Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

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

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I have no need to repeat the sound case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), or to mention the interventions by other Members that he picked up, other than to reiterate that my party very much supports the Bill. My hon. Friends and I have done what we can to ensure that the Bill is finally before the House.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) about other situations in which animals find themselves, but I do not believe that that would justify the House not taking this step. The points he makes provide very good reasons for demanding a coherent, up-to-date and comprehensive animal welfare Bill in the near future to take forward the intentions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. However, let us not let our anxiety to cover the gamut of animal welfare lead us to rewrite the starting point of this Bill.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Would the hon. Gentleman clarify something? Does he feel that the legislation should be extended to performing animals—animals in adverts or films? Where would he extend it to? At what point would he say it is okay for a wild animal or any creature to take part in something? Would he stop at circuses, or would he go further?

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said, we should not allow our wish to have a comprehensive animal welfare Bill to get in the way of our passing this specific Bill, which has the support of the whole House.

The way we treat animals is often a litmus test of how we treat human beings and I believe that the steps we are taking in this country and around the world to show not only kindness but respect to other creatures are important in creating the consciousness we desperately need if we are to protect our planet and all its creatures.

So many people in this country are concerned about our treatment of animals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) emphasised. People have hopes for a better world and a million dreams ride on our better relationship with our fellow creatures. Even if all the animals performing in circuses in this country were healthy and happy, there is something fundamentally demeaning about using animals to do tricks for our entertainment and we should not be encouraging it.

Animal welfare is an ethical issue. Although it is true that only 19 wild animals are currently performing in circuses in England and Wales, this is meaningful legislation. There is no guarantee in the licensing system currently in operation that that number could not grow. Indeed, the licensing regime ends in January next year. Unless we pass the Bill in time, so that it comes into operation in January, there is a danger that there will be no restrictions on the use of wild animals in circuses. We do not want to see the humiliation of lions, tigers and bears coming alive in our circuses once again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned other countries that have already implemented the ban, but we need to be aware of the appalling cruelty meted out to various animals in other countries, such as bears milked for their bile in China or beach donkeys in Santorini. How can we argue for decent treatment for animals around the world unless we are seen to be above reproach in this country?

Most circuses in this country stopped using wild animals years ago, and I believe that some of the biggest circuses made that decision entirely voluntarily before the licensing system was ever introduced because they recognised from first-hand experience that it is no longer acceptable for circuses to feature such acts. However, unless we act to implement a ban, there is a continuing danger that other less scrupulous circuses will take trade away from those that have made the ethical choice. We need to act now to enable those that have behaved honourably in this matter to flourish.

Above all, I am amazed it has taken us so long to get to this stage. After my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) introduced his ten-minute rule Bill in September 2014, was it really necessary for hon. Members to object to it 12 times; it was finally dropped in April 2015? And did an hon. Member really need to object to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) in 2015?

A similar Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) fell due to the general election in 2017. An almost identical private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) was due to be heard in October but, if the Government had not taken it on, it would almost certainly have been blocked by an hon. Member, just as the Bills on upskirting and female genital mutilation were blocked.

It is a great relief that the Government have finally taken on this Bill, but it is a matter of regret that we could not have dealt with this issue before now. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that the Government need to get on with the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, too.

This Bill is long overdue, and it has the full support of every party and of the campaigning groups that have worked to get us to this point. I look forward to it passing into law at the earliest possible moment.

Draft Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines AND RESIDUES (amendment ETC.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Whether or not we protect GIs here in the UK, will that have any further effect in the rest of Europe? If we introduce new GIs in the UK, will the rest of Europe recognise them?

[David Rutley]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about new GIs later in my speech, but on the UK GIs that are currently in operation, our understanding is that the EU will continue to recognise those, because we are listed in its legislation.

In addition, the instrument will amend retained EU law on the method of analysis used to ensure that spirit drinks comply with the relevant rules. It also amends retained EU law concerning the documentation that must accompany the movement of wine and imported wine, the certification of wine and the registers that must be kept by wine operators relating to the wines handled by them.

The Government launched a public consultation in October 2018 to seek the views of stakeholders and the public about our proposed new UK GI rules. The majority of respondents supported the Government’s proposals. GIs are intellectual property and, as such, reserved. The relevant powers currently exercised by the European Commission will therefore be transferred to the Secretary of State. We have worked in partnership with the devolved Administrations on the whole of this instrument, and where it concerns devolved matters, they have given their consent.

I turn to the provisions on veterinary medicines. This is the second EU exit statutory instrument to cover veterinary medicines. The other, with which Opposition Members may be familiar, is the Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That instrument has already been debated in, and accepted by, both Houses.

The instrument we are debating covers three areas of veterinary medicines. It transfers powers and functions to set maximum residue limits for veterinary medicines. It provides for veterinary medicines that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency to remain on the UK market. It also makes necessary consequential changes to the fees charged by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as set out in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.

Maximum residue limits are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain. The UK MRL-setting framework is necessary to ensure the safety of produce from food-producing animals.

Veterinary medicines are devolved to Northern Ireland, so the power to set MRLs is shared between the UK Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be able to act on a UK-wide basis with the consent of DAERA, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will continue to act as the UK-wide regulator to ensure consistency. In addition, this instrument brings across from the European Medicines Agency the existing MRL application fees of £62,300 for a new MRL and £18,850 to amend an existing MRL. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, these fees will be reviewed as soon as possible.

As a cost recovery agency, the VMD recovers its assessment costs from the pharmaceutical industry. Until the data is available in a few months’ time to underpin a more accurate cost base, the VMD will administratively and significantly reduce the fee, to better reflect the actual cost of the assessment. Once a robust cost base has been established, the fee in the legislation will be amended, and that will be subject to consultation.

Medicines approved by the EMA—there are only 389 of them—account for a small percentage of all veterinary medicines in the UK, at 13%. However, they are often novel treatments and substances, so it is highly important for these medicines to remain on the UK market after we leave the EU. This instrument provides for their conversion to UK national approvals, with no charge for the conversion. Pharmaceutical companies will not need to take any immediate action to enable them to continue to market their products in the UK.

Lastly, this instrument makes minor consequential changes to the fee schedule charged by the VMD for the function it carries out. Apart from bringing over the existing MRL fees, which I have set out, these are minor corrections, and no new VMD fees are being introduced.

The amendments proposed to schedule 7 of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 are merely to correct deficiencies arising from us leaving the EU. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on business, as well as on our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment. This instrument will maintain the existing high standards for the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines.

In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, and given the small costs involved, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out. The impact on business has been assessed as being well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble has met the Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association and the National Office of Animal Health on a number of occasions, as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. NOAH has expressed some concern that introducing a separate MRL-setting regime for the EU could increase burden and cost on industry. The Government recognise that MRLs are key to facilitating trade in animal produce, and will therefore look to align with international standards when setting MRLs.

[Sandy Martin]

In addition to the additional cost of this process, is there not a real danger that it will be difficult to carry out if there is a shortage of trained and professional staff?

[David Rutley]

The good news is that we have those trained and experienced members of staff available, and we are ensuring that, whatever the eventuality, we will have the resources available for the change. As the hon. Gentleman has intervened, it is important for me to answer his previous question about whether the rest of Europe would recognise new GIs from the UK. That would not happen automatically; new UK GIs will still need to apply for EU GI status, although the Government will support them in that. However, existing ones would be protected.

The steps I have outlined will ensure high-level protection for human health. MRLs must be based on sound science and data; the UK has a proud and growing reputation in the area of food, and GIs play an important part in that. The Government are committed to protecting and celebrating the success of those products and driving further market access to make sure that they and other great British food are enjoyed around the world. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to see the Minister in his place. We see an awful lot of each other at the moment, and will no doubt see each other again.

I start with our usual caveat: this is an incredibly complicated bit of legislation and, to be honest with the Committee, I have not completely got my head around it yet. It is very complex, bringing together a number of different issues that, in a normal state of affairs, we would look at separately and scrutinise in some detail. To make sure that we are all on the same page, GI refers not to an American serviceperson, but to geographical indication. That is quite important, because we will not have Cheddar cheese or various ciders if we do not get this right. We have to do our bit as an Opposition, despite the problems posed by the number and complexity of these SIs.

For this SI, I will start with something slightly different, and ask some quite complicated questions that I hope the civil service will be able to answer for the Minister or in tandem with him. If not, I hope that the civil servants will be able to write to me in due course through the Minister. Some quite separate issues have been conflated in this SI, so I am doing the best I can. I will start with some fairly complex, but nevertheless important, issues.

Paragraph 6.4 of the explanatory memorandum states that the maximum residue limits

“are set to protect consumers from residues of medicines in produce. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods (the period that must elapse after the last administration of the medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain).”

My question is quite simple: how long are the withdrawal periods, and will those periods be the same length regardless of what happens next week?

Paragraph 6.5 states:

“This instrument provides for the conversion of veterinary medicines issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to UK approvals in order for these products to remain on the UK Market.”

My question is whether UK approvals will be recognised in the EU market, or whether we will have to go through a different process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has already picked up on the issue of costs. As NOAH has intimated, there is certainly some concern about the fee structures, because we are changing the mechanism by which these medicines are being regulated. If there are additional costs, are the Government aiming to defray those in any way? Again, we received no regulatory impact assessment, which is always very sad, because those assessments are supposed to provide that kind of information. We therefore have to rely on the Government to give us some indication of what those additional costs may be; there is certainly no such indication in the explanatory memorandum.

Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“All GI applications will go through a single UK scrutiny and opposition process, rather than the two-stage process for applications”

that currently exists under the EU scheme. Will the Minister say something about whether that is sufficient? Could it limit scrutiny for geographical indications? Again, it is a matter of not just what is allowed, but what is not allowed. We all know the arguments about who claims Cheddar cheese and so on. These things can get terribly complicated if we are not careful. Producers get very hurt when their particular product is undermined by something that claims to be something that it clearly is not, yet people are able to sell it.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that where such controversies arise around geographical indications, we currently have recourse to debate, consultation and reconciliation processes in the EU, but we will no longer have recourse to them once we have left?

[Dr Drew]

Of course. At the moment, I am not quite sure what is in place and what is not. That brings me to my next point, about the appeals provisions for those who have made an application. The provisions say that those who have a legitimate interest can appeal to a first-tier tribunal. Is that tribunal set up, and who will be part of it?

Then we come to the logos. Logos matter here because they are the only way the general public can tell exactly what they are buying. Currently, the Government intend to introduce a new UK process, whereby geographical indications for a product will be clearly labelled in this country, but what ability does this country have to then negotiate with the EU over the acceptability of those logos in what will be a different marketplace?

I could go on at great length, but I am trying to get to the kernel of what the Government are trying to do with this legislation, albeit that it is largely a cut and paste from existing EU regulations. Paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“Respondents were happy with the proposed three year adoption period until logo use becomes mandatory on food and agricultural products.”

Why was a period of three years chosen, and will that period begin on 29 March or some date thereafter?

Finally in terms of my detailed questions, paragraph 12.2 states that changes to packaging requirements are the only ones

“introduced by this instrument that present significant cost implications”.

That brings us back to the issue of cost. Clearly, if we are changing logos and the way in which those logos are regulated, an additional cost is implied, at least in terms of the logo and the packaging. Why is there no mention of that in the legislation?

As the Minister rightly said, my friends at the National Office of Animal Health will be the ones mainly concerned with this legislation, because they are the representative body for veterinary medicines. I have to say that they are largely happy with it and with the way it is being carried through. The Minister was right that they had some questions about how it is going to work in practice. I certainly looked at the time periods, which is where NOAH is most quizzical regarding the changes in our relationship with not only the EU but third countries. Clearly, products will come to this country that will then be sold on to the EU. It would be interesting to know what discussions the Government have had, within and without this country, to ensure that this process is as seamless as possible.

This is one of those complicated SIs. Trying to struggle through it is very difficult. In terms of what it does, it is very important to so much of our agricultural produce, because that produce will be branded—it will have its own logo and its own statement of what it really stands for. We have to hope that the disruption is as limited as possible, but it is something we will have to watch.

It would be interesting to know what scrutiny the Government intend to carry out when and if there are complaints, and how they will handle those complaints. How can we be sure that food products, and particularly veterinary medicines—which are the bit that is most about safety—are being properly regulated? If there is a new system, such as a tribunal to which appeals will go, we will need to know that it is transparent and up and running. Those involved in making food products and veterinary medicines need to be sure that they will be able to sell them as far afield as they have in the past. That is something that has to carry on, rather than being threatened by huge disruption.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support these two statutory instruments. I will be brief because, although I intended to serve on the original Committee, I appreciate that I have not had a chance to give you a great deal of notice of my intention to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I pay tribute to our civil service and the officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who, on these regulations and many others, have done a sterling job in making sure that retained EU law is operable should we leave without an agreement at the end of this month. Over the past six months, I have seen at first hand the huge amount of work put in by DEFRA officials, working late at night, to ensure that we have such statutory instruments in place so that retained EU law is operable when we leave.

We often read media reports that we are not ready for a no-deal exit and that we could not possibly leave without an agreement, and on that basis Parliament decided last week to vote to say that we should not leave without a withdrawal agreement. My experience in the Department until quite recently is that a huge amount of work has been put in, and the civil service has made sure it is an option for us to leave without an agreement, should that be necessary and should Parliament have the courage to do so. Obviously, we will find out in the next couple of weeks whether, indeed, that is still necessary.

Both sets of regulations, in common with all statutory instruments tabled under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, make very minor changes simply to make existing retained EU law operable.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that people working extremely hard very late at night to get through vast quantities of regulations might make some mistakes?

[George Eustice]

No, I do not. Having worked in DEFRA for five and a half years, I have tremendous admiration and respect for all those people. Although they work very hard through the night, somebody will mark and check their work the next day. That is how our civil service works, and it has made a sterling effort to make sure we have all these regulations in order.

As a general rule, almost every regulation of these two statutory instruments substitutes “Secretary of State” for “European Commission”. These regulations are not complicated but rather straightforward. We often hear a lot about so-called Henry VIII powers in such debates, and there is a suspicion that, through the use of statutory instruments, we might be making changes to primary legislation that should not be made.

In truth, the most pernicious use of a Henry VIII power in modern times has been section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which has run rampant through whole pieces of primary legislation, even important flagship Acts that predate our membership of the European Union. We are in a rather odd situation in debating on the Floor of the House whether it is okay to change “European Commission” to “Secretary of State”, as the original powers implied by these statutory instruments were imposed by the European Union without any debate in this House, typically through either an implementing Act or a delegated Act, and therefore with little or no scrutiny by the European Parliament and often with little or no scrutiny by the European Council. The role of this Parliament, if it was lucky, was to receive an explanatory memorandum but, by and large, only ever to receive letters to the European Scrutiny Committee advising on what the European Union had done to us.

Nevertheless, this is what taking back control means. It means that our Parliament, for once, is starting to take an interest in these matters, rather than leaving them to the European Union.

Dog Meat in the UK

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. Hon. Members from across the House will join the vast majority of people in this country in being upset at the very thought of eating dog meat. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case, as did the hon. Members for Clacton (Giles Watling) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) did so, too, in presenting his ten-minute rule Bill in Parliament on Tuesday.

The very good news is that there is no evidence that dog meat is actually being consumed in the United Kingdom. We all want to ensure that it stays that way. There are questions that need to be asked about the most effective ways to prevent the consumption of dog meat ever becoming an issue in this country. Clearly, if the consumption of dogs started to occur in the United Kingdom, the Government would need to take action. I feel sure that if the Government are considering taking action, they will seek to make it effective.

I fully support the contention that this country needs to join others, such as the United States, in sending a strong message to China, the Republic of Korea and other countries where dog meat is eaten. If we do, we need to ensure that we do not pick on one particular country, in order to avoid apologists for consuming dog meat claiming that the United Kingdom is using this issue as an excuse to attack their country. It is the principle of eating dogs, and the unspeakable cruelty that the trade involves, that we need to concentrate on. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew):

“The UK government needs to stand up for man's best friend and ensure that we are upholding our reputation as leaders in animal welfare.”

At the same time, I do not want animal welfare campaigns in the UK to divert resources away from other serious issues, such as puppy smuggling, hare coursing or dog fighting, which are actually prevalent and inflict cruelty on dogs in our own country. All cruelty to animals weakens and coarsens our society. People who grow up with a cavalier attitude to animal cruelty are that much more likely to inflict cruelty on other people as well, especially in a domestic situation. Connected to that, I ask the Minister: when are we likely to see the Secretary of State’s proposed animal sentience Bill? Even more importantly, when will we see increased sentences for animal cruelty offences, which have been promised for more than a year but show no sign of being brought forward?

I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, so I will simply say that we fully support any measures that will protect dogs from cruelty. We share the strongly expressed wish of the hon. Member for Strangford and others that this country should use its influence to persuade others to stop eating dogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin]

That is of course the answer that the Minister had to give, but it is exactly the same answer as was given a year ago. This will not be a complicated Bill or one that takes a long time to get through. In fact, I have been told by someone—I am not sure whether this is true—that there could be an increase in the sentencing regulations as part of a statutory instrument; it would take only a day to do it.

[David Rutley]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s frustration and desire to move things forward. I can assure him, on the sentencing point, that that cannot be done by secondary legislation. It requires primary legislation, and that is why we are in this situation. However, I can assure him and others in this Chamber that we are moving forward on that front. The same would apply to animal sentience, on which there was clearly an outpouring of concern several months ago. We are actively working on that issue with stakeholders.

I paid tribute earlier to service animals. To underline the Government’s commitment to protecting them, we are supporting Finn’s law—a private Member’s Bill currently before Parliament. Finn’s law makes it clear that attacking a service animal or dog is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 1 March, having successfully completed stages in the Commons. I was pleased to hear that the Scottish Government are taking similar steps; that is to be commended.

We are going further to protect animal welfare by banning the third-party selling of puppies and kittens. That will ensure that only breeders can sell puppies and kittens for commercial purposes. We are banning certain types of electronic training collars for dogs. We have introduced an updated and improved animal activities licensing regime to cover dog breeding, cat and dog boarding, pet selling, riding schools and exhibiting animals. The new licensing regime came into force last October and means that licensees must maintain statutory minimum welfare standards. The licensing regime also encourages licensees to adopt higher standards, which, when achieved, will mean longer licences and fewer inspections.

I am very pleased to say that, as of last November, all slaughterhouses in England need to have closed circuit television in operation to aid official veterinarians in monitoring and enforcing animal welfare standards.

The Government—led, I am proud to say, by this Department—have animal welfare at the top of their agenda. I again recognise and welcome the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government, which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley).

The hon. Member for Strangford eloquently outlined in his speech, and I want to make it clear, that there is no evidence that dog meat is consumed in this country. That is a relief to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton and the hon. Member for Ipswich also made that point. We have on the statute book a combination of laws that, taken together, make it extremely difficult even to conceive of doing such a thing. Most importantly, it is already an offence to sell dog meat commercially for human consumption. Strict food hygiene measures mean that dogs and cats cannot currently be commercially slaughtered, or sold or given to others for human consumption. There are strict rules for food businesses on slaughter and production of meat for human consumption in the UK, and dog meat would not be permitted under those requirements.

We have specific laws on the sale of food. EU regulation 2015/2283 on novel foods prohibits the sale of dog meat in the EU. That is enforced in England by the Novel Foods (England) Regulations 2018, which make it an offence to sell dog meat in England. That prohibition will, I am pleased to reassure hon. Members, be retained after EU exit. As colleagues will know, the UK has very strict rules on the welfare of animals at the time of killing; the rules are contained in EU regulation 1099/2009. Slaughterhouses must be licensed to kill certain species of animal. No slaughterhouse in the UK is currently licensed to slaughter dogs, which means that dogs cannot be slaughtered for human consumption. We are exploring how that can be strengthened.

Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely that an individual would or could humanely kill their dog, although it is technically legally possible. To humanely kill a dog would involve either a lethal dose of barbiturates—the recommended method—which would have to be carried out by a vet and would render the meat unfit for human consumption, or it would involve the correct use of a firearm, for which someone would need a licence, or the correct use of a captive bolt gun. It is important to emphasise, as hon. Members have, that there is no evidence of the consumption of dog meat in the UK.

I commend the United States for introducing legislation to ban the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption, which brings it broadly into line with the position in the UK and the EU. The US legislation is not a complete ban on the consumption of dog meat, as some have claimed. It is important to point out that there are good reasons why we and other countries have stopped short of banning the consumption of dog meat. It would be difficult to prove that someone had consumed it—a successful prosecution would need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that dog meat had been consumed by the accused, which might require testing.

A relevant comparison is that we do not ban the consumption of drugs—instead, we ban on the possession and sale of drugs, which is the focus of criminal prosecution. Proving beyond all reasonable doubt that someone has knowingly consumed dog or cat meat would be very difficult in practice. Unless we have a witness or video evidence of someone slaughtering, preparing and eating a dog or a cat, a defendant would be able to claim that they were unaware of what they were eating, which would prevent the prosecution from meeting the standard.

Proving consumption to the required criminal standard would also require proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant had ingested the banned substance. That would require a form of intrusive test, such as a blood test. There are other tests, but we will not go down that route now—it could be unpleasant, so let us leave it at blood tests for the moment. For the same reasons, there is no offence in English law of consumption of human meat.

I admire and agree with the intention behind the debate and the campaigners, including those in the Gallery, but it is clear that there are challenges with the proposed solution. The Government have an ambitious programme of animal welfare reform. We want to ensure that we can use the parliamentary time available to deliver on our commitments on animal sentience; on increasing maximum sentences for animal cruelty, as I have said; and on banning the use of wild animals in circuses. Those measures will have a direct and positive impact on the welfare of animals in the UK. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ipswich is itching to help the Government to take those measures forward. I welcome his support.

I understand, not least from today’s debate, that one of the core aims of the campaign is to set an example and highlight to other countries that the UK considers that the dog meat trade is cruel and unnecessary. I applaud that aim and the contributions that have been made to the debate. The Secretary of State and I are working with DEFRA officials to explore what more we can do to address the matter, as I set out in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton in DEFRA questions today.

We want to send a clearer message, particularly to those countries where dog meat is eaten, that the consumption of dog meat should never be tolerated. That includes raising the issue directly with other countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has discussed it with South Korean counterparts. We are working through other avenues, including with welfare groups such as the Humane Society International, which has been highlighted—the dialogue with HSI was opened just over a year ago. DEFRA officials are exploring opportunities with the Department for International Development. By discussing the issues directly with the countries concerned, we hope to have an effect on the dog meat trade internationally.

I will keep the hon. Member for Strangford and other interested colleagues updated on progress. Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate and all hon. Members who have made such impassioned contributions to this important debate.

Draft Equine (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The draft statutory instrument is simply the latest in a flood that is necessary to make provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit and for us crashing out without a deal. Surely part of the point in having the two-year period for the article 50 withdrawal mechanism was to enable all these issues to be dealt with in a measured and careful manner, rather than thrust upon us in a panic without any time or opportunity to consult stakeholders or assess any possible issues or problems.

Labour Front Benchers do not believe that the Government’s approach to secondary legislation is helpful or worthy of a Government who claim to be bringing sovereignty back to Parliament, and we will continue to say so. In particular, the Opposition put on record our disquiet at the lack of notice for these SI Committees and the unreliability of dates even once they have been given. Any process that takes Members of Parliament and outside stakeholders by surprise cannot possibly be as accessible and transparent as it should be.

As with many other statutory instruments, the draft regulations involve considerable cost, duplication, opportunities for confusion and the possibility of future regulatory divergence from the rest of the EU, which would lead to difficulties in trade. That calls into question the wisdom of preparing for a no-deal Brexit when every Member of Parliament, including the Minister, should be doing everything in their power to prevent that eventuality. Will he come clean on what his Department believes will be the cost to the equine industry of a no-deal Brexit? Whatever it may be, it will certainly be more than the £5 million of additional administrative costs quoted in the SI.

As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the SI would not in itself prevent significant additional costs for those moving horses from this country to the rest of the EU, if additional blood tests or other procedures are required. It is hard to think of any measures that could be taken in this country to ameliorate the effects of a no-deal Brexit on this or any other sector. That is particularly pertinent to the Republic of Ireland, which has close links to the UK in the equine world. How that close link between the UK and our friends and cousins in the Republic will survive all the additional problems arising from a no-deal Brexit is just another problem to add to the serious damage that no deal will do to the UK and in particular to Northern Ireland. What negotiations has the Department had with equine industry representatives from the Republic, or indeed from Northern Ireland?

At present, EU veterinarians have to sign off on various responsibilities during movement, which means that some of the checks will occur outside the UK. After Brexit, most or all of those responsibilities will fall to UK vets, which may increase both the work required of them and the associated costs, assuming movement still occurs at the current rate. The plus side is that UK veterinary standards are the highest in Europe, but the downside is that a high proportion of the vets are EU nationals, some of whom are already deciding to return to their countries of origin. Just when our need for additional vets will grow, we will find ourselves with significantly fewer than we currently have. That will be a problem whether we leave with a deal or not, and we would like the Minister to make clear the plans for dealing with that likely shortage.

The Opposition deprecate the situation in which we find ourselves. The organisation of the process is lamentable. The ability of this SI or any other to provide a future for equine industries that is not significantly worse under a no-deal Brexit is nil. However, there is nothing of substance in the SI to which we object, and so we will not oppose it.

Fashion Industry

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is right that the UK fashion industry is a £32 billion industry. Areas such as my own in West Yorkshire have a long and proud tradition of textile manufacturing, weaving and spinning—I have the Sirdar factory in my Wakefield constituency—and of reusing and recycling: industries are using shoddy and mungo in mattresses, carpeting and bedding. So this is a proud industry. We found that no one is speaking for the end-to-end industry. There are people focused on the high street and people focused on the British Fashion Council side of things—all the exciting creativity—and then there are the textile manufacturers, but they are not really altogether in one group. We think that they need to speak with one voice.

Last week, I visited the UK Textile Centre of Excellence in Huddersfield, where I saw some of the plasma technology and digital laser technology that it is inventing to reduce fashion’s footprint and to give clothing antimicrobial properties so that it becomes more waterproof. So instead of processes using chemicals that wash off and wash down the drain, they are done at reasonably low temperatures with no chemical or water discharges. This is the future of fashion. We are inventing it here, but it is being exploited by a US company, which will shortly be listing on AIM—the alternative investment market. We need to keep this home-grown technology in our country. We have fantastic heritage brands. I am wearing a John Smedley sweater, made in Derbyshire, which has been worn at least 1,000 times—and darned. It offers lifetime repair and reuse services, as do Church’s for shoes and Burberry for raincoats, which are made in the constituency next door to Wakefield: the constituency of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. We have to celebrate what is good and shut down the bad things.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for this report, which we welcome. I note the reluctance of certain clothing manufacturers to co-operate in any attempt to audit the environmental impact of their business and, in one case, a point-blank refusal to engage at all.

Climate change does not respect political sensitivities. Whatever is said in this Chamber will make no difference to the rate of global temperature increase unless we can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels globally. Every area of our lives needs to be geared to that objective fact. Does the Chair of the Select Committee share my hope that more of the major retailers will sign up to the sustainable clothing action plan? Clearly, there is a way to go both with pollution, especially the release of micro-fibres into the environment, and with the climate change implications of fast fashion.

Transition towards a globally sustainable pattern of clothing consumption will not be easy, but does my hon. Friend share my conviction that companies that set out to do the right thing will reap the rewards of their initiative? Customer trust in brands is essential to clothing retailers and trust in those brands’ environmental credentials will be an increasingly important part of the way consumers feel about them. Companies that are already striving to improve their environmental impact will be better placed to meet any regulatory or financial changes that may come about as a response to climate change.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fashion industry can and must contribute to the move towards a more sustainable pattern of global consumption, and does she share my trust that the Government will take the recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee very seriously when they come out in the final report?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for that question. He is absolutely right. If we have just 12 years to tackle damaging climate change before we reach certain tipping points, every sector and industry in the UK economy is going to have to tackle its carbon, waste and water footprints. Signing up to initiatives such as SCAP will literally be their licence to do business and their licence to operate. It is not a nice cherry on the cake or just a nice thing to have.

The fact that the sustainability manager and the buying manager often run in parallel in such companies, rather than the buying manager’s work feeding into the sustainability manager’s, is a problem. The cost per garment is put against the environmental and social cost per garment, and the financial cost always wins out. We need to change that relationship.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, through our clothes, we are wearing the fresh water supplies of people in India and in Uzbekistan, and we are destroying the environment. We have heard about the drying up of the Aral sea in Uzbekistan, where cotton farming has contributed to an economic, social and environmental disaster. We have not made our final recommendations, but I promise him that, when we do, they will be pretty far-reaching.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of low taxes. Under this Government, corporation tax has been reduced from 28% to 19% and will be further reduced to 17%; and through the increase in the personal allowance that was announced in the Budget, we have taken about 4 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. As for my right hon. Friend’s specific point about aligning national insurance and income tax, that is a very complex thing to do. There would be a considerable number of losers, as well as some gainers. However, the Office of Tax Simplification has looked into it in the past, and we will keep it under review.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

T3. Given this country’s £5.9 billion net trading surplus with the EU in insurance, will the Chancellor take the opportunity of the demise of the withdrawal agreement to make financial services a part of the Prime Minister’s next attempt at a Brexit deal?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The City is very content with the deal we have on financial services, under which we would seek and secure enhanced equivalence decisions six months before the end of the implementation period, and the degree of dialogue with and support from the City has been constant throughout.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I voted to remain in the European Economic Community in 1975. As a young man who had just turned 18, I was lucky enough to be able to make a decision that affected my economic future. It is a matter of regret that 16 and 17-year-olds were not able to vote in June 2016. The terms on which we leave the European Union will have a massive effect on their lives, far more so than on the lives of the over-70s.

The result in 1975 was very clear. Given the economic circumstances in which this country found itself in 1975, I am not at all surprised. The six original nations of the EEC had growing economies, flourishing trade and bright futures. The UK had just come out of the three-day week. If anyone had seriously suggested in 1975 that 43 years later, the UK would be the fifth largest economy in the world, would they have been believed? I fail to understand the logic of so many Government Members who say with one breath that this country is flourishing and with another that we should tear up a major part of the economic framework that has put us in that position.

I want to focus on the future—on the future of young people in Ipswich today and on the effect that this so-called deal is likely to have on them if we leave the EU on these terms. First, the Government’s own economic analysis shows Brexit on this deal costing us around 3.9% of our GDP, dwarfing the current level of contributions to the EU. I cannot in all conscience vote for any deal that leaves my constituents worse off, and I cannot understand how any other Member of this House could either.

Secondly, without a strong single market, much of the current growth in tradeable services will be stymied. Much has been made about manufacturing industries and I will say nothing to belittle their importance, but in my constituency, and in many others besides, it is in financial services, insurance, software design and creative industries that the future lies for our young people. They are already embracing those new industries and we run the very real risk that our market for those new industries will be chopped down just as it starts to bear fruit. Thirdly, this deal provides no guarantee that the UK will continue with key educational, scientific and other research programmes.

Ipswich has one of the fastest-growing economies in the UK and that growth is in many of the same sectors as we have in Cambridge, the current success story. That is put at risk by any block either to our ability to sell knowledge-based products, or to the free movement of those engaged in research and the knowledge economy. All of us need young people in the UK to be able to share and learn from each other across Europe; otherwise, what developed knowledge-based economy are we going to have? Where is the money going to come from to support us in our old age? We cannot all live on dividends from offshore investments. I do not believe that there is enough in this withdrawal agreement to mitigate the appalling damage that would be done to our future by leaving the EU without a deal. Hon. Members should not support something that they know to be wrong just in case the Government might plunge us into an even worse situation.

I will support any amendment that seeks to rule out a no-deal Brexit altogether. If Government Members agree to hold a general election now, I believe that it will still be possible, whatever Michel Barnier might say, for an incoming Government, focused on the future prosperity of our country, to produce a withdrawal agreement that would be less damaging to our economy and acceptable to the EU. However, if that option is not available to us, I urge hon. Members to consider what the younger residents of the UK would want us to do, including those who were not old enough to vote last time round.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how we can know there is a level playing field and that such levies are fair if there is not complete transparency?

[Stephen Kerr]

I was about to describe the level playing field as I see it. The Bill will remove any disincentive there might have been for banks to base themselves in the UK, which is important. I remind all Members of the reputation that our country and particularly the City has. I think we would all agree that the City is the financial capital of the world.

With respect to the bank levy, the banks’ contribution must go beyond the paying of taxes, as outlined in the Bill. Given the banking sector’s behaviour—I referred to the comments by the hon. Member for Bootle about saints and sinners earlier, but I am generalising now—the banking industry does have a responsibility to make a fairer contribution to society, which is what the measures taken by the Government since 2010 and 2015 have made happen.

Let me mention in passing the Financial Conduct Authority’s report on the Royal Bank of Scotland and its treatment of small and medium-sized business customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Interestingly, she mentioned inclusive growth, to which I will return shortly. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), whose speech was a real tour de force. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North criticised him for not talking about the future and dwelling on the past. Actually, he was talking about the present—the challenges facing his constituency today, in the here and now. The bank levy is incredibly important because it is all about the future prosperity of those constituents, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.

Interestingly, the Opposition’s new clause 3 gives us a good way of looking at the bank levy as it stands. Subsection (2) of new clause 3, which would affect schedule 9—the schedule that contains the details about the bank levy—states:

“No later than 31 October 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House of Commons an account of the effects of the proposed changes in Part 1 of Schedule 9—(a) on the public revenue, (b) in reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector, and (c) in encouraging banks to move away from riskier funding models.”

I accept that those three points are incredibly germane. In fact, let us not wait until 31 October 2020. Let us stand here now and think about how a review would fit under Labour’s very own new clause.

Look at subsection (2)(a) of new clause 3, which is about the impact “on the public revenue”. What do we see? Well, the banking sector paid 58% more tax in 2016-17 than in 2009-10. That is under a Conservative Government. The average amount paid by the banks every year since 2010 has been 13% higher than under Labour. In 2016, the Government introduced an additional tax on banks—the 8% corporation tax surcharge, which we have been discussing—which will raise nearly £9 billion by 2022.

[Sandy Martin]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my Suffolk colleague.

[Sandy Martin]

In 2009-10, the banks were recovering from the worst position they had been in since the 1930s. In many cases, they went under and needed Government support to get out. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would therefore have been extraordinary if the banks were not making more profit in 2016-17 than they were in 2009-10, that that is the reason why there is more take from the bank levy than there was in 2009-10, and that it is not simply because the Conservatives have reduced the amount of it?

[James Cartlidge]

I consider the hon. Gentleman to be a friend because we work together in Suffolk as MPs; we are always happy to do that. I will be coming to the issue of the crash and the way in which the banks went back to the 1930s, as he puts it, because I experienced that myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am happy to have that debate. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I said. I started a mortgage broking company in 2004—we have expanded since then, and I should declare that I still have interests in that business. I wrote an article for The Guardian in 2004 about the next general election. [Interruption.] Just a closet Marxist. At the time, the big issue being talked about was public services, but I said—this was in 2004—that the big risk we were not talking about was consumer debt. I knew that because, having just started a business in that area, I was stunned by what was happening in mortgage finance, which, of course, was the type of borrowing that laid the seeds for our destruction in 2008.

[Sandy Martin]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman how prescient he was in 2004? He was clearly right. Does he have the same concern about the rising level of private debt now?

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I will come back to that once I have set out the context of my remarks. The key point is this: there are some concerns, but in a growing economy, consumer debt will tend to rise, so we have to separate out that which is perfectly acceptable and that which may give cause for concern. I will come back to that point, but it is very fair.

In respect of proposed subsection (2)(b) of the Labour new clause, which talks about

“reflecting risks to the financial system”,

we conclude by reminding ourselves that it was the very explosion of the financial system that created the need for this bank levy. As I say, we have to debate the past—why we are here in the first place and where this all came from—and the fact that we are on a journey. The reason this tax is being tapered off is that the banking sector is once again becoming profitable, and we are allowing it to flourish again as a free enterprise-based banking system, but, of course, in the context of very strict regulation and a prudential regime.

Let me go back to the point about personal experience. It amazes me when members of the Labour party stand up and, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of the huge impact of that crash. At the time, many of us approached the regulator—the Financial Services Authority—which Gordon Brown launched early in the first Parliament after Labour won in 1997. He claimed that that would avoid future financial crises. We must remember that and have accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. His constituency is very similar to mine in that respect. I welcome this measure and I anticipate that my constituents will as well.

Those brief comments are the only ones I wish to make. I very much welcome this measure because it is in the interests of west Oxfordshire, in particular Brize Norton. It helps to bring forward the offer to which my right hon. Friend refers. We have to accept that there is a change in expectation on the part of many members of the armed forces and this is welcome.

[Sandy Martin]

I am concerned about the lack of impact that financial incentives for first-time buyers appear to be having on encouraging housebuilding. The recent pay-offs for Persimmon Homes executives are surely good evidence that a substantial proportion, if not all, of the Government’s money is going into exceptional profits for private housebuilders, rather than genuinely making homes more affordable. We need to know that any money or tax incentives that the Government put into housing will genuinely help people to achieve the housing they need.

The cost of housing for residents is not just about the building itself, but the costs of running the building. New houses are still being built which make short-term savings for the builders at the cost of a long-term expense for their owners or tenants, and also at a long-term cost to the environment. Ipswich Borough Council had a substantial plan to install solar PV panels on all suitable roofs on its substantial council housing estate. It was all set to go in 2013 when the Government moved the goalposts and blew a hole in the business case. The Government seem to be willing to promise vast sums as guarantees for new nuclear powers stations, but they are not willing to use the extensive potential tax powers at their disposal either to incentivise housebuilders to install photovoltaics in original buildings or to adequately incentivise owners to install them on existing buildings.

Increasing the number of solar panels on the roofs of this country would be one of the most cost-effective ways of generating the electricity we need. It would be more beneficial to the residents of those buildings. It would take effect far sooner than waiting for the construction of nuclear power stations and it would predominantly employ working people and small businesses in this country.

Many of us were hoping that the Government would have found further substantial incentives for solar panels in the Bill. I can only hope that a review of the operation of housing finances and an equality impact assessment of the way the Bill will affect low-paid people might encourage the Government to look again at how they can make housing less expensive for those who live in it.

[Alison McGovern]

I want to talk about the cut to stamp duty for first-time buyers, but before I do so I would like to take the opportunity to briefly remind Ministers on the Treasury Bench that in March my constituency suffered a terrible disaster: the gas explosion in New Ferry. The Department for Communities and Local Government currently has Wirral Council’s plan for the rebuild. I trust that, in the context of discussing new housing, Treasury Ministers will look kindly on the plan should it come before them.

I want to argue against the cut to stamp duty and for the Opposition amendment, which calls for a review of the policy, and a review of the place of first-time buyers in the housing market and the supply of housing. My argument against this specific policy is, first, that it looks set to fail against the targets the Government have set themselves; and secondly, that in the current economic context it is simply the wrong policy priority. Perhaps we might consider this policy if we were experiencing the same growth as other countries in Europe or we had dealt with our budget deficit, but even if it was not set to work against what the Government have tried to achieve, it would still be the wrong policy because it is not the country’s priority.

I imagine this policy coming before Treasury Ministers during the Budget preparations and their thinking to themselves, “Well, this might be attractive on the face of it, but ought we not to ask our bevvy of economists here in the Treasury what the likely impact might be?” The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) just rolled his eyes at me, and he did so because he knows as well as I do—we have debated it often enough—that the advice from the OBR was entirely predictable.

It was entirely predictable that anyone looking at the policy in the current economic climate would say that we have clear, credible evidence from previous changes to stamp duty that the value of this tax change will accrue not to first-time buyers but to those who already own properties. That is what the OBR says, and it is what advice from the specialists in the Treasury would have told Ministers. I do not know—I have no evidence of this—but I have confidence in the Government Economic Service and I think they would have told Ministers that.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that the Treasury does not have the full analysis requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). All Members across the House know in their own minds whether their constituencies will benefit from this, and all members of the Cabinet know whether constituents in their constituencies—which are largely in the south-east of England—will benefit. Those of us who have watched house prices in our constituencies barely grow at all in the past 10 years will know that our constituents will benefit very little from this very expensive tax change.