Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Meaning of other key terms—

‘In this Act—

“circus operator”, in relation to a circus, means—

(a) the owner of the circus,

(b) any person, other than the owner, with overall responsibility for the operation of the circus, or

(c) if neither of the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) is present in the United Kingdom, the person in the United Kingdom who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the circus;

“officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, and

(b) any person purporting to act in any such capacity;

“travelling circus”—

(a) means a circus which travels, whether regularly or irregularly, from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment,

(b) includes—

(i) a circus which travels as mentioned in paragraph (a) for the purpose mentioned there, despite there being periods during which it does not travel from one place to another,

(ii) any place where a wild animal associated with such a circus is kept (including temporarily).

but not a circus which travels in order to relocate to a new fixed base for use only or mainly as a place to give performances.’

New clause 4—Moratorium on the issuing of new licences and adding animals to current licences—

‘On the day on which the Act is passed, the following provisions will apply to circus operators using wild animals in travelling circuses—

(a) there will be a moratorium on the issuing of new licences under the provisions of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012; and

(b) current licences granted under regulation 4 of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 will not be extended to include additional licensed animals.

These provisions will apply until the Act comes into force.’

This new clause would prevent the issue of new licences, or the addition of animals to existing licences, from the day the Act is passed.

New clause 5—Powers of seizure: animals—

‘Where an animal is seized under paragraph 7(k), an inspector or a constable may—

(a) remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;

(b) care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—

(i) on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession, or

(ii) at such other place as he thinks fit.’

This new clause would enable an animal which has been seized to be removed and cared for appropriately.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out “2020” and insert “2022”.

This Amendment will enable circuses to have enough time to plan for the Act coming into force.

Amendment 4 to the schedule, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) A police constable shall be considered to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.”

This amendment would allow a police constable to have the same powers as an appointed inspector with respect to the Act.

Amendment 5, page 4, line 38, leave out “except” and insert “including”.

This amendment would allow animals, held by those who are suspected of committing an offence under the Act, to be seized.

Amendment 2, page 4, line 40, at end insert—

“7A An inspector may require that the owner of a wild animal may not destroy the animal unless with the permission of a qualified veterinarian.”

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I know that we have three hours allocated for consideration, but I do not intend to detain the House for so long, Members will be relieved to learn. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is one of the most popular things I have ever said in the Chamber. There is some important Back-Bench business to come and I am sure that we want to get on—

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It has been pulled.

[Philip Davies]

That changes things. We are in business now. I do not, however, intend to detain the House for long, and I do not intend to press any of the new clauses or amendments to a Division as they are probing in nature. One of the points that I always make is that we should properly scrutinise legislation that comes before the House. Even when we have a Bill with a worthy title it is always important that we scrutinise the detail, because these are important matters. They are important for the circuses, and for the animals. They are clearly at the forefront of what the legislation is intended to protect, and therefore it is important to check that we are doing everything right.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has also tabled some amendments, but I will concentrate on those I have tabled. In passing, I will say that some of the points he makes are worthy of consideration and I hope that the Minister will do so, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendments today. I hope that in the other place some proper scrutiny will be given, so I do not expect that we will have a ding-dong on these issues tonight.

I am a great admirer of the Minister and not just because of his time in Parliament: we used to work together at Asda many moons ago. Obviously, he was much more senior than I was, and far better at his job—that will not come as any surprise to anyone. We worked on projects together in our time at Asda, and he has taken his common-sense approach there into his ministerial responsibilities. It is great to see him in his place, and all I ask of him—he is a reasonable man—is that he goes away after the debate and considers all the new clauses and amendments to see whether the Government want to have another look at them when the Bill reaches the other place.

New clause 1 addresses the meaning of the term “wild animal”, and would add a more detailed definition to the Bill. The wording I have used mirrors that in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, and will thereby enable consistency around the UK. Simply falling into line with the law in Scotland has advantages in and of itself—as a Unionist, I think it is good and always a positive when we have the same laws in England and Wales as we have in Scotland—but more importantly it would provide more clarity to what is otherwise a rather vague description of a wild animal.

The Bill currently states simply that a

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

but the new clause delves deeper into what that actually means. Specifically, it would add an explanation of what a domesticated animal is, by stating that an animal

“is domesticated if the behaviour, life cycle or physiology…has been altered as a result of the breeding or living conditions of multiple generations of animals of that kind being under human control.”

It can reasonably be argued that many of the animals that currently reside in the two circuses to which the Bill will be relevant fit into that definition of a domesticated animal. Given that some of the animals are from the seventh generation of their line to be born into the circus environment, their very nature and general behaviour will be much altered compared with their native wild counterparts. Thus, the term “domesticated” would be made relevant to the specific animals, which should be at the forefront of our minds. That point often seems to be lost in debates on this subject.

For the specific animals we are talking about that are currently in these circuses, it would be more unkind to release them into what many would assume to be their natural habitat, because generations of living under human supervision will have left them without the traditional instincts and abilities necessary to survive in the wild. We describe these animals as wild when they quite clearly could not survive in the wild, and to that extent they are not wild animals. They do not have the traditional instincts and abilities required for them to survive in a habitat that is different from what they are currently accustomed to. They have no knowledge of anything different.

The whole point of new clause 1 is to get into the Bill a more sensible definition that applies to the particular animals involved. It seems to me to be bizarre that on the one hand we are talking about wild animals and on the other hand we are passing legislation for animals that could not be released into the wild. It is crazy. We want to stop genuinely wild animals being used in circuses—I certainly do; I have no objection to that at all—but the specific animals that are currently relevant are not really wild animals any more.

Like new clause 1, new clause 2 mirrors the provisions of the 2018 Act. If the House agrees to new clause 2, that will provide consistency in the law throughout the UK and more clarity on the definitions of relevant key terms. The Bill currently describes the definition of a circus operator and an officer, but new clause 2 would also define a travelling circus, which is a key part of the legislation, and the fact that it is not currently covered in the Bill, despite the title suggesting that it applies specifically to the circus industry, is not only concerning but leads to a lot of potential loopholes. Many forms of entertainment involve animal participation at their heart and I have heard people discussing their wish to use this legislation as a Trojan horse to affect other industries in which animals are trained.

Many forms of entertainment involve at their heart the participation of animals that have been trained and bred for a particular purpose. For example, I am very keen on the horse-racing industry. I am pretty sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at this point I should refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am not sure whether there is anything relevant in there, but there may well be, so I do so just to be safe rather than sorry. The racing industry has animals that are trained for entertainment and that are bred for that purpose. I might add that they are particularly well looked after, as animal welfare is at the heart of everything that the racing industry does. Throughout the country we have zoos and falconry, and even the more obscure alpaca walking experiences.

My concern is that the Bill does not seem to provide a clear enough definition that separates the circus industry, which the title suggests it is specifically targeted at. As I referred to earlier, this issue has been dealt with in Scotland. New clause 2 would provide the clarity that the Bill needs to ensure that it will not blur any lines and to make sure that the legislation will not be used as a Trojan horse to affect other industries—including those I have mentioned, the greyhound industry and whatever else it might be—because other people might have some of those industries in their sights. I hope the Minister will reflect on these points and go away and look at the merits of the relevant legislation in Scotland to see whether we might wish to mirror it in England and Wales.

Amendment 1 would leave out subsection (5) of clause 1. In effect, it is consequential on new clauses 1 and 2, and would remove the current set of definitions of key terms to replace it with those that I want to introduce in new clause 2. Rather than anything more substantial, it would just tidy up after the other changes.

Amendment 2 states:

“An inspector may require that the owner of a wild animal may not destroy the animal unless with the permission of a qualified veterinarian.”

As I said at the start, as I see it the whole purpose of this Bill—the motivation behind it—is to protect the animals. We must not do anything that will have a negative impact on animals—we often see unforeseen and unintended consequences of legislation—so it is important to make it clear that the owner of the so-called wild animals covered by the legislation may not destroy an animal without a vet’s permission. We cannot have a situation in which the animals cannot be used in a circus and are therefore put down. That would be completely unacceptable. I am not suggesting for a minute that that is the intention of the people who own the animals—absolutely not, and quite the reverse. I am not casting any aspersions on them at all, but it is important to have this safeguard in the Bill to make sure that we nail it down and prevent that from happening.

Amendment 2 would add to the list of powers that the inspector of travelling circuses will have. It would ensure that animals that will no longer be able to participate in any aspect of circus life will not be put down as a result of the legislation coming into force. As I said, that is not to suggest that the owners of the animals are likely to be so callous. The point is that if people suggest, as it seems they have, that what the circus owners do to these animals is cruel, why would those people, who have pressed for the legislation because they think that circus owners are cruel to the animals, then trust the circus owners to look after the animals when they are no longer able to use them in their circuses? Either these circus owners are cruel to the animals and therefore cannot be trusted to care particularly well for them in retirement, or they are not cruel, in which case I am not entirely sure why we are going down this route in the first place.

It seems to me that the argument that the Minister may well have is that, well, these people look after their animals really well. I think he has made it clear in the past—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there has never been any question about the welfare of the animals in these circuses. I am happy to be corrected by anybody, but as far as I am aware no one has suggested at any point that there has been any problem with the welfare of the animals. If there were problems, there are rules to deal with them. This is not about the welfare of these animals; no one has a question about that as far as I can see. It is about the principle of whether the animals should be used for this purpose, even though they have been bred and trained for it—they cannot be untrained obviously. They will not be used for any other purpose, and they will not be released into the wild, so what will be done with them? They will just live a life in retirement. My amendment is about making sure that they are able to enjoy a long and fulfilled retirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak at the Report stage of this Bill. I apologise to the House that I was not able to speak on Second Reading. That is probably why I was not invited to serve on the Bill Committee. For me, this is, exactly as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, an ethical question. It is not about animal welfare, although there are some real animal welfare issues, as we have seen over the years in fly-on-the-wall documentaries and other reports of animals being abused and kept captive.

There are two major parts of this Bill where the Minister should listen to the proposals in the Opposition amendments as well as in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). As a former Policing Minister, I know that the police will not want an officer to be the sole person with the knowledge to go in and carry out this activity. Let us put that on the record now—they would not want to do that. There is a completely different reaction from members of the public, whether they are running a circus or any other organisation, to an inspector arriving and to an officer of the constabulary arriving, particularly together. That is the sort of reaction that we need to have.

The excellent National Wildlife Crime Unit, which was also under my portfolio, is a small unit, and it might well need some extra resources if it were to take this duty on in general. The principle of that unit means that it is exactly where the power should come from. That should be addressed within the guidance, as it is probably easier for it to be done in that way. This applies to the 43 authorities in England and Wales. Scotland already has legislation just like this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was just telling me that it was actually better, in principle, and we are trying to make this Bill better through some of the lessons that have been learned there.

I absolutely agree that no new animals at all should be allowed into circuses in this interim period. We are trying to go with public opinion, which has changed over the years. My eldest daughter is now 30 years of age.

[Philip Davies]

Never! She doesn’t look old enough.

[Sir Mike Penning]

She does not look 30 years of age, as my hon. Friend comments. She said to me when she was about 11 years of age, “Daddy, I’m going to be taken to a zoo by the school, and I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to see animals in cages.” We have never gone to a zoo and never gone to a circus that has had live animals. My youngest daughter is 28 and my eldest daughter is 30. My eldest daughter is now a marine biologist, so the House can probably realise where I am coming from on this. If we are going to make a law that says that we are banning live animals in circuses, let us do that for them, and for the public. If there are animal welfare issues, that can be picked up, but actually over the years it has not been, which is why we are going to ban it ethically now.

Should the animals be taken if they are found in this situation? This is a really difficult grey area that the Minister is going to have to address. Why would someone travel with an animal if they have not been training it and using it? Why would they keep it in its winter quarters when perhaps there are better types of quarters that it could be kept in? If it is travelling, why would they do that if they are not using it within a circus production? I hope that there can be an accommodation in this Bill—whether in this House, around guidance, or as it proceeds to the other House, which will also understand that the public are with us on this—whereby we can do what it says on the tin. This Bill says that we are going to ban live animals in circuses—we are going to protect those animals should they be in a circus.

There will be loads of good will out there regarding these animals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said that he tweeted out about this —yes, but they have to go to the right place. We are talking about myriad different types of animal that are used within circuses. It is really important that these animals go to a place of expertise to be looked after, because a lot of them may well have been through very stressful procedures. They may have been in a circus nearly all their life and then they are taken to a completely different environment. That takes a degree of professionalism and expertise. That has to be addressed in terms of payment, which should come from the circus, as they are the people who are responsible for these animals. They can be passionate about them. I have heard some of the debates in public over the years where they have said, “We love these animals.” I do not doubt that, but we need to say, “If we have a situation where we are going to have to remove animals from you, as an organisation, then it is not right for the taxpayer or a charity to pick up that tab—it is your job.” We need to consider how we can move that forward within the guidance. Perhaps the other House will debate this for a little bit longer.

We are trying, on principle, cross-party and as a nation, to get the animal rights part of this right. My kids—our kids—are driving this forward. It is like the environmental arguments that are going on out there at the moment. They are right, because it is their future, not our future. I have been lucky enough to be in Kenya with the military and have been in most of the safari parks. Seeing an animal in its natural environment coming down to the water hole in the evening because that is what it naturally does is an absolutely moving thing, not like seeing an elephant standing on its back legs in a circus, which is very damaging for the animal.

The House should be very proud of bringing this legislation forward. I would disagree only slightly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport on one thing. The previous Labour Administration had a huge majority—an absolutely enormous majority. They could have got whatever legislation they wanted through this House at any time during that period, but it is a Conservative Government who have brought this through. I am very proud of that, but it should have been brought in years and years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman says that is quite a long period. It is long enough to take what he is saying seriously. We understand his arguments, but for the sake of completeness, I want everyone to understand the processes.

Paragraph (b) of the new clause would affect circuses already licensed by DEFRA. The two licensed circuses still using wild animals have not said that they have any plans to add further wild animals. Given that a ban will be in place before the next touring season, it would make little economic sense for them to invest in new trained animals or equipment now, and significant changes to a performance require planning, which would usually happen when the circus is at winter quarters, from late October onward. Also, in the unlikely event that a circus sought to add a wild animal to an existing licence, the proposed moratorium would not prevent that from happening between now and the moratorium coming into effect.

I assure the House that that is a highly unlikely scenario. The current 2012 licensing regime would safeguard the animal’s welfare. Existing licence conditions require circuses to provide DEFRA with at least two weeks’ notice of their intention to add a wild animal to their circus, and inspection would follow as soon as possible after the animal’s arrival in the circus. The Government accept that that leaves open the possibility—albeit a very small one—that new animals could be used in travelling circuses for a maximum of 14 or 16 weeks, or just over three and a half months, if the licence application was submitted and approved, unless the proposed early moratorium comes into effect. Although we have had no indication that any circus in the UK would try to make use of such a gap, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. I will take the matter away and, ahead of Committee stage in the Lords, consider how best we can ensure that no new wild animals are used in travelling circuses by the time the ban comes into force on 20 January 2020.

On amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we believe that circuses have had enough time to plan for the ban. He suggested, I think probingly, that the decision has only just been made; in fact, the legislation has been long in gestation, and the general feeling is that it would have been better had it been introduced sooner. I think we all share that view. It has been difficult to get parliamentary time. Circuses have had six and a half years to prepare, ever since the introduction of the licensing regulations, which contain a sunset clause that made it clear that the ban would be in place by January 2020. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendment is necessary.

The Government have always been clear that the licensing regulations were an interim measure only. It is important to highlight that licences must be renewed every year, and in February last year we reaffirmed that any license issued to circuses this year would be the last, because a ban would be in place by the time the interim regulations expired on 20 January 2020. The coming into force date of the Bill aligns with the expiry date of the regulations, which means that the two circuses will be able to update and plan their routines for next year while they are not on tour, as the majority of circuses would do anyway.

It should not be too difficult for the circuses to replace the wild animal elements of their shows. DEFRA has been inspecting these circuses at least three times a year for the last six and a half years. Our inspections show that the animals, where they are used, are used for only about five to ten minutes as part of a two-hour show. As long as the ban comes into force during the winter season, which has always been the Government’s intention, we believe that the two circuses have enough time to adjust their routines. Indeed, there are about 25 circuses in the UK and Ireland that do not use wild animals in their show, and they operate successfully. They show what can be done. To reassure my hon. Friend further, comparisons with ticket prices in other travelling circuses that do not use wild animals do not show a premium for seeing or involving wild animals.

I should add that the amendment does not reflect the fact that the interim licensing regulations expire next January. The amendment would therefore permit wild animals to be used in travelling circuses for two years—that is, to 2022—with a much lower level of scrutiny than they have been subjected to for the last seven years. In those circumstances, I would certainly share the concerns about more wild animals being introduced into travelling circuses. A two-year moratorium, with no DEFRA licence required at all, could well lead to more wild animals being used in travelling circuses. That is not something this Government would agree to.

I hope I have made it clear why the Government believe that next January is an appropriate date for the ban to come into force, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are reassured by my comments. I hope my hon. Friend feels that it would be best were he not to press his amendment.

[Philip Davies]

I thank the Minister for an extremely thorough response to the amendments tabled by me and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). People will now see why I speak so highly of my hon. Friend, not just in his time as a Minister but in his time at Asda. His courteous, serious and thorough treatment of all the amendments does him credit and shows why he is such a fantastic Minister, and I am grateful to him. I am pretty sure that he will discuss these matters further with the shadow Minister and me before the Bill goes to the Lords.

As the Scottish National party Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), is present, I should restate my view that the law introduced by the Scottish Government is better than the Bill we are dealing with, but I have heard the Minister’s response and, based on that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Consideration completed. As the Bill has not been amended since its introduction, Standing Order No. 83L does not apply and I do not need to suspend the House to reconsider the Bill.

I remind the House that on Second Reading the Speaker certified that clauses 1 and 2 and the schedule relate exclusively to England on matters within devolved legislative competence. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are being made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber.

Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will be making a spring statement next week and remind him and the House that it is not a fiscal event under the new Budget architecture. We have put very significant additional funding into the national health service. I note the point he makes about acquired brain injury and the research that is happening on that. I will draw the Health Secretary’s attention to his comments.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Chancellor has rightly made great play of the fact that we need to improve our productivity in this country. One of the biggest drags on productivity in my part of the world is clogged-up roads, and my part of West Yorkshire is one of the most congested parts of the UK. So will the Chancellor use money from either his productivity fund or his road-building fund to ensure that there is enough money in the kitty to progress the long-awaited, much-needed Shipley eastern bypass?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend will know, we have funded a study into the Shipley bypass. It is absolutely right that, often, the highest-value road investments can be relatively modest local schemes that relieve pressure and allow town regeneration, the release of housing land and the more efficient operation of local industry. We will have a record-sized fund available through the hypothecation of vehicle excise duty.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 4 o’clock. I will not put a time limit on speeches at this stage, but to give Members a guide, it looks as if they will have roughly 10 minutes each.

Equitable Life

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a debt of honour, and we owe it to those victims who did the right thing. They saved for their old age and now they suffer consequences.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Treasury was owed money by other people its attitude would be very different? It is amazing what the Government can find money for when it needs to. As my hon. Friend said, this is a pledge that this party has made over many years, and I support him in the campaign he has superbly led over many years. Does he agree that the Treasury should now do the right thing, as they promised to do all those years ago, as he has pointed out?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not a Treasury Minister, so unfortunately I am not in a position to honour that pledge, but I look forward to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary giving us some good news this afternoon.

HMRC Estate Transformation

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we set all current arrangements in aspic. Going back some decades, there would have been not 170 offices across the country, but several hundred. No doubt if we went back in time, the hon. Gentleman would have been on his feet telling us that we should keep 700 offices, rather than shrinking the number down to 170. The reality is that the way that the tax authority conducts its affairs is effective—I have given the figures—and there is a model that makes that happen. That lends itself to 21st-century hubs that have the right resourcing to do the job.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that cheaper premises were available just up the road in Bradford, it is absolutely ridiculous that the Yorkshire hub will be in Leeds. As HMRC made no economic impact assessment of the effect on the places that it is moving out of, will the Minister look at what financial support the Treasury can give from its savings to Shipley, to make sure that its local economy is not damaged by the closure of its tax office? There is already great congestion for commuters trying to get to Leeds on the train; what investment will he make to ensure that people can get from my constituency to Leeds on the train, which they cannot do at the moment?

[Mel Stride]

The decision to have a Leeds office as opposed to a Bradford office has been rigorously looked at. It hinged on eight principles, some of which I set out in my response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who spoke for the Scottish National party. On my hon. Friend’s more general point about the economic impact, the House should celebrate the economic success that we have had; we have the highest level of employment and lowest unemployment since the mid-1970s, and it is this Government’s policies that are providing that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is reviewing the proposals of the One Yorkshire consortium. It is our priority—I think it is a reasonable one—that the Sheffield city region and its mayor is taken forward and that the mayor is able to fully perform his functions on behalf of the people who elected him a year ago. We have said that the purpose of devolution is to create a mayoralty around a functioning economic geography. It is not clear that that case has yet been made by an historic county of the scale of Yorkshire, but we will continue to consider the proposals.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

One scheme that is vital in my constituency for promoting economic growth is the Shipley eastern bypass. The Secretary of State for Transport has visited twice and made it clear that he supports the scheme and would like to ensure that it is implemented. Will the Treasury ensure that he has the funding to make the Shipley eastern bypass a reality?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed the Shipley eastern bypass on several occasions. We have put a record amount of money into our strategic roads network. By hypothecating vehicle excise duty, the amount of money available for road spend in the second road investment strategy period will be almost 175% of the previous period, which is a substantial increase in investment in our roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The Government have made a commitment to maintain the real-terms value of the defence budget at 2% of our GDP, increasing defence spending in real terms in every year. We have no intention of changing that commitment to UK defence.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

When will the Chancellor give some much-needed money to our police forces?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have just pointed out, we have given extra grant funding to the police forces. We are also achieving better efficiencies in conjunction with the Home Office, and we have covered the cost of additional pensions as well.

Racehorse Protection

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Robertson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was going to be my very next point. A horse weighs approximately half a tonne. A flat jockey at York on Saturday would have weighed roughly 8 or 8½ stone. I assure Members that there is no way on God’s earth that an 8½-stone jockey will force half a tonne of horse to do something it really does not want to do. If it digs its heels in and decides it will not go into the starting stalls, it will not go into the starting stalls, and there is nothing an 8-stone jockey can do to force it to. If a horse does not want to set off at the start of a steeplechase, no jockey will be able to force it to.

That happens from time to time. Horses are wilful and intelligent creatures. They are not stupid. When they get to the racecourse, they know they are at the racecourse and they are there to race. Believe me, when horses decide to set off, they do so of their own volition. Many racehorses decline to race—they do not come out of the stalls and do not set off. That happens from time to time—regrettably, usually when I have backed one.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thorough speech, but he fails to point out that horses are trained to jump and race—those things do not exactly come to a horse naturally. Horses that are not trained, such as those we see in fields as we drive by on the motorway or a country road, do not jump fences automatically just because they naturally love to jump.

[Philip Davies]

I do not accept that. Racehorses are not just trained to race—they are bred to race, and they naturally want to race. That is their natural state of being. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise that racehorses, if they were not in a trainer’s yard, would have no interest at all in racing one another. That is what they naturally want to do, and it is what they naturally do.

Someone mentioned the whip. I encourage people to get hold of a whip and hit themselves with it quite hard. They will find it does not actually hurt at all. Whips are not used for that purpose. If someone wants a horse to run faster, they do not hurt it. By definition, a hurt horse will not run faster, just like someone who is injured while running will not run faster as a result of being hurt. Yes, the whip is used to encourage a horse. It is often used for safety reasons, to ensure that a horse runs in a straight line and does not deviate and put other horses and riders in danger. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the use of the whip in horse-racing. Again, a horse will not run faster if it has been injured.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool said racing was run by the “blue-blooded” brigade. I do not know whether more than a few of us have met Nick Rust, the chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority, but I am not sure he would recognise that description. Perhaps he would—perhaps I do him a disservice—but I think most people in the Chamber would accept that he is from a very humble, modest and down-to-earth background. Describing people such as him as “blue-blooded” does them a gross disservice.

[Mike Hill]

Of course I recognise that horse-racing is not only the sport of kings—allegedly—but the sport of the working man. However, as a member of the Petitions Committee, I reflected the views of the petitioners. To answer the hon. Gentleman, yes I can ride a horse, but I missed out from my speech the fact that both the BHA and the petitioners recognise that there are issues with the weighting of saddles, which means the weight of the jockey is not natural.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for distancing himself from the description of the BHA as “blue-blooded”, which, as I said, I do not recognise.

The BHA puts animal welfare at the heart of everything it does. Anyone who has read its business plan for 2017 to 2019 will know that the first of its six strategic objectives is “equine welfare leadership”. I do not think anyone can doubt the BHA’s commitment to animal welfare. It has already started a huge animal welfare programme led by David Sykes, the BHA director of equine welfare.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is, like me, a regular reader of the Racing Post. I am sure the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is, too. He is a fantastic joint chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group. I am merely a vice-chairman, but I am proud of that none the less. I have to say that the two joint chairmen do a fantastic job. Anyone who has read the Racing Post recently will know about the BHA’s interesting initiative with Exeter University. They have been looking at how horses’ vision affects how they see and respond to their environment. They have looked at the visibility of fences and at what colours make horses more careful when they jump them. As a consequence, a trial will soon be run in which a yellow band appears across the hurdles, because the evidence from Exeter University is that horses are more careful when they see the colour yellow. That was news to me, but it goes to show how the racing industry is leaving no stone unturned to try to make the sport as safe as possible for horses. A padded hurdle design is being trialled at 11 jump racecourses, with the objective of reducing fallers.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about the breeding industry. On 1 January, the BHA introduced 30-day notification for thoroughbred foals born in Great Britain so there is greater transparency and information about the whereabouts of foals born into the racing industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury made clear the number of people who are employed in the racing industry and the industry’s importance. Having owned horses—modest ones on the whole, as I said—I do not believe anyone is more passionate about the welfare of horses than owners, trainers and in particular the stable staff who look after those horses daily. Of course, from time to time, something happens to a horse that goes racing. No one disputes that that is tragic, but the people who are most upset about it are the owners and trainers, and the stable staff who look after those horses every day.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool clearly met various people and did some research before opening the debate. I genuinely commend him for that. I hope everyone present tries to take the opportunity to visit a racing stable and see how well horses are treated in those stables—how well they are pampered and how loved they are by the stable staff who look after them, the trainers who train them and the owners who own them. I often wish I was as well-pampered as a racehorse. No stone is left unturned in looking after them. They have saunas, swimming pools—you name it. They are rightly treated like kings and queens in those stables.

We should be immensely proud of how well racehorses are looked after in this country. I suspect that we compare very well with any other country anywhere in the world and I would be amazed if any other country had as proud a track record in looking after racehorses as we do. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has supported nearly 500 research projects on animal welfare since its foundation. Since 2000, the levy board and third parties have invested about £35 million of veterinary research funding.

Rightly, we are a nation of animal lovers, nobody more than me. As someone who has been closely involved in the racing industry all my life, I can look people in the eye and say that I think that the racing industry in this country is the best in the world and the one most interested in animal welfare. The BHA does a fantastic job in regulating. I am not entirely sure what an independent regulator would do that the BHA does not already do, given some of the things I have mentioned. Anyone can see that it leaves no stone unturned in trying to ensure that we have as few horse casualties as possible in the racing industry. Unfortunately, accidents happen to horses, but they happen when they are out in a field, not when they are racing. Many injuries happen when horses are just loose in the field; they do a lot of damage to themselves. It is terrible, awful and heart-breaking for everybody, but unfortunately those things happen.

We should not castigate an industry that does so much for animal welfare either because of ignorance or because people just do not like a sport or people in that sport. We should all congratulate the British Horseracing Authority on everything it does for animal welfare; without doubt, it is a world leader, and I hope that the Minister will echo that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I represent Derby North, where we do not currently have a racecourse, although we do have a park called Racecourse park because we used to have one. I, no doubt like other hon. Members, have been lobbied by many constituents. I have had lots of letters from constituents who are concerned about horse welfare, use of the whip, and the number of horses that have died in horse-racing. They are keen for the House to press the Government to introduce an independent regulatory body.

I joined the League Against Cruel Sports back in 1976, so I have paid some attention to cruel sports, and some elements of horse-racing are undoubtedly incredibly cruel. I have paid much attention to the Grand National. The League Against Cruel Sports, along with a number of other organisations, has made representations about the cruelty associated with that event for many years. The course has been modified somewhat, but it is incredibly gruelling nevertheless. Other hon. Members have made glowing references to the British Horseracing Authority, but in my opinion it has proved itself to be singularly useless on animal welfare since it was founded in 2007. Why do I say that? Since that time 2,000 horses have died in horse-racing. On the barbaric use of the whip, in the order of 500 abuses are recorded every year, and there is no sign of a reduction in that number.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested rather absurdly that the whip does not hurt. He said, “Get a whip and hit yourself with it—it won’t hurt.” Let me put a challenge to him: give me the whip, go stand somewhere and let me hit you with it and see if I can hurt you. He will probably find that I could hurt him.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for spouting off without having the first idea what he is talking about, and he has demonstrated that again. He has clearly never come across the new design of the whip in horse-racing—the whip is cushioned. I appreciate that he never feels the need to know anything about a subject before telling us all about it, but I advise him to try to find something out. He should visit racing stables and see for himself the new design of the whip, because it is cushioned and it does not hurt. Old whips may well have had problems, but the new, latest whip does not. He should know that.

[Chris Williamson]

Many people would beg to differ. The challenge still stands to see whether I could hurt the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can get some witnesses together and see whether that is possible—but perhaps he is tougher than me.

The hon. Gentleman also asserted that he is an animal lover. That is an interesting observation from someone whom I understand is in favour of repealing the Hunting Act 2004. Someone in favour of ripping wild animals to pieces claims to be an animal lover—that brings his assertion into question.

[Philip Davies]

To emphasise the point that the hon. Gentleman comes here without knowing anything of what he is talking about, I have made it abundantly clear that I do not support changing the law on hunting at all. The law should stay in place. Again, he makes the case for me that he comes here spouting off about things of which he knows nothing.

[Chris Williamson]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I have only a few more words to say, but go on.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, but he seems to dodge the issue by saying that we are not talking today about a ban. Does he want to ban horse-racing? Does he want to ban national hunt racing in this country? Would that be the end product if he were running the show?

[Chris Williamson]

No, I am not calling for that at all. What I want to see is welfare standards upheld in the industry. I would hope that all of us wish to see that. There is a difference of opinion: some seem to think that the BHA is capable of doing that, but it has proven itself incapable of doing so, because if it were, we would not have seen so many horses being killed and we would not see the grotesque use of the whip. In a sense, however, that is irrelevant, irrespective of my views. That is not what we are debating today and I am not calling for it.

I am a vegan and, indeed, the vegans will inherit the earth—there is no doubt about that. We have to reduce the amount of meat we are eating because we are killing the planet, but we are not getting into that now. We are not having a wide debate about the rights, wrongs and wherefores of various different topics. The hon. Gentleman and others have sought to muddy the waters by questioning the motives of the people behind the petition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I concur absolutely with my hon. Friend. He might like to know that between 2010 and 2017, we spent £300 billion on debt interest, which is twice the current annual budget of the NHS.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The session would not be complete without the voice of Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

Given all the talk of austerity, will the Minister tell us what Government spending was in cash terms in 2010 and what it is in this financial year?

[John Glen]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have taken a balanced approach to the public finances, reducing the deficit by three quarters. We have also made tough decisions to invest as well as to spend on public services, which is what the public expect of us.

Exiting the EU: Costs

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

That would be wrong according to accounting principles, because nothing has been agreed. The Office for Budget Responsibility followed the Prime Minister’s Florence speech in laying out its projections for the Budget. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has misinterpreted those standards.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she agrees that the UK should pay the EU what we are legally obliged to pay—not a penny more and not a penny less? If so, will she make sure that, before this House votes on the final bill, we have an itemised account of exactly what we are paying for at the end, and also the legal basis on which we are making those payments? I have to say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is absolutely right: if there is any spare money going at a time of austerity, it should be directed to our priorities in the UK; we should not give it as a bung to the European Union, which we are not legally obliged to do.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to get the best possible deal for the British taxpayer, and we need to look at the deal in the round to see what represents value for money. Absolutely, the money should be spent on our public services and on keeping taxes low for our hard-working citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No, and that was not what my right hon. Friend said, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows. I would, however, agree with him that increasing activity in the construction sector is a very good way of creating jobs, but he will know that at 4.3% our economy is approaching full employment and the output gap is extremely small.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that more people are in employment, there is more opportunity for people to take advantage of employee share ownership saving schemes. Unfortunately, the maximum amount of time someone can pause one of those schemes is six months, which means that many women on maternity leave for up to a year have to cash in their schemes and cannot take advantage of them to maximum effect. I am sure that is an out-of-date anomaly, so in the Budget will the Chancellor extend the period of time that an employee share ownership saving scheme can be paused to up to 12 months? In that way, women on maternity leave can enjoy the same benefits of those schemes as everybody else.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman used the words “employment” and “employee” and just about got his question in order.