify exactly what the numbers are.

The second issue is the jobs that some of the victims have. The Loan Charge Action Group says:

“The Loan Charge affects many tens of thousands of professionals—contractors, freelancers, agency workers including social workers, supply teachers, locum nurses and doctors who were recommended to use umbrella companies by employers, professional advisers and employment agencies.

For many people the sums involved run into hundreds of thousands of pounds”.

The group goes on to say:

“Schemes were, and still are, legal and in most cases the motivation behind their use was not to reduce tax but simply to comply with the poorly drafted IR35 legislation, which”,

18 years on, “remains unclear.” It is misunderstood, and certainly the origin of this issue does seem to be the IR35 regulations. I have been dealing with cases for constituents about that for the past 18 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made reference, as did the hon. Member for Wycombe, to the Loan Charge Action Group’s analysis of the impact. She quoted the figures about those who are affected. Some 68% were affected by depression or mental impact, 71% by bankruptcy, 49% by loss of resident home, 30% by divorce and relationship breakdown, 30% by loss of career, and 39% by suicide or self-harm thoughts. The biggest issue for all my constituents and the action group is the retrospective nature of the legislation, which the hon. Member for Wycombe focused on. That has been raised many times already, and the key question remains about the transparent unfairness of this decision.

My constituents have requested that I put a number of questions to the Minister. I recognise that he is not directly responsible for this policy, but I am sure he has a briefing that will cover at least some of the questions that my constituents have asked me to raise, because they are quite predictable.

Why did it take HMRC 20 years to take official action? Why did HMRC not email or write to loan users over the past 20 years, to ask them to come out of these schemes and the associated risks, when it had the relevant information on the yearly individual self-assessment tax returns? Why ask for 20 years’ retrospective payment for something that was and is legal? Why has an appeal format been refused to loan scheme users, leaving costly judicial review as the only alternative, which single individuals cannot afford by themselves?

Why cannot HMRC just admit that it did not perform due diligence on the loan schemes? Why, when public sector contractors were asked to move into IR35 in 2018 so that they could pay the right amount of tax, did they not get retroactive tax to pay? Why did PricewaterhouseCoopers get away with 35% early discount on a £10 million fine in 2017 for a failed BHS audit? Apart from going bankrupt or committing suicide, how does HMRC expect most individuals to be able to repay such sums at short notice?

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden also mentioned a letter the action group received saying that HMRC contractors are now being pursued by HMRC due to the loan charge. The Loan Charge Action Group has now discovered that HMRC itself was using and paying contractors who are now subject to the loan charge. The LCAG has been contacted by people in that situation reporting that they are working on important IT projects for HMRC, were security-cleared by HMRC, and were working through arrangements that HMRC has now declared to be tax avoidance schemes. In effect, that means that HMRC was itself involved in arrangements that it now says “never worked.” The action group commented:

“This turns this from fiasco into farce.”

Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

More than 100 colleagues have signed the early-day motion. This is clearly an issue that the Government have to address. There is a massive impact on the lives of those affected, including my constituents. They look to HMRC for fairness, and I trust that the Minister’s response will indicate that that is a possibility. If it is not, I look forward to a cross-party, Back-Bench new clause to the Finance Bill, which, based on the numbers here today, would stand a good chance of passing through the House.

Summer Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. The Government have moved positively on a number of issues recently. Last Thursday, for example, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made not one but two announcements that were very welcome—albeit late, but not on his watch. First, he announced a full-scale review of approved document B, which contains statutory guidance on building regulations relevant to fire, following Dame Judith Hackitt’s well-received review. Secondly, the Secretary of State announced the decision to introduce mandatory requirements of landlords in the private rented sector to ensure five-yearly inspections of electrical installations in their properties. This has been a long-standing request by various organisations, including the Electrical Safety Council, so I would like to commend the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for this.

Antisocial behaviour seems to be flourishing, especially in my constituency, with issues as trivial as ignoring personal space all the way through to life-threatening violence. I, like other colleagues, receive many emails about antisocial behaviour, including boy racers in cars, noisy and threatening mopeds, late night and early morning loud gatherings, block invasions, verbal and physical abuse of women and members of the LGBT community, open drug dealing, damage to property, and the rest. It is just not acceptable.

Moving to leasehold, there is a lack of protection for leaseholders on so many issues, including: service charges; refurbishment costs; recognition of residents associations; inflated insurance costs; forfeiture; outrageous event fees; lease extensions; cladding reform and replacement; interim fire costs; commonhold; the ground rent scandal; and dispute resolution at first-tier tribunals, which will be the subject of my Adjournment debate later. That dreadful list of problems is faced by 5 million leaseholders every day. The Government are moving encouragingly on many of these issues, but Administrations have failed in this regard a number of times over the past 30 years. I hope that this Government will get it right this time. It would be helpful to have a timetable for how they intend to make progress.

On deafness, the Government have signalled a change of position on the possibility of a GCSE in British sign language, and I welcome the recent comments from the Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb).

I welcome the Department for International Development’s review of grants and the establishment of the small charities challenge fund. I am sure that this will help a number of organisations doing great work. I also welcome the opportunity to meet the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is also a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to discuss assistance for a charity called Fire Aid, which I chair.

One question for the Government on animal welfare that keeps being asked is when we might see the law changed. The Government promised this in relation to a five-year sentence for animal cruelty. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), stated on 13 June that a Bill would come forward in this Session. Organisations such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home would be reassured to have more clarity about when this will take place.

I want to refer to an individual constituent’s immigration case that has troubled members of my staff to the extent that they have personally been raising funds for his distraught family. Mr Golam Rabbani is dying; of that there is no doubt. He has no recourse to funds or benefits. He has a wife and two children, and he has been in the UK for 14 years. We have tried to get an early decision on the family’s application to remain before their father and husband dies. Given their length of stay in the UK, they have a very strong case. It is heartbreaking to witness a system with such limited capacity for discretion and understanding. It is my belief that Mr Rabbani would no longer be with us were it not for his will to keep going in the hope of seeing his family’s rights guaranteed. When might we see some compassion in this area?

My final two issues are universal credit and housing. I commend the campaign of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his team, who are putting pressure on the Government to do more on housing, and affordable housing in particular. On universal credit, there is general agreement that the principle has support across the House, but the problems besetting the introduction are causing many claimants great hardship. I do not object to a sanctions regime, because no one should be able to rip off the taxpayer and claim that to which they are not entitled. However, things seem to have gone too far, and the Government just do not seem to get that.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, Mr Speaker, staff and colleagues a decent break during the recess, and I wish the Government success in their Brexit negotiations, which I am sure will not cease simply because the Commons is in recess.

Air Quality and Shore-to-Ship Charging

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a sad occasion that I cannot entirely join in the good wishes of the Deputy Leader of the House for the Easter Adjournment, because I am still here, along with you, Mr Speaker, and indeed a number of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have come to hear this debate and possibly to intervene briefly. I am very appreciative of their taking the time to stay behind, and indeed, of the Minister for coming along this afternoon to hear the last Adjournment debate before we finally start our Easter recess.

The city that I represent is home to one of the UK’s largest ports. Southampton’s thriving port hosts large numbers of container vessels, roll-on/roll-off ships transporting vehicles, and many general cargo ships, along with being the main UK base for cruise ships. In just the next five days in Southampton, more than 60 large vessels are due to arrive at the port, including five cruise ships, nine large vehicle/ro-ro vessels and 10 large container ships. They are all very welcome to the port. Southampton port is not just a great asset to Southampton, but is a national trading and passenger asset in its own right.

The ships are varied in size, content and function, but they all have one thing in common: when they are in port, often for several days at a time, they keep themselves going—their heating, lighting, power and so on—by running their engines and on-board generators as if they were at sea. During that period, a cruise liner, particularly, will consume an enormous amount of fuel—estimated to be some 2,500 litres of diesel per hour—in running its generators and keeping facilities in good order for perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 passengers. If we take account of the crew members and all the other people who are on the vessel, a cruise liner in port in the middle of Southampton running its engines in this way might be likened to a small town, perhaps the size of Romsey, turning up in the middle of a city and running exclusively on diesel generators, with all the consequences that that has for nitrous oxide and particulate emissions across the area.

At the same time, Southampton is one of 18 cities in the UK facing possible infraction proceedings because of air quality issues in the city. Measures are under way in Southampton on the basis of commendable action by the city council to get a grip on air quality, including a future clean air zone for the city centre. The port of Southampton is working hard on its shoreside emissions. The port overall can be extrapolated as contributing overall perhaps some 25% of total emissions—of nitrous oxide, sulphur and particulates—but to date, it has not been able to do anything about the central fact of ships berthed in the port.

However, something can be done and indeed is being done in a number of ports across the world—that is, to plug vessels arriving in port into the port’s mains electricity system, so that a ship can switch off its engines and rely on shore power to do the job. Ports in a number of parts of the world, including the United States, the far east and some parts of Europe, have installed shore-to-ship electrical supplies—essentially a very large plug deriving electrical supply from local power that goes into an equally large socket on the ship at berth to take over the running of the ship’s power in port.

Shore-to-ship power is a very simple and relatively low-cost alternative to ships powering themselves when in ports close to densely populated areas. It also, potentially, makes money for ships at berth, since it is far cheaper for them to run on local power than to burn bunker fuel while in port. It certainly saves on emissions: a recent study in the United States showed that cruise vessels using shore power in one location saved 99% of their nitrous oxide emissions and between 60% and 70% of particulate emissions. Increasing numbers of vessels visiting ports in the UK now have the equipment on board that allows them to plug in. The problem is, though, that there are no shore facilities installed in Southampton, or indeed in any medium or large commercial port anywhere in the UK.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the argument he outlines. Does he believe that the absence of the shore-to-ship power supply is caused by a lack of regulation? Will he come on to what the shipping companies are expected to be able to do in terms of plugging in? Is it the responsibility of the port? Have the Government legislated on what ought to be the best practice in ports?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend has raised some important points, and I shall touch on some of them in a moment. There are currently no regulations that would mandate the introduction of shore-to-ship power, although it is possible that European Union directives could be used for the purpose.

To the credit of Southampton port, it is looking into whether it can install facilities in one cruise liner berth, but, as far as I know, it is alone in that. No other major port in the United Kingdom is following suit. The arguments that are presented for doing nothing about it are multiple and familiar. It is argued that not enough ships have the facilities to “plug in”, so it would be a waste of money, or that it is too expensive to take the plunge unilaterally, or that there are other ways in which emissions from ships might be reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I do agree, and in a moment I shall refer to the support that the Government might be able to provide. If we are to roll out shore-to-ship power across the country, we shall need a combination of stick and carrot.

The £100 million that I have just mentioned would, however, largely be recovered—eventually—in fees in subsequent years, because ships coming into port would be charged for the electricity that they used, although it would be cheaper for them than using their own bunker fuel. It is true that some companies are making an effort to modify the fuel that is used by generators when ships are in port so that they run on, say, liquid petroleum gas rather than diesel or bunker fuel, but nothing comes close to the benefit of shore-to-ship supply.

So how can we make a break in the apparent stand-off that currently exists in the UK? Ports may be aware that shore-to-ship power is beginning to happen seriously around the world, and ships are increasingly turning up ready to go, but everyone is looking over their shoulder to see whether anyone else is moving first. It might, commendably, be Southampton—although even then the initiative is for only one berth, which is a start but leaves a long way to go—but Southampton should not be in such a position.

My central call this afternoon is for Government to take the lead in the creation of a level playing field for all ports in the UK for shore-to-ship installations by giving notice of an intention to mandate their use in ports by a specified date and, if I can venture a suggestion, to place aside a modest fund to assist ports in installing the necessary equipment over the specified implementation period.

That is not exactly a novel idea, because an EU directive already exists—directive 2014/94/EU, to be precise, known as the alternative fuels infrastructure directive or AFID. It says this on shore-to-ship power, in article 4(5):

“Member States shall ensure that the need for shore-side electricity supply for inland waterway…and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports is assessed in their national policy frameworks. Such shore-side electricity supply shall be installed as a priority in ports of the TEN-T Core Network, and in other ports, by 31 December 2025”.

Article 4(6) states:

“Member States shall ensure that shore-side electricity supply installations for maritime transport, deployed or renewed as from 18 November 2017, comply with the technical specifications set out in point 1.7 of Annex II.”

The Government have consulted and responded to the consultation on the directive, except that in the consultation they have scrupulously put the implementation of article 4(6) into train by insisting that statutory operators

“must ensure that new or renewed shore side supply installations must comply with certain technical standards”.

Frankly, I imagine that that will be fairly easy to comply with given that none exist. Of course, there is not a mention in the consultation or response of the rather more difficult point made in article 4(5).

In other words, as far as I can see, the Department does not intend to do anything about that. So my other call this afternoon—or rather perhaps a question—is about why the Department has apparently ignored one of the central points of the alternative fuels directive. Does it intend to put that right and get on with a programme of installing shore-to-ship charging before we are no longer mandated to do so at the end of the transition period of leaving the EU? Or does it just intend that such a mandate might just slip away and get lost after our exit from the EU is complete? If the latter is the case, that will be a sad outcome both for Southampton and all the populations of the ports around the country who welcome and support the port activity in their towns and cities but want those ports to be contributors to the health and clean air of their cities rather than detractors.

I hope that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon so that I can wish her, as well as everybody else, a happy Easter.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I sensed that my hon. Friend was heading to a conclusion. At the beginning of his speech, he said how important the port of Southampton is for the wellbeing of the city, so will he confirm that this is not an attack on shipping, which is a fundamental industry for the UK economy? Members want to support shipping and are asking the Government for leadership in ensuring that shipping is more environmentally friendly and clean in the future. That will mean that when new cruise terminals are proposed for places such as the centre of London, people will welcome that because of the economic benefit it will bring and because they know that it will operate on an environmentally clean basis.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I want to emphasise a little more. The presence of the port and all the activity that goes on with it are wholly welcomed in Southampton. I am sure that that is exactly the same in other cities that are close to and host major ports in the UK. Those cities do not want to see the end of those ports; indeed, they want to see development and thriving arrangements. All the boroughs around those cities have a joint interest in ensuring that the ports thrive as best they can. Over the years, Southampton has been substantially supportive of the growth and development of the port, but we want ports to work on the same basis as everyone else, cleaning up the air around us and ensuring that we can live in an environment that is conducive to the thriving of those ports for the future.

Hoping that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon, I will end with the thought that that response will literally enable my constituents to breathe more easily.

Easter Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for encouraging me to do the same. We hear such points made at most business questions, so we are both very familiar with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) mentioned, and it is important that they are placed on the record.

To go back to the more important point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, we have put an additional £50 million into nurseries in the most disadvantaged areas. I have the fourth most deprived ward in the country in my constituency, and I understand the importance of making sure that young people have somewhere to go and have some structure in their lives. Those things can sometimes be provided by their families, but sometimes they may not be, and we should not underestimate the importance of youth provision. She made some important points, and I look forward to reading the outcome of her youth violence commission, which is an important piece of cross-party work.

I am almost tempted to communicate psychically with the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and just stare at him to give him my response to his comments—but perhaps not; I can verbalise it if I try. We can tell that he has not been here long because he paid tribute to the Whips. If he attends future periodic Adjournment debates, I do not think he will be doing that quite so often. However, if nothing else, it is nice to know that at least one Labour Member was grateful to be staying late last night.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me, but as a former Whip, may I ask whether it is right for the Minister to denigrate the generality of Whips to new Members in the Chamber?

[Mr Speaker]

All I would say is that if the Minister had not done so, I would probably have done it for him.

Draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments, Savings and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 General Committees

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I rise briefly to ask the Minister a question on the back of the Backbench Business Committee debate in the Chamber two or three weeks ago. A number of small and medium-sized enterprises were driven into liquidation and insolvency by the big banks as part of their recovery procedures from 2008. The Minister said that the regulations do not cover the banks. Can I get an assurance that the regulations will not have any impact on the claims of the SMEs that were robbed of billions of pounds by the big banks? Are the regulations an entirely separate issue?