Finance Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution
Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You missed the historical perspective given by the Minister, but I will, if I may, focus on the economics and the politics—the politics being about decision making.

Before I came into Parliament, I was a national officer in the electricians’ and plumbers’ union. I used to have to explain to people that the reason a problem got on to the general secretary’s desk was because it was insoluble. Otherwise, someone else would have made the decision and claimed the credit. In government, it is the same. The reason decisions are at No. 10 is that there are no easy answers. It is dealing with ambiguity and it is dealing with possibilities and probabilities, but nevertheless decisions still have to be made. There will be some that go wrong. It is the Eisenhower doctrine—all plans break down on first contact with the enemy. He also added, as people forget, that it is nevertheless still necessary to plan. That is where the military mindset of making decisions rapidly and moving rapidly towards implementation comes in. Frankly, the Treasury, while it is talking to other Departments and giving them money, has to insist on a change in practices. The old dither, delay and process-driven mechanisms are no longer acceptable. They have to either change their ways or move out of the way.

The other message I would like to get across is that we have to get our country moving again by opening up our economy and, at the same time, ensuring the safety of workers and customers alike. I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the positive message from the Trades Union Congress and the negotiations that are taking place right across the country between unions and companies about how they can safely restart work. It must be the frontline that Government support goes to. Denmark and Poland have, very helpfully, led the way in seeming to be declining subsidies to companies based in tax havens or paying dividends or lavish bonuses or using share buy-back schemes. We should be following that and supporting real engineers, rather than financial engineers. The same goes for public procurement. If we look, for example, at the production and distribution of PPE equipment, I have to say that I am slightly concerned that the Government seem to have, as always, gone straight to the big consulting companies, rather than real industrial and commercial companies that actually have that experience and know how to join it up.

This crisis has also revealed a neglect of our manufacturing base by Whitehall. We must hope that the lessons have been fully learned, and our national recovery must be focused on rebuilding industry. That requires Government to act as not only legislator and administrator, but customer. We may well be facing a deficiency of demand that will mean that the restarting of the economy is in fits and starts, and Government needs to look at what role it can play. It can order buses, cars, vans and trucks to get the auto industry going; it can have a programme of council housing and of road repairs, in order to get construction and building materials moving; and it can give orders to British firms for health service equipment, protective clothing, chemicals and a reconstruction of our vaccine production capacity. There are many more things it can do, but time does not permit me to mention them all. Equally, time does not permit me to raise the issue of the difficult situation supply teachers have got themselves into with umbrella companies, which puts them in a grey zone. I have been warning about this for a number of years, since as far back as five years ago, but I will write to the Minister about it.

In conclusion, I wish to echo the words of the new Leader of the Opposition—colleagues will understand what great pleasure it gives me to be able to say that after five years. He told the Prime Minister:

“This is a national crisis and therefore needs a national response. Will you therefore commit to publishing an exit strategy as soon as possible?”

The country desperately needs that strategy, a way forward and, most importantly, hope. We do not want to be told that everyone is focusing on the coronavirus epidemic; during the second world war they were in an existential world war and we had a command economy, yet they were still able to produce the Beveridge report and a host of other measures planning for the future. That report identified five giants—want, squalor, idleness, ignorance and disease. We are focusing on disease, but those other giants are still killing people, here and around the world, which is why we need an urgent strategy from the Government and why we need Britain back to work safely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and join her in paying tribute to Sandwell Community Caring Trust, which we will be relying on through this difficult period. I can confirm that charities are eligible for the job retention support programme. Further to that, we have allocated extra funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide money to local charitable or caring organisations, especially to help those we are attempting to shield—the most vulnerable—in order to protect them against the effects of the coronavirus.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Yesterday in the Chamber, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised the question of escalating prices in local shops and concerns about profiteering. We understand that the Competition and Markets Authority may be looking into this issue, but may I ask the Minister to urge it very rapidly to look at where this is taking place? Is it local shops, wholesalers or cash and carry, or suppliers? Is it even to do with the international market in terms of perishable goods? This is a matter of real concern. Once the Government have found out where the problem is, will they bring forward measures to crack down on this profiteering?

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I have in my hand a detailed document designed to address this very issue. It goes through a whole range of different approaches and integrates them into a strategy. I would be delighted to have any input that she would like to make about other ways in which that can be improved and developed. We work on the basis of the law as it presently stands, and which we have inherited. It is itself the result of previous Parliaments, including of course the parliamentary consideration of the loan charge. We have to work with the hand we have got, and improve it as fast and as comprehensively as we can.

I will now address the motion directly and then, in the limited time I have, turn to the comments that have been made. Is the loan charge retrospective? Again, I think it is clear that it is not. It was introduced as a new measure in 2017. It taxes a loan outstanding at a future date. It does not change any law previously on the statute book.

It has been asked why the loan charge was introduced. In the words of Sir Amyas Morse, it

“offers an expedited means of collecting tax that is due”.

Is the loan charge unjust? Again, I would suggest not. If one asks the average man or woman in this country, I think they would say, “Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. People are responsible for their own tax affairs. Real loans get repaid; if someone offered you a loan for which no repayment, no tax and no interest was due, it would probably be too good to be true.” And so it is.

The numbers seem to bear that out. More than 99.8% of the tax-paying population have never used a scheme. Even among the freelance population, the take-up has been only 2.5%. It is notable that Sir Amyas Morse was clear that he supported the essential purpose of the loan charge and that it should remain in force.

We have heard a lot about how the law was not settled in 2017. Again, as I said, I can do no better than refer colleagues to section A of the Morse review, which carefully reconstructs the history of the past 20 years of disguised remuneration.

Let me quickly turn to the many excellent contributions that have been made. I will start with the excellent contribution made as a point of order by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who pointed out the excellence of my book on Adam Smith—I thank him for that, although I defer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), as Kirkcaldy was, of course, Smith’s home town. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West will recall—he taught economics so he must know about these things—that Smith not only set out the ideals of a well-functioning tax system, which we all aspire to achieve, but was, for the last 12 years of his life, a practising commissioner of customs, attempting to wrestle with an ever-evolving customs market and seeking to extract duty and tax due, and rightly so.

I would like to touch on the statesmanlike comments of the hon. Member for Bootle, the shadow Chief Secretary, which perhaps reflected his imminent expectation of taking my seat on this side of the aisle. He recognised that what people do not pay in tax due, someone else must. He is right about that. He noticed that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. He is right to focus, as others have, on the enablers and promoters.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I have half a minute left. The right hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, so it is a little impertinent to raise a question at this point.

It is important that we focus on the centrality of the claim. Sir Amyas Morse has looked at it, and he has attempted to find a Jupiterian way through complicated tax issues and to deal, with equity, with the different interests and parties involved. I think he has succeeded, which is why the Government, comprehensively, with one exception, have accepted his conclusions.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am sure that the issue does happen in Scotland, and I hope the measures will apply across the whole country, although the latest consultation document that the Government issued indicated that there might be different treatment in different parts of the United Kingdom.

The matter has reached the stage of being a public scandal, because money is tight and the Bill is a means of recovering £200 million a year for the taxpayer, both locally and nationally. It is unfortunate that, as a result of answering questions from me, successive Ministers have had words put into their mouths or put on the record that have now proven to be completely untrue, I am afraid. What more can one say? The current Chief Secretary has assured me that he will not fall in the same trap as his predecessors.

The regulations could be issued pronto. Why have they not been? We were told that there needed to be a consultation. After a lot of pressure, the consultation was issued in April 2019, and the responses had to be in very quickly by July 2019. Have the Government yet issued their response to those responses? No, they have not, because it is all so complex.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly drawing attention to a significant problem. Is there not another aspect to it, which is that many of these individuals, quite frankly, should not be being given any payments, because they should actually be being sacked for failure to perform their jobs? They are taking sums of money and then transferring to other parts of the public sector, where they will have a repeated pattern of failure. Is there not a need for a real change in culture inside the public sector, particularly, I regret to say, inside management levels of the national health service?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. That is why organisations such as the TaxPayers Alliance are trying to work with the general public to raise the profile of these subjects. What is happening is a concerted fraud upon the taxpayer by these officials, who are cosying up to each other and ensuring that they are the only people who do not suffer as a result of their own incompetence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not sure that that is an adequate excuse. It could be a justification for everything, but in the Treasury it is an issue of priorities. There is no reason why, if hon. Members are given a promise that something is going to be done on a particular date, that promise should not be honoured.

[John Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman should come down a bit harder on that explanation from his hon. Friend, who is fundamentally saying that the Government are incapable of chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend would have put it quite that way. The House needs to have a mood of intolerance of serial incompetence, if not a conspiracy of silence and inaction among people in the civil service.

The Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The instrument amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to alter the scope of the reduced rate of VAT for the installation of energy-saving materials. That ensures consistency with the 2015 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

As the Committee will know, this Government are deeply committed to greening our economy and our society and bid fair to be the greenest Government ever. It is of huge regret to us that we have felt compelled to make this change because of EU regulation.

Under current UK VAT rules, a reduced rate of 5% applies to the installation of energy-saving materials such as insulation, solar panels and other technologies in residential properties. Under EU law, it is not possible to remove VAT from those materials, so the reduced rate of 5% applies. The VAT relief aims to lower the cost for consumers and families to install those energy-efficient products in their homes.

In 2011, the European Commission launched an infraction proceeding against the UK, arguing that the scope of the UK’s reduced rate for the installation of energy-saving materials was too wide and needed to be changed. The Government did not agree with the European Commission’s infraction proceeding, so the matter was heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In 2015, the Court agreed with the Commission and found that the scope of the UK’s reduced rate for energy-saving materials was indeed too wide.

Under EU rules, the UK is obliged to comply with the decision of the EU Court of Justice. If it does not, the European Commission will be required to issue infraction fines against the UK.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Given that the Prime Minister and others, including the Conservative leadership candidates, say that we are going to leave the EU on 31 October, why is the Minister rushing to comply rather than ignoring this and waiting until then?

[Jesse Norman]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is hardly rushing to respond to an infraction proceeding that began in 2011 and involved a European Union Court of Justice appeal in 2015. While we remain a member of the EU, we are required to obey its laws. When we leave the EU, we will of course be in a position to revisit the issue.

[John Spellar]

I understand the build-up—it always takes this long—but given that Britain may leave the EU in only a few months, why does the Minister feel it necessary to do this now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the Minister. As a Minister in 2010, I inherited a situation where the Government were being taken to the European Court and were going to be subject to substantial multimillion pound fines on an occasion when the British Government intended to have a stronger environmental ambition than the rest of the European Union. That continued to happen relentlessly throughout my three and a half years as a Minister, attending international forums where we were promoting ideas and ambitions that were greener and more environmentally friendly than those of the rest of our European partners.

I remember a conversation during the EU co-ordination meeting at a congress of the parties in Hyderabad, in which an appalling person from the European Union—a Brit, actually—threatened the British Government that if we continued to hold out for our high ambitions, which I think were on biodiversity targets, we would go against the principles of the Lisbon treaty and we would be subject to a fine. I have never had my pro-European tendencies tested more than when I was representing Britain in international forums and had to spend hours sitting in European co-ordination meetings, only to hear such a thing.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bootle, can have a bit of fun on these occasions, but because he is a sensible person he knows that if he were in Government he would not want to put the Government in the position of having to pay a huge infraction fine. My friend, the right hon. Member for Warley, knows too that the timetable of such things is not in the Government’s gift. Very quickly we could find ourselves in a position, regardless of where we are in terms of our exit from the European Union, where we are at risk.

It is not something that any of us feels comfortable with. I and other Members are working hard on a proposal to the Government that may be of some assistance in trying to find a way forward, both while we are members of the European Union and soon after we have left.

[John Spellar]

May I help the right hon. Gentleman with his difficulty? The reason the European Commission behaves like that towards the British is because the British civil service rolls over to it. Were our civil service prepared to be as robust as the French are in response, there could be a much more realistic relationship. One could not imagine French Ministers in a similar position introducing a measure in this way, with this timescale.

[Richard Benyon]

I respect the way in which the right hon. Gentleman presents that argument, but I think he knows that that is a fallacy. Such things are frequently said, but I assure him that my civil servants were as robust as they could be, and I and my fellow Ministers were as robust as we could be. However, we came up against the legal bulwark of the Lisbon treaty, and there was nothing that we could do.

I wish to probe a couple of points. Some years ago, a similar situation arose regarding VAT on repairs to churches. The Government produced something called the listed places of worship grant scheme to offset that. Could the Minister suggest a grant scheme to offset the cost as part of a future Budget? If we leave the European Union at the end of October, it would be good to have some idea of the Government’s ambitions post exit.

Secondly, under current HMRC guidelines, battery installs can attract the reduced 5% rate only if they are installed at the same time as new solar, unlike all the other technologies defined as energy saving by HMRC, which can be installed separately. However, the proposed HMRC change means that any combined solar and storage system is likely to be over the 60% material/install threshold and, therefore, will attract the full 20% VAT rate. I would like to ask the Minister about the option for HMRC to allow stand-alone battery installs to attract the 5% rate, opening up the battery retrofit market to around 1 million homes that already have solar.

The justification for defining batteries as energy-saving materials is that domestic PV customers in the UK typically self-consume just a quarter of energy generated, because solar generation tends to be in the daytime, whereas UK home power demands tend to be at night. The rest will be spilled on to the grid. If a customer buys a battery, their self-consumption proportion typically would increase to around 70%—a huge efficiency improvement to the overall system for the customer, with the added benefit of reduced energy bills. Would the Minister consider that as a way forward?

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

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

[David Rutley]

We will do everything we can. We are completely committed to making sure that the legislation gets into place. The hon. Lady has been keen to see it through, and we will do that. We are absolutely committed to delivering on this legislation.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

This has been a pretty sorry story of delay, but I welcome the fact that the Bill is now here, given the lack of legislative business. Will the Minister say when the Government will bring forward legislation on increasing the penalties available to the courts for those guilty of animal cruelty? That is another issue that has been waiting a long time. It urgently needs to be resolved.

Puppy Smuggling

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; indeed, I am just about to come on to it. I think we are suffering from the unintended consequences of some changes in schemes and programmes.

Of course, puppy smuggling at heart is an industry perpetrated by people who are motivated purely by money. They can make up to an incredible £35,000 per week by illegally transporting puppies through our borders, to be sold to unsuspecting dog lovers in the UK. The root cause of puppy smuggling seems, indeed, to be the ease with which gangs can abuse the pet travel scheme that operates across Europe, which is otherwise known as PETS.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he rightly identifies the large sums of money that can be made either by individuals or by organised crime gangs. These criminals appear to make a very fine cost-benefit calculation, which reinforces the need, expressed by a number of animal charities, to increase the penalties for maltreating animals. There should also be confiscation of vehicles, so that this business is no longer a paying business.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, many and various recommendations have come out of this debate, and of course disincentivising this really despicable trade in every way we can is very important. Penalties, fixed fines and indeed criminal sanctions are, of course, the things that we all need to consider.

Draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair again, Mr Gray. These regulations group elements of four policy regimes: spirit drinks, wines, genetically modified organisms and agricultural direct payments. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to make purely technical or operability corrections, ensuring that these regimes continue to function as intended. The corrections deal with removing or amending references, converting EU procedures to UK procedures, and transferring EU functions to the UK.

For genetically modified organisms, the SI makes purely technical changes, to keep the retained EU legislation operable on exit from the EU. The operability changes will allow us to continue to regulate and enforce the applications process for consent to market genetically modified organisms in the UK. It will also allow us to continue to regulate the export of genetically modified organisms—both those that originate in the UK and those merely passing through the UK. The SI also seeks to correct minor errors in EU exit statutory instruments that have already been made.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I seek a bit of clarity from the Minister; I was just looking through the documentation. Will we just carry on with the EU-directed regime, which is based not on science, but on hysteria against genetically modified organisms—particularly genetically modified crops? Alternatively, will we be able to use Brexit to get a policy based on science and agriculture, which would embrace that technology where appropriate?

[David Rutley]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously, science will underpin our approach to genetically modified organisms, but it is worth noting that there are no genetically modified products in the approval pipeline, at least in the UK, and none is anticipated.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point, one that the Opposition Front Benchers—perhaps I should call them the three musketeers—have consistently been making, with support from the Scottish National party spokespeople, too. I stress—as I have on numerous occasions, but it is worth doing it again for the record—that there is no intention whatever to water down our standards. I wanted to make that point, because it is easy to get concerned about these issues. As the hon. Member for Stroud will recognise in his remarks, these regulations are about operability changes; they are not about changing policy.

[John Spellar]

There is a world of difference between watering down regulations that are clearly of proven scientific benefit to consumers, animals and the environment, and policies that are based purely on campaigns with a heavy degree of hysteria—particularly those against genetically modified crops, which have no proven negative impact on the health of the individuals consuming them. Is the Minister suggesting that we are not going to take the opportunity? There may not be an application, and that may be because the current policy is dictated by one or two European countries. Will we not become a bit more progressive and take a science-based approach?

[The Chair]

Order. If the Minister wishes to answer that question, he must do so strictly in the context of the statutory instrument before us.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Buck. I know that you will keep us in good order. Thank you very much indeed for allowing Finn, the most decorated police dog in the land, to be here in Committee today.

I thank the hon. Members who have been selected for the Committee. They have all been great supporters of this small but important change in the law. I also thank all those who have campaigned for it, including PC Dave Wardell, Sarah Dixon of the Finn’s law campaign, the many animal charities that have given support, including the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which is represented here today, the media—support for Finn’s law has united The Sun and the Daily Mirror—and every police and crime commissioner in the country. I am grateful, to you, Ms Buck, for agreeing that Finn can sit in, accompanied by PC Wardell.

The Bill, which received its Second Reading on 6 July last year, arises from events that I explained to the House in a ten-minute rule Bill application on 5 December 2017. My constituent, PC Dave Wardell, is a police dog handler from Buntingford, where he lives with his family, Finn, and other dogs. Finn has of course now retired, but on Wednesday 5 October 2016 PC Wardell and Finn were on duty in Stevenage. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who has been so supportive, is here today.

PC Wardell and Finn were called to a suspected robbery. They followed the suspect, who ran off. He was found hiding in a garden. A light suddenly came on, revealing him. PC Wardell called on him to stop, but the suspect jumped to try to get over a fence, and Finn took hold of his lower leg. The man lunged at Finn with a hunting knife with a 10-inch blade and stabbed Finn right through the chest. He then turned his attention to PC Wardell, and Finn intervened to save the police constable as the blade was aimed towards his face. Finn put himself in the way to save the officer and PC Wardell received a hand wound, but the dog received further serious injuries. PC Wardell believes that Finn saved his life.

As other officers arrived the suspect was apprehended, but Finn was badly injured and bleeding. He was taken to the vet, and then to a specialist vet. He was in terrible shape, with his lungs punctured in four places, yet he was still licking his handler’s hand wound. Finn had a four-hour operation to save his life. The vet commented on the strength and bravery of this dog. PC Wardell slept downstairs with Finn for the next four weeks. I think we are all pleased that Finn made a remarkable recovery. After 11 weeks Finn was ready to go back to work and with PC Wardell he went on their first shift on 22 December 2016. On that occasion—their first outing after the incident—they arrested a fleeing suspect.

Finn is one of the most successful police dogs in the country and is renowned in Hertfordshire. He has won national awards for his bravery, including animal of the year in the IFAW Animal Action awards, hero animal of the year in the Animal Hero awards and the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals gold medal, which is known as the animals’ George Cross. However, when it came to charging the offender it became clear that there is a problem with the law. For the assault on the officer there was the obvious offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but there were only two potential charges for the injuries to Finn himself: causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, or section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Neither offence properly provides for the criminality involved in the attack on Finn.

In the event, the charge was criminal damage, but that treated Finn as though he was simply a piece of damaged police property, like a police radio or something of the sort. The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), told me in a letter that it is unpalatable to think of police animals simply as equipment. Criminal damage is an offence for which the penalty is largely determined by the value of the damaged property—a seven-year-old police dog close to retirement is not worth much money—and so it proved at court, where no separate penalty was imposed on Finn’s attacker for the attack on the dog.

The offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is potentially a better route, but it has two problems at the moment. The first is that the maximum penalty is only six months’ imprisonment. After a consultation, which I think was partly based on what happened to Finn, the Government have committed to increase the maximum penalty to five years’ imprisonment. That still leaves the other issue, which is that there is a difficulty with the application of section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act. Various factors must be taken into account in deciding whether the infliction of suffering to an animal can be considered unnecessary, including protection of a person or property. There is currently no reference at all in the Act to the particular role of service animals.

Clearly, the mission of a service animal is to restrain a suspect or use its physical presence to support the actions of an officer in accordance with his or her duty, but there is no reference to that role in the Act. We have heard from police dog handlers, prosecutors and all the police and crime commissioners in the country that there is concern that that provision allows defendants to argue that they are justified in applying force against a service animal in self-defence, rendering the force necessary. That has been an issue in deciding not to prosecute for the offence under the Animal Welfare Act.

I want to thank Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, particularly Lord Gardiner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the Minister—he and I have a long history of considering animal welfare issues, going back to the 1990s—for discussing this issue with me at length and for supporting the Bill, which is the outcome of those discussions. This Bill follows the example of the Australian Animal Welfare Act, which makes specific provision for service animals. I could add that this approach is becoming the norm in advanced countries, and that is a good thing.

Clause 1 provides that the consideration in section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the Animal Welfare Act should be disregarded if the animal was under the control of a relevant officer at the time of the conduct, and was being used by the officer in the course of their duties in a way that was reasonable in all the circumstances. A relevant officer is defined as a police constable or person such as a prison officer, who has the powers of a constable, or persons in analogous positions. It also provides that Ministers can add to that list.

Clause 2 makes provision for commencement and formalities. It applies to England and Wales. This change to the law, when taken together with the Government’s increase in the animal welfare penalty, will mean that there is, for the first time, suitable protection for service animals and a proper sentence for offenders.

Service animals such as Finn do a great job. There are 1,200 police dogs in service at any one time, and there should be proper recognition in the law of their vital role.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman finishes, may I, on behalf of many colleagues—not just those on the Committee—commend him not only for introducing this Bill but for the tenacity with which he has finally brought it to Committee? I hope, now that we have reached this stage, that it will speedily move through our House and the House of Lords.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Sometimes the House can come together and do good things, and this is an example of that. Perhaps we will see other examples before too long. I thank him and I commend the Bill and clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all his hard work—I hope he is pleased that we will not only back the important Finn’s law but take further strides towards making the legislation more impactful—and congratulate everyone involved.

Finn’s name is rightly associated with the Bill; it exemplifies the bravery of service dogs. The Government recognise that service animals do a fantastic job, an invaluable service that might take them into extremely dangerous situations. The best protection for them needs to be made clear in law, which is why we support Finn’s law and the campaign today.

As we have heard, in 2016 Finn was stabbed by an assailant when he assisted his handler, PC Dave Wardell, in the apprehension of a suspected offender. Finn received serious injuries but survived and even returned to duty before later retiring. He received all sorts of plaudits for his amazing and courageous work. In August 2018 the Secretary of State had the pleasure of meeting Finn and PC Wardell on a visit to Marsham Street. All the officials there were in awe and I have been told stories about how impressed they were to meet Finn. We can all agree with what the Secretary of State said at the time:

“Every day service animals dedicate their lives to keeping us safe, and they deserve strong protections in law. We will continue working with Sir Oliver Heald MP and the Finn’s Law campaign to achieve this.”

That is exactly what we do today.

When the Bill becomes law, animals such as Finn will have more protection from callous individuals, because it amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006—the architect of which is in the Committee—to make it clear that the ability for someone to claim that they were acting in self-defence when they attack a service animal should be disregarded in such circumstances. No longer will someone be able to inflict pain and suffering on much loved and heroic service animals, such as police dogs like Finn, police horses or animals supporting the prison service, and to say that they were simply protecting themselves.

In supporting the Bill, we agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire that prosecuting attacks on police and other support animals, which cause unnecessary suffering, under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, could be made more difficult by the court having to consider whether the defendant acted in fear of harm. Relevant here is the list of considerations in section 4(3) for the court to consider whether the suffering was caused for a legitimate purpose, such as to protect a person, property or another animal. In other words, the perpetrator of the attack on a service animal could use the provision to claim they were acting to protect themselves. As noted, the Bill amends section 4 of the 2006 Act so that this consideration will be disregarded with respect to incidents involving unnecessary suffering inflicted on a service animal that is supporting an officer in the course of their duties. That will make it easier to successfully prosecute people who cause animal cruelty by attacking a service animal.

We are taking further steps to protect our heroic service animals, and indeed all animals under our care, by increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment. Specifically, we will amend the maximum penalties set out in section 32(1) of the 2006 Act. That will include cruelty caused by attacks on service animals, which is the second part of the Finn’s law campaign. We said we will do it and we are doing it. We will bring forward the necessary legislative vehicle as soon as possible.

[John Spellar]

Given the delay in reaching this stage of the process, could the Minister and his Department get in touch with the Government business managers to expedite the Bill’s further passage through Parliament to become legislation?

[David Rutley]

We are doing everything we can to facilitate that pace—we are looking at various vehicles. On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Delyn about the situation in Wales, a legislative consent motion will be brought forward. We will do everything we can to work with the Welsh Government to facilitate that.

We are increasing the maximum penalties for good reason: as a deterrent to those who would choose to inflict the most abhorrent cruelty on animals, and to help to address comments from sentencing judges who have said that they would have handed down tougher sentences in the worst cases of cruelty, had a higher penalty than six months’ imprisonment been available.

In summary, a two-step approach has been taken, in large part in response to the Finn’s law campaign. First, this Bill has been introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, which removes the consideration in section 4 of the 2006 Act that the person was acting in self-defence in attacking a service animal. Secondly, the Government will bring forward tougher sentences for animal cruelty in separate primary legislation as soon as possible.

Racehorse Protection

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

Yes. The petitioners’ point is that there is a conflict of interest.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

A whole number of realms of life are subject to scrutinised self-regulation by people who actually know the profession, industry or walk of life in question. We may look for improvements, but why would we want to take regulation away from the people who have a long-term interest in sustaining the industry and who have the support of the millions who follow racing, either by going to races or by watching them on television?

[Mike Hill]

That is, of course, a perfectly appropriate point to make, and the BHA in particular would agree. As I said, I have sat down with the BHA and it has made improvements in areas where it recognises that they are required.

I will cite examples to make the case that racehorses have been failed by the BHA, and set out why the BHA should lose its horse welfare remit and be replaced by an independent body that has horse welfare as its only concern.

The problem is nothing new; it is historical. The rich and politically influential people in racing have always had their hands on the reins. They have controlled all aspects since they chose to self-regulate the sport back in 1750, just a few streets away from here, in a Pall Mall gentlemen’s club called the Jockey Club. Their stranglehold on power, and for a short period that of jump racing’s National Hunt Committee, existed until this century, when it married for a few years with a fledgling authority, the Horseracing Regulatory Authority. In 2007, those authorities gave birth to the current incumbent, the BHA.

This is a blue-blooded family who maintain power. Their relatives maintain control too. Weatherby’s, racing’s private administrator and registrar of thoroughbred births and deaths, has since 1770 and for seven family generations enjoyed direct involvement in the fully integrated sport of breeding, racing and disposing of thoroughbreds. Much of the information that it gathers on racehorses is kept private, but in some circumstances it can be bought.

According to the petitioners, this is an exclusive old boys’ club run like a masonic lodge with friends in Government. Through the ages, the Government have left this racing club in full control, rarely intervening in horse welfare matters. Parliament has seen few discussions on the subject. The last time any serious debate took place here was in 1954, when Lord Ammon rose to ask

“whether the attention of Her Majesty’s Government has been directed to the disaster on the Aintree racecourse during the Grand National Steeplechase on Saturday, 27th March when 29 horses started, of which 20, including four killed, failed to finish the course; whether the law concerning cruelty to animals applies in such cases, and to move for Papers.”

He went on to say:

“Nor is that all the story; hundreds of the horses who fail are not heard of again. It is difficult to get news about them”.

He was talked down by Earl Winterton, who—with the support of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Lloyd—rejected Government intervention, stating that

“it would be a pity if it went out from your Lordships’ House that there was undue criticism here. Surely we should leave the appropriate authorities”

—by which he meant racing’s self-regulating National Hunt Committee—

“to consider what has been said…and decide what course they should take”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 April 1954; Vol. 186, c. 1041-1049.]

Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the self-regulators did not take any course of action.

I mention that historical debate because, importantly, the same scenario is being played out today. Like Lord Ammon, I ask whether Her Majesty’s Government are aware that three horses died just weeks ago in a single afternoon’s racing at Perth racecourse. Is the horse welfare regulator—the BHA—going to make any changes to the racecourse or to the conditions of the races at Perth, to prevent this from happening again? Were the Government or anyone else aware that, more alarmingly, this is the second time that three horses have died in a day’s racing at Perth? After their deaths in August 2016, the BHA failed to act, making no changes and learning no lessons. As a consequence, horses have had to be killed yet again. Just as its predecessor for jump racing, the National Hunt Committee, walked away from horse deaths back in 1954, the BHA is doing the same—and this, of course, when the deaths do not make the headlines.

One might think that horses are racing’s most valuable assets. That is perhaps so for horses such as Frankel, Galileo or Kew Gardens, who are making millions of pounds for their owners, but maybe not for elderly brood mares and former racehorses such as Maidment or Marilouise. These are just two of 23 thoroughbreds, some pregnant and one with a foal at foot, who were taken at the eleventh hour from a bankrupt stud in Newmarket—the beating heart of British racing. Those horses were not saved with the support of the racing industry or the BHA but by Hillside animal sanctuary, a rescue centre that relies on public donations to feed and care for unwanted animals. Had Hillside not taken them into its care just a few weeks ago, on 17 September, those horses, including the foal, would have been destroyed—they were pre-booked for 18 September at 11 am. Fortunately for the BHA’s high-profile public image campaign, The Horse Comes First, and its flagship Retraining of Racehorses scheme, ROR, that desperate rescue of 23 vulnerable racehorses and broodmares, who were down on their luck, did not hit the national headlines.

That highlights the major welfare issue of overbreeding, and likewise what to do with the thousands of horses who face ejection by the industry each year, which in effect is the very same problem. In 2008, the Irish Republic, which is the supply centre of half the horses who are trained and raced in Britain, was hit by the global economic recession. British Racing, led by the BHA, stood by and watched an exponential rise in slaughter figures, from just over 2,000 in 2008 to 24,000 in 2012.

[John Spellar]

My recollection is that the global financial crisis also led to a crisis in horse-owning more generally, quite apart from horse-racing. I am not clear whether the perfectly legitimate line that my hon. Friend is taking is, actually, to oppose horse-racing.

[Mike Hill]

I remind my right hon. Friend that I am a member of the Petitions Committee and I am quoting the facts and figures of the petitioners on this occasion.

Abattoirs sprung up almost overnight to cater for the demand for the disposal of unwanted horses. In the crudest terms, Irish and British horse-racing had gone from a sport to a food producer. Young foals and those at the end of the careers, the injured or slow, poor-performing stallions and mediocre brood mares similar to Maidment and Marilouise, who Hillside took in just weeks ago, were turned into meat for human consumption or fed to hunting hounds, while others were rendered down to be mixed into everyday products. That massacre of the sport’s equine competitors was the result of a lack of foresight and strategic planning for the future, the ignorance of potential outcomes and the sheer apathy of a self-regulated industry. The average punter and Royal Ascot celebrity would never know this secret, because of a lack of transparency and a closed door to freedom of information.

Since that animal welfare disaster, the BHA has failed to put limits on breeding numbers. One hundred years ago, a top stallion would cover—a polite way of saying mate—with 15 mares. Around 35 years ago, stallions such as the ill-fated Shergar would cover 40 at best. This year, we are seeing single stallions cover 100, 200 or even 300 mares. It is irresponsible, and the BHA stands by and lets it happen. It is as bad as any unscrupulous dog breeder who has hit the news in recent years—behaviour that eventually brought about a change to the law.

The burgeoning racing fixtures list, drawn up to accommodate the swell of horses being bred, will be the biggest ever in 2019, with over 1,500 meetings. It will not meet the needs of a huge number of horses who will not win a race and will earn little or no prize money, and who will then be quickly cast out and replaced by another on the conveyor belt of horses that pass through the industry, which brings me on to racing itself.

When a horse steps on to a British racecourse, its welfare and protection from potential suffering should be paramount. Yet each horse has about a one in 50 chance of not surviving a year in racing. The BHA likes to minimise that alarming figure by stating that just 0.2% of runners die in racing, although if a horse runs 10 times and dies, that is classed as one in 10 runners. It is confusing and deliberately misleading. The disrespect shown by classing horses’ deaths as a percentage of runners, and the BHA’s unwillingness to name individual horses who are killed in an understandable and comprehensive list, as is done in Ireland, led the campaign group Animal Aid to launch its own online website, Race Horse Death Watch, where one can see the names of ill-fated horses and the racecourses where they died. It has become an endless list and makes for disturbing viewing.

Why do horses die racing? Is it by accident, as the BHA cited in the death of a two-year-old colt last month at Doncaster, or are horse deaths to some extent preventable? In the case of the two-year-old, the BHA shamefully absolved itself and the racecourse of any responsibility for the young horse’s death. I will go through the account of an eyewitness who saw this tragedy unfold. An inexperienced two-year-old colt known as Commanding Officer entered an enclosed starting stall from which to race. The horse became frightened and reared in an attempt to free himself from the all-enveloping stall. Instead of removing this panic-stricken, novice horse from the race, it was decided to blindfold him in the hope of eventually getting him to run. Without his vision, and with natural equine fear, he reared again in the starting stall. The poor design of stalls enabled Commanding Officer to trap a foreleg between the front gates. As he pulled back, blind, to free himself, his foreleg snapped into two as the gates held firmly shut. By design, there is, surprisingly, no quick-release mechanism on the gates to free individual horses from stalls. As a consequence, the colt’s hoof and five inches of bare cannon bone—his shin—were hanging off the end of his leg, held by just a tenuous flap of skin.

The horse was eventually destroyed, but not without immense suffering. The eyewitness described the horse’s destruction as “unbelievable”, and a load of empty syringes were thrown over the screens—those would have contained a deadly cocktail of drugs in a vain attempt to inject the scared and injured animal. The race was held up but still went ahead. As the other horses set off running, Commander Officer’s dead body lay in a white horsebox parked next to the stalls. He was two years old—just a baby.

Shockingly, the BHA stewards’ report of events stated that

“the BHA’s Equine Health and Welfare department…found that the starting and loading procedures were followed correctly, and that the injury sustained by Commanding Officer was an accident.”

There was no mention of the inability to quickly open the stall gates to free the horse. That might have been the end of the story, but it is not. At a previous meeting at the very same racecourse, Doncaster, an identical fatal injury happened that was similarly caused by the poor design of the stalls. An experienced horse known as Mukaynis caught his left foreleg in the starting stall gates when, yet again, the horse’s vision was compromised by a hood. Mukaynis, with restricted vision, was startled by a stalls handler. The gelding reared, the gates trapping a leg. Perhaps the BHA thinks that lightning cannot strike twice and crosses it fingers—it did not act after Mukaynis lost his life, and the young Commanding Officer has now lost his life, too. Both horses were failed by poor practice that could have been resolved with basic insight and cost-effective physical changes to starting stall gates.

That is not the only problem. The BHA’s crude reporting of events should also be scrutinised. The race-day stewards, who are mostly amateurs, are commissioned by and under guidance from the BHA, and are meant to monitor the races, take action, note any concerning matters and report them in the official BHA documents. The stewards reported that both horse victims were “unruly in the stalls”. Their report did not even acknowledge that Mukaynis was dead. The BHA allows anthropomorphic terms to be used to describe fear in an equine that is confined in an unnatural manner and unable to escape when panicked.

I could talk into the night about other heart-wrenching cases in which stewards failed to monitor or report welfare issues. Many racehorse deaths could easily have been avoided if the tired horses that had no chance of winning were simply pulled up. Horses are literally run into the ground: they are forced to race without having time to recover from the previous races.

I have spoken to the BHA, and it has talked about making improvements in the areas that I have condemned. It says that it reviews deaths, but its Cheltenham review came about only because of the public and media outcry over the death of six horses at this year’s festival meeting. It published no review of the 2017 festival and did not even mention the five horses that died during it, or the seven that were killed in 2016. The media failed to pick up on those deaths, so the BHA remained silent. It takes the wrath of public opinion to make it look into deaths, let alone take responsibility for them.

The BHA states that it has spent £33 million since 2017 on veterinary research and education. That sum may sound reasonable, but the BHA grossed more than £1.8 billion during that time, and it equates to less than 2% of expenditure. It is about £150 per horse—less money than a jockey’s riding fee for one race. Racing is a rich industry and can afford to increase its welfare budget. If it does not, horses will continue to pay the price of the underspend with their lives.

The petitioners call on the Government to act by removing the British Horseracing Authority from its role as welfare regulator for racehorses, while allowing it to retain its other roles in racing, and to replace the BHA with an independent body that is responsible only for horse welfare.