The Economy

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

The Government’s Queen’s Speech sets out a bold and ambitious domestic agenda, focusing on the priorities of the people: sorting Brexit, investing in public services, tackling crime, boosting productivity and attracting investment. The Government are committed to creating new jobs and helping individuals and families with the cost of living. In fact, they already have a clear record of action on delivering jobs. The latest jobs figures confirm this, with over 3.6 million more people in work since 2010, meaning more people with the financial security to serve themselves and their families the length and breadth of Britain.

Further, projections from the IMF show that our economy will grow faster than those in France, Germany and Japan. Once the House finally gets its act together and delivers on the instruction of the British people in 2016 to leave the EU—an instruction that this House asked the British people to make—we will be able to realise the full benefits of Brexit and build a brighter future for our country.

We all know that no-deal Nicola and the SNP are utterly obsessed with independence, but voters across Scotland are all too acutely aware of what an absolute catastrophe independence would be for their jobs, living standards, public services, their families and the Scottish economy. Beyond the recent announcements from the Prime Minister on supporting our farmers and protecting defence jobs, let us never forget that each man, woman and child in Scotland is more prosperous and secure within the Union and the United Kingdom internal market.

This United Kingdom is the most successful union of nations the world has ever seen, and this Government are working day and night to strengthen the bonds that tie us together as one United Kingdom as we leave the European Union. As our economy transitions into a new dynamic age, spurred on by developments in artificial intelligence, precision medicine and new energy technologies, this programme for government lights the way for us to move with confidence and to reap the full benefits of the future.

As we leave the EU, we will regain control of our independent trade policy, which will allow us to discard the protectionist shell of the EU and turn our attention towards the growing markets around the globe. The siren voices of protectionism will never be silenced, but free trade is good for all, and by becoming the torch bearers of free trade, we can show the world that we are open for business and that we want to be more outward looking than ever. As part of that, I will continue to campaign for a free port for Aberdeen. I know that energy companies and subsea manufacturers in my constituency are increasingly looking for markets in Asia, Africa and the Americas. This programme will not only allow them to do so more easily, but support them to do so. This will be good for the national economy, the local economy and the financial security of my constituents.

In representing Aberdeen South, the core of the UK’s oil and gas industry, I am acutely aware of the impact of the loan charge. I have been campaigning on this and urge the Government to act and to bring something forward with immediate effect, because there are people in dire circumstances who need our support and help. I believe, however, that the Government recognise the need for a healthy and robust private enterprise economy in order to properly fund the public services that people rely on every day, which is why I welcome this Queen’s Speech. It is a Unionist programme from top to bottom, and one that will provide the stability and certainty our economy needs. That is why, without hesitation, I will vote for it tonight.

Pet Identification

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—this is about empathy. What we are calling for is easily attainable within the current resources.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

There is no question about the success of the compulsory microchipping of dogs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that basing the need for the microchipping of cats on the risk that the animals pose to the public simply ignores the welfare of the animals in question?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. This is not about the safety of the public. It is about the family’s wellbeing and knowing what has happened to their beloved pet.

The process of scanning can be done in minutes and is not a complex procedure. Councils that have a policy to scan deceased pets often leave the onus on the owner to contact the council within seven days, which is a pointless exercise if an owner is not notified or if the pet is disposed of without the owner being given the chance to collect the body, to bury or cremate it, and to deal with their grief. During the holiday period, people might be away for longer than one week, so seven days is just unrealistic.

Too often, there is a disparity between council policy and actual practice. We know that from various cases evidenced by witnesses and council workers. One such worker, who wished to remain anonymous, told Gizmo’s Legacy:

“Oh, we don’t scan them, we are told not to. We take them to the local tip, where they are thrown in a freezer until full then put into the refuse.”

Des Kane is a volunteer chip scanner with Harvey’s Army. He regularly pops by his local council’s storage facility in Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, to check whether any pets in the freezer can be identified. He finds the council’s approach to pets found on the road to be very hit and miss:

“I find that the only real documenting of any such unfortunate deceased pet is the label attached to the bag in which they are placed. This label states the following: animal type, colour, where and when picked up from, and any distinguishing markings.

To my knowledge that is as far as it goes with documentation and I’m not aware of any other efforts made by the council to find a potential owner, i.e. posting on their website or social media. They do have an animal welfare officer who they call to scan animals when they’ve been lifted or they call me when he’s not available.

I’ve found the council staff at the facility very accommodating and helpful but I feel the council policy, as it stands, could be a bit more thorough in trying to contact a possible owner, although I know they are more proactive than some other authorities.”

Such volunteers do a tremendous job around the country uniting people with their deceased pets, but it should not be left to them or to the random lottery of what each local council chooses to do.

Cat owner Anita Short, a resident of Sunderland City Council, learned from a neighbour that her cat Toby had been collected by cleansing services. She then contacted the council and was invited to Sunderland council’s depot to see if Toby was in its freezer. Anita recognised her cat from his collar. She asked why her cat had not been scanned and the excuse she was given was that they did not have a scanner on them. Why does the council state that its workers will scan animals they pick up? As I said, they should all have scanners, given the requirement for dogs. The council was not following its own policy. Anita Short would have never known that her cat had been collected and was in a council freezer if it was not for her neighbour. Relying on best practice is meaningless if policies are not strictly followed, which is why Gizmo’s law needs to be implemented.

DogLost.co.uk is the country’s leading lost-and-found pets service—despite the name, it also deals with cats. It has a national network of volunteers. Its service is free but it relies on donations. Hon. Members have probably seen its posters attached to lamp posts or in shop windows with details of missing pets. Since the launch of DogLost UK in 2003, more than 105,000 dogs and cats have been registered as missing or stolen. Thankfully, nearly three-quarters of pets have been found. DogLost informs us that, in 2018, 9,029 pets were reported missing. At the start of this month, 24,201 pets were still missing, which means that many families are still searching. How many of those dogs and cats will have been recovered from council roads and paths but never scanned? We will never know how many of those dogs and cats have ended up in landfill because of lax record keeping.

Of course, not all animals are microchipped, so to be fair to councils it is sometimes not possible to find owners even when they scan. What we do know is that two councils admitted to collecting bodies of cats and putting them in the freezer, but failing to scan or keep any records. On questioning, they admitted remembering the description of two cats: that happened to Michelle Morton’s cat Cookie, which was in the hands of Blackpool Council, and Janette Barton’s cat Benji under Wigan Council. Both those cats were microchipped, but it appears that neither council bothered to scan, because they do not have to—it is only best practice. Councils make their own policies and do not even need to bother to stick to the rules that they have set themselves. Is it too much to ask that they take a few minutes to scan for a chip, keep some records that can be easily accessed and contact owners to let them know the bad news, to give them the chance to collect their pet for burial or cremation?

Janette told us that she still cries over losing her cat. The emotional connection between humans and pets cannot be emphasised enough. This debate is about human suffering, not the lost pet that has caused the human suffering. There are so many heart-breaking examples of families who have lost their pets. Gizmo’s Legacy detailed a broad range of them in the pack it sends to members, which highlights that there is a lack of scanning all over the United Kingdom.

The last example I will give is that of Wendy Turner and her cat Merlin, who was neutered and microchipped. After spending a day looking for him, she posted on Facebook and, following a last sighting of him, discovered he had been taken by the council. After contacting the council, Wendy was told that they would be in touch after they had scanned the cat, but that did not happen. She was then given the runaround, being passed on to different departments and being told that Merlin would be added to the list of deceased animals in a day or so. It was to be several weeks later before a vague description of a cat found in the area where Merlin was picked up appeared on the deceased animal list. Wendy says that

“it is two years since I lost Merlin and even now I feel that there is no closure. The thought of his precious remains being tossed away with rubbish or thrown into a furnace with no regard to him or his family I find very hard to accept. I only wanted to bring my boy home. This was the reason why I invested in a microchip. If it was not for the reply to my Facebook post I would still be searching for Merlin.”

People are spending real money to get their cats microchipped, so that when something does go wrong they can be reunited with them, whether alive or unfortunately deceased.

What can be done? Recommendations of good practice clearly do not work for everyone, which suggests that legislation for the UK’s 408 councils may be required. Local authorities are devolved, so we may need legislation in the devolved nations as well as in this Parliament. It takes minutes to scan a pet, log details and contact an owner—a small price to pay considering the human misery that searching for a pet generates. It is important that contact is made where microchips exist, and that there be a system to view photos of deceased pets where no microchip is found.

Our pets need improved protection. Gizmo’s law would mean that all councils would have to start scanning all animals they collect on all their roads, paths and locations and contacting their owners to give them closure. If the animals are not chipped, they should send images to organisations such as Deceased Cats UK and Ireland or DogLost, which will happily share them to help to trace owners. Councils could even set up a web page or social media site. It is not too much to ask to keep all cats and dogs for at least seven days. If local authorities do not have freezers, they can use a local vets. The petitioners are not asking for anything that is not easily attainable, and given the attendance in the debate, it seems they have broad cross-party support.

We need Gizmo’s law to help to protect the basic rights of pet owners: the right to not have a family member thrown into a landfill, and the right to know whether their pet has been found and identified so they can collect the body and start the grieving process. Pets are part of the family. It is unacceptable for councils to treat pets as throwaway rubbish. Now is the time to do away with the postcode lottery of random policies and often uncaring practices that are described by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as best practice. Campaigners and pet owners all hope that the Minister will do the right thing: make Gizmo’s law a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Like everybody else who has contributed, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his well-informed and comprehensive speech to kick off the debate.

Like everybody else in the Chamber, I am hugely fond of animals. We all appreciate the importance of family pets. I may completely divide public opinion across the UK, but I wish to confess on the record that I am a cat lover and have had pet cats in the past. I had a cat call Kitty and a stray cat who my family took in at my behest. We called her Misty because she had a misty past and we did not know where she came from, but she was very keen to stay with us. Like the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), I suffer from the lack of a cat at the moment, not having sufficient time to look after and care for one in the way that cats demand. I declare an interest: I am a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. A number of hon. Members in the Chamber confessed to me that they did not know that there was such a group. They are all very welcome to come along.

If, as the petition calls for, all cats are scanned for a microchip when they are lost, injured or killed, it makes nothing but logical sense that all cats ought to be required by law to be microchipped if this policy is to have any real coherence. Family pets add so much value to our lives and help us to maintain better mental health, whatever our age. They play a significant role in combating loneliness, especially, but not exclusively, for older people.

Everyone understands that the compulsory microchipping of dogs has been very positive, so why is the same not the case for cats? As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, every animal—every cat—matters. A cat’s life is worth the same as any dog’s life. Dogs are required to be microchipped, and drivers are required to report if they are involved in an accident with them.

In an ideal world, we would all make every effort to have our cats microchipped, because there are significant benefits to cats and cat owners in doing so. The SNP Government in Scotland have long recommended the microchipping of cats as best practice in their code of practice for the welfare of cats. Responsible cat owners want to do what is best for their cat’s welfare, and it is important that they are able to avail themselves of this option. It is always better to encourage people to do something, rather than force them. If all owners were fully informed of the benefits of microchipping their cats, I am sure that the vast majority—many more than currently do so—would be keen to take up that offer. Many cat owners do not think about losing their cat or about their cat having an accident until it happens, so they do not prioritise microchipping, and by the time they do, it is too late. If the law right across the UK required all cats to be microchipped, and councils by necessity played their part, it would save a lot of distress to cat owners and cats themselves, and in the event of loss or injury, it could save a cat’s life.

The Scottish and UK Governments have yet to be persuaded of the merits of compulsory microchipping for cats. I do not really understand why, as we already have compulsory microchipping for dogs. Those of us who believe that it is a good idea therefore need to continue to make the case to persuade them that it is the right thing to do. I believe that it is the right thing to do for cats and cat owners, and it is the right thing to do from an animal welfare perspective, from any angle we choose to look at it. If chipping is compulsory, local authorities will of necessity scan all cats that are lost, killed or injured. Given that dogs are already microchipped, this is not such a great leap from current practice, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said. Clearly, some cat owners will not microchip their cat unless it is an absolute requirement, so in the end animal welfare requires us to make this a legislative matter.

[Ross Thomson]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. I want to work with her and colleagues to ensure that the law is changed, both across Scotland and in the rest of the UK. Does she agree that, if we secure compulsory microchipping and scanning, it would be beneficial to have one centralised database, so that when a missing cat or dog is found it is really easy to get the data from the database and reunite the pet with its owner? At the moment, it is far too complex. The Government really need to look at having one centralised database.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. A centralised database is particularly important for cats, rather than perhaps dogs, because cats, as we know, often wander extremely far from home, and may wander into a completely different part of the country. A centralised database would make a lot of sense. I will press the Scottish Government on compulsory microchipping for cats. The matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that MPs representing constituencies in England will likewise press the UK Government and the Minister, who I am sure is listening carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk rightly pointed out that local authorities across the UK have a confused and patchy policy on scanning for microchips. It is clear that the reason for such patchy and inconsistent practices across local authorities is because there is no compulsory microchipping. If we sort that out—local authorities will do their duty and follow the law if it is changed—it will reconcile thousands of lost, killed and injured cats with their grateful owners.

I am not a particularly prolific user of social media; I tend to post whatever I want to post and then log off. However, almost every time I log on to social media, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) I see posts from worried pet owners—overwhelmingly cat owners—who are desperately worried about their family pet, who has wandered off and seems to be lost or worse.

Having been a pet owner myself, I completely understand, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber does, how worrying it is when a beloved pet cat does not come home, and the owner does not know whether it is lost or in distress, whether it is trapped somewhere and cannot get back home, or whether it has even met with some terrible accident. Not knowing whether we will ever see a beloved pet again is extremely distressing.

We have heard that it cannot be overestimated just how much a part of the family our pets become. It is a really distressing experience for any pet owner to go through. If a cat seems to be lost, and if it is microchipped and microchipping is enshrined by law, it is extremely likely that when it is found it will be returned to its owner, as their details will be contained in the microchip that will be scanned by the local authorities. I honestly cannot see any downside to that idea.

Compulsory microchipping and local authorities scanning microchips are inherently intertwined. The patchy and inconsistent scanning that we have heard about today cannot continue in all good conscience. We have heard from the UK Government and the Scottish Government that it is best practice to microchip a cat. If that is the case, then it must be better practice, by definition, for all cats to be microchipped—by law, if necessary. It must be even better practice for local authorities to fulfil what would become a legal duty to scan cats that are lost, injured or killed, so that owners can be informed.

I have heard some people argue that this is not necessary because a cat can wear a collar with the owner’s contact details, and that works just as well. Although that is better than nothing, it is not as secure a safeguard as a microchip; collars can become loose and untangled, and be lost. There are no such worries with a microchip.

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home is unequivocal in its view that microchipping is the most effective way of ensuring that a cat can be safely reunited with its owner quickly, together with recording its medical and domestic history. In 2018, it was able to reunite 333 lost cats with their owners because they were microchipped. We can increase that number with compulsory microchipping, which will, of necessity, mean compulsory scanning by local authorities.

As we have heard, drivers are required by law to stop and report incidents of hitting a

“horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog”,

but not a cat. This seems an odd omission that must be addressed. I know several people who have found a poor dead cat at the side of a road, after it has been hit by a vehicle as it tried to cross the road. That is deeply distressing and makes the loss of a beloved pet all the more difficult to come to terms with. It is as if the poor cat, who was like a member of its own family, was discarded in a way that suggests it simply did not matter. To all of us who consider ourselves animal lovers, that cannot be right. Research has shown that over 60% of people in the UK believe that the law should be changed and that drivers who knock down a cat should have to report that as well. Why should cats continue to be excluded?

When a driver hits a dog with their car and fails to report it to the police, they can be fined up to £5,000. The fact that they are under no obligation to make a report when they hit a cat is deeply unfair. We understand that dogs are more likely to inflict damage; there is insurance and liability to consider, and dogs are supposed to be on leads on the highway, so perhaps their owners have been negligent. Despite that, the current situation continues to be deeply unfair and distressing to cats and their owners, as the hon. Member for Strangford and others indicated.

Every year, countless cats are left to die alone, sometimes slowly and in pain, before being dumped in landfill, when they could perhaps have been saved with treatment or their grieving owners could have been given the opportunity to say a proper goodbye. If drivers knock down a dog—or even an ass—they cannot flee the scene without reporting it to the police. Cats must not be seen as less worthy or less important to their owners. If it were illegal for a driver to fail to report the knocking down of a cat, a compulsory microchip in the cat would mean the owner would be notified in the appropriate way by the local authority, instead of being left to wonder what happened to their beloved family pet, perhaps for years.

Many local councils might argue that they do not have the resources to purchase scanning machines for microchipped cats. I pay tribute to Cats Protection, which has worked with local authorities across the UK for some time, donating scanning machines to those that struggle to afford or prioritise providing them. A number of local authorities have been able to commit to adhering to a scanning policy, as a direct result of those efforts. That is important as it is believed that of approximately 11 million pet cats in the UK, over 230,000 die on our roads each year. Charities such as CatsMatter believe this figure could be higher, due to under-reporting. For fear of banging on, if the law were changed to ensure compulsory microchipping, local authorities would prioritise purchasing scanning machines to comply with that law.

I pay tribute to North Ayrshire Cats Protection; it does sterling work and has some really dedicated volunteers whom I met shortly after I was elected. I had the good fortune and pleasure of meeting Fonzie the cat, with whom I was quite taken.

We have heard voices in the Chamber calling for cats to be microchipped and for improvements in scanning procedures in the event of misadventure, so that cats can be returned to their owners. For me, it follows that all cats ought to be microchipped for the same reason. Where we cannot persuade—and we have not persuaded everybody—we have to compel owners; it is the right thing to do. I support this petition and would go further, as I have set out. We need a coherent, joined-up policy, and I urge the Minister to consider compulsory microchipping, which will also deliver routine scanning by local authorities of cats who are lost or injured.

Make no mistake: I will pursue the Scottish Government about this matter. I ask the Minister to set about correcting the matter for cats in England, as I will seek to address it for the cats in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The statement that the hon. Gentleman has made does not suggest that the CEST tool is inappropriate. The CEST tool is there to determine an individual’s employment status. In 85% of cases, it does give a determination. HMRC will stand by that determination provided the right data was put into the CEST process.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Following a recent case, an individual convicted of benefit fraud was given 900 years to pay off the £88,000 that they had defrauded from the state, but those facing the loan charge have not committed any criminal offence or broken the law, yet they are being hounded by HMRC for unaffordable sums. Can my right hon. Friend please advise me on why HMRC is persecuting innocent people to the point that it is affecting their mental and emotional wellbeing while allowing convicted fraudsters such leeway?

[Mel Stride]

HMRC is not persecuting people, as my hon. Friend suggests. It is collecting the tax that is due. It is also not pursuing people for criminal activities, as he says. However, when it comes to criminality, I can tell the House that very recently, on 16 May, HMRC announced that six promoters of these schemes had been arrested on suspicion of loan charge tax fraud.

Loan Charge

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to reschedule this very important debate delayed due to the leaky roof. I have to admit, it was the first time in my life that I nearly became a Tory wet, but thankfully, that did not happen.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

A Tory wet!

[Ross Thomson]

Thankfully, I am not.

I thank all colleagues who have contributed to and participated in this debate, which has now taken place over two days. There were far too many colleagues to name individually in the time that is allowed to me, but what this has shown is a great display of cross-party working and cross-party consensus. At times like this Parliament shows itself at its very best, and I hope this goes some way to restoring some public trust in politicians and in Parliament. It has been clear from all the contributions that there has been unanimous—or almost unanimous—support for the motion.

Some very clear messages have come from this debate. Fundamentally, this is about the retrospective effect of the loan charge: people—our constituents—have acted in good faith and now face enormous bills, which, in many cases, can be devastating to them and their families. For me and others in the House, it is a clear breach of the rule of law and natural justice. Another message is that we are talking about ordinary people, not the mega-wealthy. We have to do more to pursue those who were the promoters of these schemes. Colleagues have very eloquently outlined their constituents’ concerns and concerns about how their constituents are being treated and pursued by HMRC.

I thank the Minister for his considered response. Although we take a different view on the policy of the loan charge, I have always found him to be a decent, courteous and engaging individual, who has always been willing to listen to my constituents’ concerns and act on them.

I am disappointed that there will not be a delay or an independent review of the loan charge. As the charge has come into effect, I hope that the Government will do all that they can to support individuals who find themselves in these circumstances and to show clemency and support to those who potentially face bankruptcy. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that additional support will be put in to help those individuals, but we have to bear in mind that the only reason why they have to receive any additional support is that they are being put in this position in the first place.

Those of us who have been campaigning against the loan charge are not going to go away any time soon. We will keep engaging and campaigning on this issue. As Parliament has shown over the last few weeks, we can find many innovative and creative ways to make a change in this place. I thank everyone for taking the time to participate in this debate to raise the concerns of their constituents, and I hope that we will support the motion in front of us this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses its serious concern at the 2019 Loan Charge which applies from 5 April 2019; expresses deep concern and regret about the effect of the mental and emotional impact on people facing the Loan Charge; is further concerned about suicides of people facing the Loan Charge and the identified suicide risk, which was reported to HMRC; believes that the Loan Charge is fundamentally unfair and undermines the principle of the rule of law by overriding statutory taxpayer protections; expresses disappointment at the lack of notice served by HMRC and the delays in communication with those now facing the Loan Charge, which has further increased anxiety of individuals and families; is concerned about the nature and accuracy of the information circulated by HMRC with regard to the Loan Charge; further regrets the inadequate impact assessment originally conducted; understands that many individuals have received miscalculated settlement information; calls for an immediate suspension of the Loan Charge for a period of six months and for all related settlements to be put on hold; and further calls for an independent inquiry into the Loan Charge to be conducted by a party that is not connected with either the Government or HMRC.

Puppy Smuggling

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on bringing forward this important debate. Puppy smuggling is an abhorrent crime, carried out with no regard for the welfare of puppies trapped in unimaginable conditions for days at a time. Like everyone else, I want to do everything I can to bring it to an end.

Those involved in the puppy smuggling trade rely on low animal welfare standards and high-volume breeding, treating these beautiful animals like products on a production line that runs from puppy farms in eastern Europe to homes in the UK. There is no doubt that puppies raised and sold through the industry suffer life-long physical and mental impacts, leading to chronic health conditions and often severe behavioural problems.

It is clear that the Government cannot eradicate the problem alone. We all have to take responsibility for ensuring that puppies are not sourced through third parties. Guidelines and advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the buying of puppies and dogs have not gone far enough in ensuring that those wishing to purchase puppies know the harm that third-party selling and puppy smuggling can cause. Demand and supply go hand in hand, and the scourge of puppy smuggling cannot be eradicated unless both are addressed and preventive measures are upheld to deter and stop those at both ends of this cruel supply chain.

I am sure all Members welcomed, as I did, the Government’s announcement that they intended to bring forward stricter punishments for animal cruelty offences. Tougher custodial sentences are long overdue for those who inflict harm on animals, such as the barbaric and unscrupulous criminals who facilitate puppy smuggling. I remain concerned, however, that the Government have not laid legislation to that effect before Parliament.

Brexit presents us with an opportunity to improve and tighten the rules and regulations on animal welfare. It is incredibly clear that the Government must take action to protect animal welfare and end puppy smuggling for good. We cannot delay any longer. We risk falling behind on the issue, and to do so would be to fail every one of the puppies trapped in this barbaric trade.

2019 Loan Charge

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on introducing the debate and being such a champion on this issue. My inbox and my surgeries have been inundated.

I represent Aberdeen South, which is the energy capital of Europe and the hub of our oil and gas industry. Many who worked in oil and gas were actively encouraged by their companies to get involved with such schemes, to set up a personal limited company and to get off the company books. Many did so for many years. Many felt assured that they were being advised by chartered accountants and tax advisers. Everything was above board. It was their belief that their professional accountant could not advise anything illegal; otherwise, their chartered status would be revoked.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

Of course it is a failure of successive Governments, but in 2011 the Government actually looked at this. They did not come up with a definitive answer and as a result these schemes proliferated.

[Ross Thomson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I could not agree with him more. For many, this option seemed to be the obvious choice. The retrospective nature of this decision is causing great distress. As has been said, there is a huge human cost. I want to take this opportunity to share with the Minister and hon. Members the stories of my constituents.

One constituent wrote to me and said:

“It’s been going on for a few years now and taking its toll on my family. As we are unsure where we’ll get the money to pay any outstanding tax, their bullying tactics in getting you to sign up to pay and the fact they demand you to reach a settlement with them, even though when we have done everything they ask, they have still not come back with any settlement figures.

Not only that, they are saying even if you settle or pay back the loans, there’s a strong possibility it won’t end there, so we go back to their scaremongering tactics they’ve deployed for you to pay up front and ask questions later, it’s totally unjust for our future as being a democratic society”.

Another constituent said:

“I like to think I understood the risk I was taking and had every confidence in the scheme I was using, I did not entertain the prospect that the Government would be prepared to violate the core principle of the rule of ‘legal certainty’ by introducing retrospective legislation going back 20 years…This weekend I have received my settlement ‘offer’ under HMRC’s settlement offer and am currently in the process of deciding whether or not to accept their terms. Whilst I sincerely would like to settle and move on, I am deeply concerned that their CLSO2 is extremely unfair and punitive.”

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that the fundamental unfairness is that HMRC is going after the easiest of targets, namely the individuals, rather than those who may be the most culpable?

[Ross Thomson]

I could not agree more. It seems to be easy pickings for HMRC. It is not going after those who are truly culpable. That is why such great distress is being expressed in our surgeries.

My constituent continued:

“This whole sorry affair has imposed life changing levels of stress on both me and my family, especially with the backdrop of the recent downturn in the oil and gas industry where I have been out of work for about 50% of the past two years.”

Another constituent wrote:

“This is a complicated situation, however fundamentally, HMRC have closed down the opportunity to use these ‘loan’ schemes.”

My constituent accepts that it is a positive move to end ambiguity.

“The retrospective nature of this legislation is going to place a large number of contractors under extreme financial duress. Bearing in mind HMRC’s failure to sort this situation out sooner”.

Another constituent—this is the last example I will give—emailed me to say that he was emailed by a company stating that he could retain 78% to 80% of his salary legally. He wrote:

“The scheme was QC approved and top tax counsel advised it was sound… I learnt during the latter part of last week that my retrospective tax charge is very likely to exceed £230,000. As for HMRC’s so-called ‘Impact Assessment’ apparently finding that such sums would lead to few, if any issues for those being expected to pay such, I can only comment that they must assume that we are all multi-millionaires. Of course, they know full well that we aren’t.

It’s very daunting when the full weight of government makes demands with threats of the law being brought to bear when, according to the law, no law has been broken. I doubt very much that I can simply ignore threats, be taken to court and stand there and say such. Thus individuals are placed in the position of hiring lawyers with costs running into six-figures and this will be beyond the means of most, if not all of us.”

This particular constituent says that he is single and has

“never had a second income from a partner to assist with cost of living”.

He is facing serious financial distress.

It is right that we condemn those who sold on and encouraged such schemes. It is deeply unfair that we seek to do this retrospectively. It absolutely violates the core principles of the rule of law. I could not agree more with colleagues who have already expressed that frustration. I think that this particular measure is disgraceful. I will go further-I think it is dishonourable and should be stopped.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

If colleagues could keep to five minutes, we might get everybody in.

Scottish Economy

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Danielle Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He will know that I would agree with that.

To focus on the construction industry, the collapse of Crummock is just one of many that we have seen recently, with many job losses, in Scotland. The closure of large employers such as Crummock will have a significant impact on local economies. A number of suppliers and service providers have spoken to me about their worries. A small electrical company and those providing cleaning services have expressed to me concerns about the future of their businesses following Crummock’s closure. Such closures reflect the failure of an economic strategy that is over-reliant on free-market forces, as well as an absence of joined-up Government policy and action, especially in public procurement.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

You mentioned the lack of free-market forces. Do you agree with your shadow Chancellor when he says that he wants to overthrow capitalism and bring down Britain’s system of free enterprise? That would mean fewer jobs, less money for public services and untold damage to the Scottish economy. Do you agree with his position?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Please speak through the Chair. I do not agree with any of that. Ask the hon. Lady if she agrees with that.

Spring Statement

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The reality is that since 2010 we have increased the number of schools that are good or outstanding. That means that 90% of schools are now either good or outstanding, and that 1.9 million more children are being taught in good or outstanding schools. That is the metric that matters to parents and to children themselves in terms of their life chances. It is not always just about the money; it is also about the outcomes.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I welcome the measures introduced by the Government to help the oil and gas industry, including a £2 billion package of support and the introduction of transferable tax history, which has been a much-needed shot in the arm. With the industry set to contribute over £1 billion in tax to the Treasury this financial year, will my right hon. Friend tell me what further steps the Government can take to support this vital sector?

[Mr Hammond]

We are committed to the oil and gas industry and, as my hon. Friend knows, to measures that will ensure that every drop of economically recoverable oil and gas in the UK continental shelf is recovered, which is in the interests of the Scottish economy, the UK economy and Her Majesty’s Treasury. I am delighted that the increase in the price of oil, together with the uptick in activity as a result of that rise and of the measures that we have announced, means that the oil sector’s contribution to the UK Treasury will again become positive in the year to come.

Duties of Customs

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Great Britain’s historical reputation as one of the greatest trading nations on earth can be revived and rejuvenated by Brexit. In freeing ourselves from our EU blinkers, we can now open our eyes to the rest of the world and the vast new opportunities that lie ahead of us. Scotland, as a proud partner in the UK, has played a crucial role in cementing Britain’s place as a truly great trading nation. The city of Glasgow was a key trading centre for the UK and acted as an international business hub. For the past 40 years, the UK has legally been forbidden from striking its own trade deals.

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No, I will not give way at the moment. I want to make some progress.

As we decouple from the EU, I am excited by the opportunity for Scotland to play a key role in a global trading Britain once again.

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on Scotland?

[Ross Thomson]

I will give way.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman and I argued during the Scottish independence referendum that one of the key arguments for Scotland not leaving the UK was that it would leave the UK single market, which would mean having a hard border at Berwick. Does he think the same in relation to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

[Ross Thomson]

Let us be absolutely clear that during that referendum campaign, the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side. It actually said on page 210 of the White Paper produced by the Scottish Government that, if we voted to stay within the UK, the UK could very well leave the European Union. Everyone had all the information to hand and they voted with their eyes open, and Opposition Members have—

[Ian Murray]

That is not what I asked.

[Ross Thomson]

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, rather than shouting.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that that is not what I asked him. I said that we were on the same side in the independence referendum, and one of the key arguments we both made incessantly during the referendum was that the UK single market would be broken up if Scotland became independent, which would require a hard border. The question was: why is that any different from the situation in Ireland now?

[Ross Thomson]

As we have heard from the Minister, no one wants a hard border between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the Government are working to achieve just that. I also made it clear during the referendum campaign that I have always believed in Britain’s future being outwith the European Union. I made such an argument, and I am sure others, especially those in the Labour party, would have done so too if they had perhaps been a bit more honest about their positions.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No. I want to make some more progress.

Scotland’s exports are world-renowned—I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I can absolutely agree about that—and whisky is just one example of a British export success story, with more than 90% of Scotch whisky being sold outwith the UK.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No. I want to make some more progress.

The city I represent, Aberdeen, is a global leader in some of the most innovative sectors, such as life sciences, new oil and gas technology, and food and drink. As the oil capital of Europe, Aberdeen is a global city and new bilateral trade deals—whether with the US, South America, Africa or even the middle east—will help the granite city to grow and to take advantage of trade inward and outbound investment.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No. I want to make more progress.

Furthermore, striking new trade deals will unlock the potential of many more Scottish businesses, helping them to make their mark around the world and boosting our economy at home, too. If we are to seize these opportunities and make the greatest possible success of them, Britain needs to be ready on day one of our exit from the EU for new trade relationships. On this point, the clock is now ticking.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No.

That is why this customs Bill is so important. Irrespective of any agreements reached between the UK and the EU as part of the negotiation and exit process, the UK will need primary legislation to create its own stand-alone customs regime, and to amend the VAT and excise regimes so that they can function effectively after the UK has left the EU.

The Bill will create a framework that lasts for a new UK customs regime. It will lay before us the necessary foundations to allow new arrangements on customs to be put in place depending on whatever the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations are, such as the implementation of a negotiated settlement with the EU, or leaving the EU without an agreement on customs.

I am sure that all Members of this House want our withdrawal from the EU to provide as much certainty and continuity as is possible for our businesses, employees and consumers. Currently, as the majority of rules governing customs in the UK are contained in directly applicable EU law, such as the Union customs code, it is important at this stage that new domestic legislation is brought forward and put in place for when we leave the EU in March 2019.

In the longer term, depending on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the Government will want to consult on possible changes to this law to help UK businesses, but now is the time to help businesses in all of our constituencies by providing the continuity of the existing rules, wherever possible.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No.

Furthermore, the Government will ensure, as they do at present, that their future customs regime is consistent with internationally agreed rules and arrangements. What does this mean in practice? As we all know, trade is not just about the trade deals that we strike or where the growing markets are in the world; it is also about the tariffs, regulatory barriers and terms of trade that we decide to set as part of a new UK policy. The Bill therefore enables the UK to establish a new UK tariff, charge customs duty on goods, set and vary rates of customs duty, and suspend or relieve duty at import in certain circumstances. The UK will be able to set preferential duties and additional duties—for example, to implement a preferential tariff applicable to developing countries.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Ross Thomson]

No, I want to make this important point: free and fair trade is the greatest poverty alleviation policy. As the Secretary of State for International Trade has already highlighted, over the last generation more than 1 billion people have been taken out of abject poverty, thanks to the success of global trading. The Bill will therefore enable the development of policy that helps some of the world’s poorest and developing countries to trade their way out of poverty, rather than simply to depend on aid.

As we set an independent UK trade policy for the first time in 40 years and take up our own seat at the World Trade Organisation, we as champions of free trade can be at the forefront of ensuring that, across the world, there is an ever widening sharing of prosperity. Such prosperity encourages and develops social cohesion, underpins political stability and supports conflict resolution, which in turn supports Britain’s own national security aims. The Bill also includes powers for the Government to introduce trade remedies and to protect domestic industries from injury caused by dumped, subsidised or unexpected surges of imports.

In all of this debate, the key point to bear in mind and to stress is that once the UK is outside the EU’s customs union, we will take our destiny into our own hands and be able to determine our own overall independent trade policy. We will no longer be bound by the EU’s protectionist tariff structure. Free of this, we will have the choice to lower duties on goods. In leading the world on free and fair trade, we can take forward a policy that liberalises trade. I am excited and optimistic about the new deeper and freer trade deals we will be able to strike that will support businesses and services in my constituency.

The golden opportunity of Brexit is the opportunity to open up our markets and lead the world in liberalising trade across the globe. It is not every day that an economy the size of the UK gets to set up a new Department for trade, or to draw up and set its own trade policy. This opportunity will not come again, so let us seize it with both hands.

Devolved Powers in Scotland

Ross Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The SNP has been in power for a decade now and throughout its time in office, the approach to dealing with any issue has been that control from Edinburgh is inherently better. The SNP Administration under Nicola Sturgeon have been characterised by illiberal reforms such as the named person scheme, where the Government did not trust parents to the extent that they wanted to assign a state guardian, because state officials know better than parents. The Supreme Court was unanimous in declaring that the Scottish Government had exceeded their powers in making a law that gave unprecedented powers to officials to share sensitive, private information about children without the consent of their parents.

Across Scotland, we have seen the Big Brother centralisation of power to an unprecedented degree and it is deeply disturbing. We have seen the Scottish Government’s illiberal control-freakery in the area of education, where the SNP’s top-down, authoritarian, one-size-fits-all approach is failing Scotland’s children. Schools are falling down international rankings and a smaller percentage of the most deprived children are going to university in Scotland than in any other part of the UK. Furthermore, the SNP has cut 152,000 college places.

In health, ministerial control has been tightened over health boards. Subsequently, NHS waiting times are being missed. We have seen widespread staffing crises right across Scotland, in every region. Turning to Police Scotland, eight regional police forces were merged into one, with accountability to a board appointed by Scottish Ministers, while right here, under the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary, we saw local accountability with elected police and crime commissioners. The SNP has called for more devolution for Scotland, but is silent when it comes to devolution within Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I am sorry, I do not have the time.

The SNP are failures—Ruth Davidson has the right ideas. Because of devolution, key decisions about Scotland can be taken in Scotland, while Scotland benefits from the pooling of risk and resources that comes from being part of a successful and historic Union. A powerful Scottish Parliament within a strong United Kingdom offers people in Scotland maximum security and opportunity, representing their interests in the world and allowing resources and risks to be shared effectively.

Devolution has also been shown to be flexible and responsive to changing needs and circumstances. Most recently, the Scotland Act 2016 ensured that the Scottish Parliament has a significantly greater say on matters including further taxation powers and welfare support in Scotland. The Scotland Act is now in the process of being implemented, with a number of its new powers already in force and the Scottish Parliament able to legislate and make choices on a range of new policy areas. The Scottish Parliament also has new powers, for example, to top up reserved welfare benefits or to create new benefits in devolved areas, should it decide to do so. Taken together with the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Act creates an even more powerful and accountable Scottish Parliament within a strong United Kingdom.

That is what the people of Scotland voted for. The Scotland Act balances more decisions being taken in Scotland, closer to those they affect, with retaining the strength and security that comes from membership of the larger United Kingdom. The 2016 Act provides the Scottish Parliament with much greater tax-raising powers, which means that, from responsibility for raising around 10% of what it spends today, Holyrood will in future be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. With new powers on welfare, the Scottish Government need to publish details of how they plan to support disabled people in Scotland, for example.

Enough of the grievance culture and the obsession with process; the SNP and the Scottish Government must use their powers to serve the people. The Scottish Parliament has unprecedented flexibilities on income tax—to set income tax rates and thresholds for earned income, including the ability to introduce new tax bands—so it is most unfortunate, and I suspect that many in the Chamber who represent seats in Scotland will be dismayed, that that power is being used to hike income tax on Scots in their constituencies and throughout Scotland. It is vital that the new powers are used to the greatest benefit in Scotland. I have heard much concern this afternoon about that not being the case from those on the Conservative Benches, who are rightly concerned that it is not the case.

[Ross Thomson]

The Minister mentioned income taxes. He is right that the First Minister, in conversation on her programme for government, not only mentioned increased taxes but spoke about her “cast-iron mandate” for independence. Yet she never once mentioned tax increases in her manifestos in 2016 or for the 2017 snap general election. If she is to talk about mandates, there is no mandate for increased taxes.

[Michael Ellis]

It is vital that the new powers are used to the greatest benefit in Scotland. I have heard much concern this afternoon about that not being the case, and I expect that we will see more of this debate in the coming months, as the Scottish Government outline their plans in their budget and beyond.

Of course, the question is not simply one of existing powers and how they are used. We are now engaged in a new discussion about devolution in the United Kingdom, because leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to determine where powers that will return from Brussels will best sit.

The UK Government have clear objectives in mind. We want the UK after Brexit to work for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is right that we consider the big picture and ensure that our future constitutional arrangements support our new position in the world as we leave the EU. However, let me be clear that where there is no reason to keep a common framework, we will not, and where there is no reason to hold on to powers, we will not. No powers currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament will be taken away from the Scottish Parliament, and the Government expect that leaving the EU will mean more powers for the devolved Administrations. Only the SNP could turn no powers removed and more powers to come into an alleged power grab.

The time for divisive rhetoric is over, on Brexit and elsewhere across public policy. We have opportunities as we leave the EU to shape the UK and Scotland within the UK. We need to take those opportunities and to consider them properly. In doing so, both Governments have to continue to work together, as people in Scotland rightly expect us to do. It was my pleasure to respond to this debate, and I am sure that the debate on devolution will extend beyond the limited time we have had today.