Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

We listen very carefully to what the Climate Change Committee says, and we are absolutely committed to net zero. In fact, a Conservative Government passed the law requiring Governments to commit to net zero. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just become the first major industrialised country to decarbonise by more than 50% since 1990. As well as the costs, we are also mindful of the economic opportunities, which is why we are investing billions of pounds in our clean energy transformation.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency, which has Cambridge to the north, has fantastic new industries such as Johnson Matthey in Royston, which is at the forefront of hydrogen. We have pharma companies to the south and some of the best film studios in the world in Hertfordshire. Is he consciously trying to back those successful industries of the future so that our children and grandchildren have fantastic opportunities for the future?

[Jeremy Hunt]

That is absolutely what we are trying to do. Film and TV is a good example here, as it has now become an offshoot of the technology industry. Films such as “Barbie” have been filmed in Hertfordshire but have the look of the Californian sunshine; they can withstand the British rain because of the use of high-tech devices that simulate Californian sunshine, even in my right hon. and learned Friend’s constituency. What he sets out is our absolutely our plan and we will stick with it.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely agree, but the bureaucracy of Government sometimes gets in the way of things happening.

The Bill will help level the playing field, enabling building societies to compete more fairly with banks. It will support them to lend more money in a safe and secure way. Over half of building society lending—55%—goes to first-time buyers. Crucially, as the building society sector directs a greater proportion of lending to first-time buyers than banks do—there is a theme here—that will benefit more people looking to get on to the housing ladder.

Modernisation of building society legislation is long overdue. There are some archaic requirements about the way building societies fund themselves that put them at a competitive disadvantage compared with banks. Competition in banking is good for consumers, and given that building societies drive innovation, particularly in supporting first-time buyers, strengthening the sector is a great route to supporting aspiration across the UK at the same time as supporting a sector that works co-operatively and mutually. Building societies work for the benefit of their members up and down the country, engaging in a system of co-operative banking for mutual benefit, not for profit.

We are lucky to have three building societies in my Sunderland Central constituency: Newcastle, Yorkshire and Nationwide building societies all have branches in Sunderland, so I see at first hand the excellent support they give to members. It is incredibly important to my constituents to have a branch that they can visit to talk through any financial issues and receive the support they need face to face. I see the work of building societies as both a strong British tradition and a strong Labour tradition. I am delighted to have the support of the Co-operative party and the Building Societies Association, which represent both traditions.

The first form of a building society was in 1775, when Richard Ketley brought people together in a pub—in what is now the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) —to put money into a shared fund, collecting regular subscriptions until there were sufficient funds to be able to provide a house for one of them. They drew names, very much like the drawing of names for a private Member’s Bill, to decide which member would be the next beneficiary; this continued until all members of the group had a house. The arrangement required trust, hope and a commitment by the community that no one would be left behind.

At that time, most building societies were created as terminating societies, which meant that the building society terminated trade once all its members were housed, so many were created, housed their members and then disappeared. That practice continued until 1980. By 1825—50 years after the first building society was created—over 250 terminating building societies were in operation, although it took until 1845 for the first non-termination society to be formed: the Metropolitan Equitable.

In 1836, the first legislation dealing with the industry was introduced, recognising building societies for the first time in this House through the Regulation of Benefit Building Societies Act. The legislation, along with previous court cases, led to the formal recognition of the rights of building societies as entities, resulting in a boom in the sector. By 1860, the number of building societies had risen to almost 3,000. In 1874, the Building Societies Act was passed—an historic precursor to the Building Societies Act 1986, which I hope to amend through my Bill.

The history of building societies has played an important role in the history of working people supporting each other in their mutual ambition of owning their own home, and in financial institutions serving the communities they represent. It is a trend that is even more prevalent today; as banks shut branches at an alarming rate, building societies are gradually taking a bigger share of branches in the community that remain open. Building societies now account for 28% of all high street branches in the UK, as opposed to only 14% 10 years ago. Although this may be caused by the closure of bank branches in the main, it shows a commitment to keep branches open by building societies, on which so many of my constituents rely. That face-to-face engagement, personal support and visibility is so important to many people. Branches are so much more accessible to those who have specific needs, especially in the digital age, where those with internet access often have the best opportunities and access to the best deals.

The original purpose of building societies embodies the famous phrase in clause 4 of the Labour party’s constitution, that

“by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone”,

with communities coming together to support each other and provide a strong and secure economic foundation for their collective futures. Families in Sunderland and across the country are struggling to find a secure home. Research by the Resolution Foundation shows that 80% of 25 to 34-year-olds would prefer to buy their own home than to rent. Home ownership is something many strive for, to provide financial security and ultimately to turn a house into a home. My Bill aims to support them in doing just that.

As I have said, it is quite clear that there is a housing crisis in this country, for homeowners and renters. We must at this point consider the damage done by the previous Prime Minister and her Chancellor, and the economic damage caused by her Government to the country, especially people with mortgages. I believe we also need reform in the rental sector to sort this out. The system is broken and is not working for people. The Bill will go some way towards making the housing ownership landscape easier for all.

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

I support the Bill, as I hope do Members across all parties. It is good to see something that will, hopefully, strengthen the principle of mutuality. Does the hon. Lady agree that is an important principle to retain, and is she confident that her Bill will do that? Will it lead to a situation in which there is less desire among building societies to become banks?

[Julie Elliott]

I agree. Building societies were certainly part of my life when I was growing up. I got my first mortgage with a building society—a very long time ago, because I am getting old. The principle of mutuality is really important and does set building societies apart from banks. They are a very different model and serve communities in a much closer way than banks do.

By introducing welcome flexibility to a sector that does so much for first-time buyers and others, the Bill, although it does not directly provide provision for the building of homes or assure the retail customer of any extended product lines, does provide more room for the sector to work in, given that its use of finance is different from that of banks as it lends significant amounts of money to first-time buyers.

The building society sector is made up of 42 separate building societies and currently has almost 26 million members. It holds over £352 billion of mortgage assets and £313 billion of savings from individuals. It is not a small sector, but it is a sector that can grow.

Building societies face significant challenges. The Bill has the potential to unlock billions of pounds in additional lending capacity for them. It is estimated that for every £10 billion of new lending capacity, the sector could support an additional 20,000 mortgages. As we know, over half of building society lending goes to first-time buyers, so the potential impact of the Bill is huge. Since 2020, building societies in the north-east and Cumbria have lent £3.4 billion to first-time buyers. In the first nine months of last year, they supported nearly 4,000 first-time buyers—4,000 people who last year started their journey of home ownership, with all the financial security and benefits that brings. Increasing lending capacity is incredibly important in supporting hard-working people. It is essential to the UK’s future prosperity and desperately needed for economic growth.

I want briefly to run through the four clauses of the Bill and the impact the changes will have. It is not a standalone Bill; it amends the Building Societies Act 1986 by inserting new provisions. Clause 1 deals with funds that can be disregarded by a building society for the purpose of calculating its wholesale funding limit. The 1986 Act currently requires them to obtain at least 50% of funding from their members—from individual member deposits. The retention of this 50% minimum requirement ensures that the members remain the primary owners of building societies; it is what makes the sector so unique. The other 50% can come from external sources. This balance will not be changed, but there is a need to modernise the rules governing the sector in order for building societies to compete with banks on a level playing field.

The Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority engaged with the sector on this issue in 2021. The conclusion of the Government’s consultation recommended the exclusion of some sources of funding from building societies’ wholesale funding limit calculations, as well as the modernisation elements that come later in the Bill. The recommendations were never implemented, which is why the Bill is needed.

Clause 1 will disregard the following from the 50% wholesale funding limit: Bank of England liquidity insurance facilities, debt instruments raised to meet the minimum regulatory requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities requirements, and sums received under sale and repurchase agreements, with a view to complying with Prudential Regulation Authority rules.

These changes will not dilute the unique ownership model under which building societies operate. They will not increase the financial risk to the sector, because these liquidity insurance facilities, the debt instruments and the sale and repurchase agreement sums will be effective tools at a time of national economic crisis to ensure that building societies remain comfortably solvent and active in the interests of their members. These changes will help to future-proof building societies from external factors, economic shocks or periods of financial stress.

The specified facilities and so on will be described in a statutory instrument laid by the Government of the day, which will provide additional detail to allow the funding disregards broadly described in subsection (2) to be activated. The Bill is designed so that any Government at any given time can react to the needs of the building society sector, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Enabling such changes in regulation to be made by means of secondary legislation will make the sector much more sustainable and able to react to changes in circumstance.

The changes presented in the Bill formed part of the Edinburgh reforms. All the responses to the Government consultation were in support of these changes. Prudent lending is crucial to the UK’s economic growth. Making this change will make building societies safe, more secure, and competitive in the long term, without affecting their status as mutuals.

Clause 2 is about modernisation. It amends the 1986 Act to explicitly allow the option of real-time virtual member participation in building society meetings. The change presented in the Bill aligns the sector with modernisations made to company law by section 360A of the Companies Act 2006. It will allow virtual attendance and voting as part of hybrid meetings, making it clear that nothing in the 1986 Act precludes this. Allowing hybrid meetings will improve accessibility and will hopefully allow engagement from members who cannot currently travel to meetings, enabling a broader cross-section of members to participate.

Clause 3 is another modernising clause. In simple terms, it will enable the Treasury to introduce increased flexibility for societies in relation to common seals and the execution of documents, in line with companies. It reserves to the Treasury the right to make provision by regulations in future, upon which further consultation in the sector would be usual.

Finally, clause IV defines the territorial extent of the Bill, which covers all four nations, and specifies that the Bill

“comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed”—

the standard period set out in legislation.

The Bill has no implications for public funds, as the impact assessment shows, and does not contain any provisions that will require a money resolution or a Ways and Means resolution.

Ultimately, the Bill does a lot of things in a succinct way. It will enable the modernisation of the building society sector and brings it up to date; it will put the sector on a more level playing field with banks; and it will potentially allow them more scope for supporting their members or future members. The Bill has overwhelming support from the sector, including from the Building Societies Association, the representative body of the sector, and its members. The BSA was founded in 1869 and is now the voice of the sector, representing 42 building societies and seven credit unions, and serving 27 million members up and down the UK.

The sector has helped 3.5 million people to buy a home with mortgages totalling over £375 billion. That accounts for 23% of total outstanding mortgage balances in the UK. The building societies that the BSA represents account for 19% of cash savings in the UK, and 40% of all cash ISA balances. Across the country, the sector employs 51,500 people, both full-time and part-time, working in around 1,300 branches in the UK. The BSA contributed greatly to the consultation process in 2021, and I am proud that it supports the Bill. I also wish to thank His Majesty’s Treasury for the support it gave me in preparing for today’s Second Reading.

The Bill will make building societies lend on a similar basis to banks, freeing up more money to help more working people in the UK. It has the potential to unlock billions of pounds of additional lending capacity at a time when so many people need it. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I do not want to suggest that they are a total panacea; I am lauding and applauding Nationwide in Dereham because it is doing great work, but we need to make sure that the Bill is part of a broader approach. I hope that Treasury Ministers, thinking about the run-up to the Budget and looking ahead, will think about how we can encourage more choice, more competition and more presence from both building societies and banks. We need choice and competition in rural areas and other areas that are not well served as well as in areas that are.

The opportunity for rural renaissance was hit hard by the pandemic, as well as by the Ukraine war, with its impact on energy prices, Putin turning off the gas taps and the cost of living crisis that we have all experienced. It is in that context that the Bill represents a chink of light and has been hugely supported locally. I am delighted to have helped the hon. Member for Sunderland Central bring it to the House.

I want to say something about the banks, because over the 13 years for which I have been privileged to be the Member of Parliament for Mid Norfolk the closure of banks—a cause on which I remember fondly working with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in 2009—has gradually hit much of rural Norfolk. Everyone understands that we cannot have a hugely staffed bank branch in every village, but there is a contract at the heart of the state between citizens, Governments and operations such as banks that work under regulations. Banks are there to provide a service, too, and if they are not going to provide that service we need to look at who will.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Given the number of people going into banks to do their business these days, it is not unreasonable that there should be some restructuring. I think the idea of banking hubs where all the main banks club together to ensure that there is a proper facility in a town or substantial village is a good idea. Does my hon. Friend think that it is important that they should take in cash and takings from small businesses, because they do not all do that?

[George Freeman]

I do. My right hon. and learned Friend amplifies exactly the point I was making. He is right that sparsely populated or rural areas will often require different solutions, in the same way as small rural schools require us to network and support them through multi-academy trusts. Similarly, we need to be imaginative in how we support cash access and banking and saving in rural areas. That touches on a deep problem that I have witnessed over many years: Whitehall tends to see these problems through an urban lens, and we need to think a bit about how rural areas often need a slightly different approach. I hope that the Bill and the cross-party support for it will help to encourage the Treasury to think about how we can do more to make this a moment to encourage greater choice and competition out in the market.

It is particularly sad that the banks have stepped back from the service I described over the two or three decades in which many of them have focused rather more on big, international and complex financial trading—the derivatives that led to quite a lot of problems we had back in the great crash. It is particularly sad in Norfolk given that it is where one of our great banks, Barclays, actually started, with the Gurney and Barclay families. The first bank had its roots in King’s Lynn docks. As people were required to pay duties, they required credit finance. I encourage anyone who has not been to King’s Lynn to go there, as it has a beautifully regenerated and refurbished Georgian dockyard, where they can see the plaque commemorating the first credit facility that became the great Barclays bank. It is particularly sad to see a bank such as Barclays step back from the place in which it started. Everyone has history, roots and heritage, and I am not such a romantic that I expect Barclays to put a bank in every Norfolk village, but I do think there is a responsibility on all these companies to make sure that the people they are there to serve are getting the service they need.

I wish, in particular, to highlight the importance of access to cash on high streets for small businesses, as it is becoming a serious problem. I know that the Minister understands it, and I am grateful for his acknowledgement of it. Across East Anglia, and I am sure this is happening elsewhere, we are seeing an increasing frequency of ATM raids, where JCBs are driven into banks and ATMs are taken out. However, that is the thin end of a bigger wedge, and many businesses in Dereham, Attleborough, Wymondham, Watton and Hingham are beginning to struggle with what to do with cash on a Monday morning, and many local people are struggling to find a bank they can access.

I know that many people wish to speak this morning, so I will not detain you or the House for too long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to touch on mutuality, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) addressed earlier. We need to talk about, celebrate, champion and promote it more in this House. Some 300 years ago, we were writing the rule book for modern capitalism, defining the joint stock limited company and setting out the legal framework in English constitutional law, in common law, that drove the industrial revolution. We created limited liability companies, which allowed people to invest, raise money and back projects, and that was a key part of what this country did.

In an age of globalised capitalism and high technology, we have a challenge to make sure that capital does not become disconnected from the people who are providing the money, the savers, and the people who need the money to build businesses. For capitalism to work, we need a connection between money, the people who are saving it and the people who are borrowing it. The last crash in the City was a clear example of what happens when a disconnection is allowed to get to crisis proportions, whereby people do not know where the money that they have deposited is going and people who buy a complex derivative bond do not know what it is built on or what is underpinning it. We then have a serious problem. I am not suggesting that we go back to an agrarian revolution of trading wheat for a lift on a cart into Dereham, but I think there is a real issue in our economy in respect of connected capitalism.

Conservative Members in particular, as card-carrying advocates for the market, need to continue to champion and make clear the fact that markets work when they have values, connection and people at the heart of them. When markets are completely disconnected, they have no sense of the requirements of the people putting the capital in or taking it out, they do not value that connection and regulators do not understand the importance of the bond of responsibility between people who are trading with each other.

Mutuality is a proud tradition at the heart of the old labour movement, but it is also a proud tradition in civic conservativism—it is Burke’s little platoons. In a spirit of cross-party philosophising on this Friday morning, perhaps I can put some wind in the sails of the movement for mutuality. I would love to see more mutuality in different sectors, such as in finance, banking and housing, where, clearly, the building societies have been a great reform—I would argue that the housing associations have also been a great Conservative reform in housing.

There are many examples of where we could blow on to the embers of mutuality and encourage more of it in different areas, particularly in some of our social care sectors and health provision. It should not be a stark choice between private profit and public state. There is a whole third sector of mutuality— membership organisations that can deliver public goods, with cost reimbursement and important disciplines of financial control that are not necessarily either public sector, with all the efficiency challenges that go with it, or private sector, with all the incentives for high profit. There is a whole raft of organisations out there that we could be deploying better—in health and care, but also in criminal justice and a whole range of areas where the state has struggled in the past few decades to achieve its stated objectives.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and encourages me to wrap up my philosophising. He is right—I am not at all anti-profit; it is about what is done with the profit. One of the geniuses of mutuality is that the profit is recycled back in to pursue the interests of those who put in the capital in the first place.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again—I must not keep trespassing on the House’s time, because I have a Bill coming up later. Does he agree that if we look at pension funds and the possibilities of extending that sort of approach into social care, there would be a lot in the idea of mutuality? Also, on the point about profit, if those funds were invested in national goods, such as important national infrastructure and things of that sort, we could all benefit, but of course it has a financial aspect to it as well.

[George Freeman]

Again, my right hon. and learned Friend makes the point even more eloquently than I was trying to do, and he is right. I make this point in all seriousness: in so many areas, such as infrastructure, as he says, I dream of a world in which people can put their own savings into mutual vehicles. I would love people to be able to invest in the Cambridge-Norwich railway development corporation to fund the regeneration of neglected stations, or to create and fund investment vehicles. There is a whole wealth of instruments, vehicles and bodies rooted in that fertile period of 18th and 19th-century English capitalism, and Scottish capitalism, too—the enlightenment in Edinburgh was a big part of it. We could draw on those models better in pursuit of many of our public sector objectives.

As I wrap up, I will return to the more mundane and practical issues. This is an important Bill for updating the law and giving building societies a chance to get back to where they were in the early ’90s. They were responsible for something like 60% of the market; they have dropped down to 20%. We want to help building societies compete and get back to providing their core service to help those who want to save in building societies, not banks, and first-time buyers who, particularly in my part of the world in Norfolk, do not have high salaries and are looking for a safe and reliable local building society that could hopefully help them acquire a local house built for them, rather than for commuters moving into Norfolk. We need to think about the people who are driving public services and the rural economy. For first-time buyers, this is an important measure.

As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central said in introducing the Bill, increasing lending capacity is in itself a huge step forward. I think the figure is £10 billion of extra lending capacity, which will allow the provision of another 20,000 mortgages. That is hugely important, particularly for first-time buyers. I conclude by genuinely congratulating and thanking the hon. Lady for bringing the Bill forward, the Government for working with her and us on it, and all those who have helped. The Bill strikes a small but important blow and sends a key signal that building societies are back. We want to support and help them as part of a broader commitment to civic, small, local-platoon connected capital that can help people in communities up and down this country to save and withdraw money in the way they need, which will support the local economies on which the national economy is built.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Politics is about choices; the hon. Lady makes an important point. This Government are making the choice to increase taxes on ordinary working people and those who employ them, while on the Opposition Benches, we say that those who have benefited from the high energy prices should pay a bit more in tax to relieve the pressure on ordinary working people. We have a Conservative Minister who goes on the TV and radio and says that energy companies and the North sea oil and gas companies are struggling right now. Tell that to my constituents, the hon. Lady’s constituents and all our constituents who are struggling to pay the bills, while the profits keep coming in for the big oil and gas producers.

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

Does the hon. Lady not agree that what she is saying is all smoke and mirrors? If a tax is put in for one year, that will not pay for the continuing costs over future years. What she is doing is simply misleading the public.

[Rachel Reeves]

If we raised those taxes now on North sea oil and gas companies, we could bring in money that could be used to relieve pressure now. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents in North East Hertfordshire would be pretty pleased to have money off their bills this year, rather than the buy now, pay later scheme that we get from this Chancellor.

Why is the Chancellor not listening? The Conservatives’ rise in national insurance will hit almost 30 million working people. The TUC rightly argues that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while “leaving the wealthy untouched”. The British Chambers of Commerce describes the Government’s policy as

“a drag anchor on jobs growth”.

The CBI put it bluntly and said that it will

“hurt a business’s ability to hire staff”.

On Sunday, the Federation of Small Businesses warned:

“Slamming small firms with a jobs tax hike will put the brakes on investment, upskilling and growth within communities most affected by the pandemic.”

The Chancellor must know what business organisations and trade unions are saying. We can only conclude that he is consciously disregarding their experience and views. We know from research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that job-intensive sectors will be disproportionately hit hard. The Conservatives have deliberately designed a tax hike that will hit people working in hotels, restaurants, transport, retail and wholesale especially hard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and it is a reflection of the fact that we have taken sensible measured steps against what has been a recurring series of unprecedented challenges—the financial crisis, our exit from the European Union, covid, and now the backdrop of conflict in Ukraine. All these things have had a major impact on the world around us, but our focus has consistently been on supporting people to do the right thing and to protect their finances.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I should make some progress, but I will take one more intervention.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rise in the national living wage should not be ignored and is important in helping people at the bottom of the income spectrum? It is right to take such measures, but the Opposition’s asking for more money the whole time but not being prepared to put in any resource is a ridiculous smoke and mirrors job.

[Mr Clarke]

It is, and my right hon. and learned Friend is precisely right because, in the end, it is poorest who will lose out the most if we lose control either of our public spending or of inflation. To illustrate, a 1 percentage point rise in both inflation and interest rates would increase spending on debt interest by nearly £23 billion a year, and that threat is not a notional one. In January 2021 we spent £1.6 billion on servicing our debt, but in January this year we spent £6.1 billion. We cannot fund increases in spending on our health service and social care by increasing borrowing. Members will surely agree that to leave ourselves vulnerable at this time by further increasing our debt burden would be highly irresponsible. These are not always easy choices, but we will be the ones to reconcile the need to reduce our debt burden with the growing pressures on the state, and that means responsible choices about taxation.

Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to apologise to the SNP, and we can clear this up straightaway. I apologise about the Gibraltar comments. I have spoken to some of my constituents who would like to see some of the MPs breathalysed next time they get off an aeroplane in Gibraltar. That will clear it up straightaway.

Now, all this nonsense from the SNP is in sharp contrast to our Prime Minister, who has got Brexit done by leaving the EU, delivered a £36 billion package to sort out the national health service and social care, delivered the fastest vaccination—

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

Does my hon. Friend not think it was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) to start talking about public spending in constituencies served by Conservative Members when we have some of the poorest constituencies in the country voting Conservative these days because the working people trust this Prime Minister?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his sensible intervention. I only have to look at my constituency, Ashfield, one of the poorest in the country, and at neighbouring Bolsover, Don Valley and Rother Valley—all those places have had millions of pounds of investment. The Prime Minister has also launched our plan for jobs, helping people get back into work. We are cutting taxes, we are boosting wages—we are helping working families.

I am going to stop picking on the SNP, because I want to talk about the massed ranks of the Labour party. I am struggling to see them at the moment. Despite pretending to be bothered, they could not be bothered to turn up today. They seem to think that there is a war raging in France at the moment and that it is acceptable for thousands of illegal migrants to cross our channel every single day. They really need to get a grip.

Another sign that the Labour party has lost the plot is that it wants to replace our armed forces with “human security services”—a shift from the classic armed forces to a gender balanced, ethnically diverse human security services tasked with dampening down violence. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker: a peace-loving British tank—

VAT (Listed Properties)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Member shows his great wealth and breadth of experience of international VAT matters, and I stand educated.

I want to do everything that I can to help preserve our great medieval towns. Listed properties are not grand ancestral piles; a huge majority are very modest properties that are owned and loved by normal people. Private listed property owners are protecting the vast majority of Britain’s built heritage out of their own pocket, but the costs for doing repairs and renovations have risen sharply in recent years.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges with climate change and pollution is tackling some of the problems with the heating and insulation of such properties? If they are listed, there are features that have to be protected in the process, so it is an expensive business. It is very much in the national interest that these changes should be made, and it is only right that the Treasury should consider whether previous concessions could be reintroduced.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been certain schemes over the years for wood pellet-type boilers, and grants have been available, but he highlights the unique features of older properties. It is often not feasible or possible to put in a cheap, efficient gas boiler, which other property owners might be able to do.

I turn to the obvious desire to insulate homes and make them more energy efficient. It is a very reasonable desire, because a lot of listed properties are draughty and old and do not have modern insulation. They are expensive to heat, which adds to the costs of being a listed property owner.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend will be aware that North East Hertfordshire is one of the constituencies that has a high number of listed properties, many of them modest. Does he agree that the situation in urban areas is different from that in rural areas? If someone lives in a rural area with a significant number of listed buildings, there has to be some sort of level playing field to try to help them make the relevant changes.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point about country living, as opposed to living in towns, because cheaper piped gas is often not available. People might have Calor-style units in their garden, or they might rely on solid fuels such as coal. We had discussions, dare I say, with the Government last week and advanced various measures that I cannot say I fully agree with at this time.

In 2012, we got to the point where the zero VAT rating for authorised alterations to listed properties was removed. The owners of 500,000 listed buildings across the country, 98% of which are privately owned, then suffered a potential increase of 20% in anything that they do to keep their properties in a good state of repair. As listed property owners often say, an individual never really owns a listed property, but is merely borrowing it.

Before the 2012 Budget, the zero VAT rating was available as long as people had applied for the proper listed property consent with the local authority. As hon. Members know, such consent is often costly to obtain and requires input from specialists, including architects and building control, the navigation of the local planning system and a variety of interpretations by conservation officers. All of that is on a scale that is wholly different from that of people who do not live in listed properties, and such requirements all add costs—even before having the bespoke works required.

The all-party parliamentary group on listed properties, of which I have been the chairman, is currently being re-established. It has evidence that the addition of VAT reduced the number of recorded works being carried out to protect and maintain listed properties by some 30% in the first four years, between 2012 and 2016. There was a notable and recorded drop in applications for proper conservation works. One can only guess what was happening. Were people simply not bothering to go through the process? Owing to the extra cost, were they simply deciding to make do with where they were? There was a full 75% drop in applications over just three years, subsequent to the change in the VAT rules.

These works will be of ongoing economic benefit, often creating a new home where one did not exist before or converting an older property into a business premises. They are positive goods that would perhaps take pressure away from new builds on green spaces. I have spoken to many listed property owners who face financial hardship. Many have been forced to sell their home as a result of costs increasing by 20%. It has to be said that a tax on listed buildings is not a tax on the wealthy, but a tax on attempts to protect our cultural heritage.

I secured the debate to join thousands of listed property owners in calling on the Government to introduce a form of VAT relief. Preferably, let us go back to where we were: a reduction from the 20% rate back to zero, which would be a great place to be. That will be possible in the post-Brexit world, but we are currently in our implementation period, so 5% could be achieved at the Budget next week.

Maintaining listed buildings has a lot more in common with other kinds of building work that has a lower rate of VAT. Some energy-efficient measures qualify for the 5% rate—obviously a restriction was introduced recently, which seemed rather perverse. Converting houses into flats, and renovating empty properties that have lain empty for two years qualify for a lower VAT rate of 5%. The Government and Treasury quite rightly want to encourage bringing such properties into use, and that nudge effect is advanced through the lower VAT rate.

Of course, the biggest anomaly of all—a correct anomaly, in my view—is that we have had a zero VAT rating on new builds since we became a member of the EU. There is a long history to this type of debate, going back to the 1940s. We had the Town and Country Planning Acts 1944 and 1947, which implemented the listing system that we know today. Even back then, the Government knew that they were imposing upon listed property owners a new range of probably unwelcome regulations, and that they had to give something in return. The something in return was a zero VAT rating or, before 1972, sales tax exemptions for this type of work. It is essential that we have a lower rate of VAT on listed properties, because we want to give people the opportunity to make the necessary improvements to this country’s built heritage.

In the 2012 debate—that year’s Budget did not go down too well, because there were quite a few VAT measures in it—the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the reason for the change was to prevent an exemption for a

“big swimming pool in a listed Tudor house”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 319.]

That was a fairly thin argument, because I do not think it was taken up by too many of the 500,000 listed property owners. If such behaviour was going on, we could have exempted that from the zero VAT rating in isolation.

Draft Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 General Committees

[John Glen]

Clearly, had we left on 31 March, the EMIR REFIT regulation would not have come in in July. What happened would have depended on the conditions under which we had left at the end of March and on whether we observed the changes naturally as part of the EU through a transition period, or if, in a no-deal circumstance, we used a different mechanism to consider ongoing legislation into which we had had some input but that was not quite finished. That is a bit of a difficult question to answer fully, but that is my understanding.

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

Hear, hear!

[John Glen]

I sense that there is a degree of frustration and impatience in the Committee, but I will respectfully address the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. We clearly have disagreements over the fundamental outcome that we need to secure, but all the interventions across the 58 SIs have been designed to give as much stability as possible in the event of no deal, which is in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom’s financial services sector.

I hope that the Committee has found this morning’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the draft regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (Second sitting)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

I want to put on record our sincere thanks to the expert witnesses who took their time to present to us in the evidence sessions this morning. I think everybody benefited from that and we are all grateful to them. It is a pleasure to serve with you, Mr Bailey, in the chair once again.

Amendment 1 would oblige the court to consider whether the accused filmed themselves committing the offence or posted a video of themselves committing the offence online when establishing the seriousness of the offence. Subsection (1B) means that this consideration would be treated as an aggravating factor and would be stated as such in open court. This would be used by the court to determine the appropriate sentence and result in an upward adjustment of the sentence for those who conducted such filming activity. I am aware of and am horrified by the abhorrent actions of some people who film animal cruelty with the aim of sharing and uploading videos on social media. The hon. Member for Workington highlighted how terrible that was.

I think we all recognise that the hon. Member for Redcar movingly explained her concerns, fears and worries. In the best traditions of the House, she explained the issues in a non-partisan way. As she spoke about the need to introduce guidelines and how to approach this, it was interesting that everybody on both sides of the Committee said: “Good point”. That is very unusual in this place, so well done. One of the great things in this place is when we see somebody has a grip on an issue and brings people with them. I congratulate her for doing that.

There are many other great examples of Back-Bench support in the Committee, including the work done on the mighty Finn’s law in North East Hertfordshire. There is some really good work going on, and that should inspire people about what can be done in this place.

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

I also want to pay tribute to the campaigners for Finn’s law, including Sarah Dixon, who was the leader of the campaign in many ways, and who is with us today.

[David Rutley]

Of course—congratulations, and I thank her. It is such campaigning zeal that enables us to make the case to take this legislation through when there are competing demands. Full credit should go to our team of Committee members today; many of them have served in Committee on other animal welfare legislation. There is a commitment to get this legislation through Parliament, but we can do that because we have made the case collectively and there is common ground. I am thankful for all the campaigning work that has gone on to make it possible.

I believe that any cruelty caused to an animal should be met with a proportionate response. That is why we are here today to encourage the passage of the Bill. Aggravating factors are most often dealt with in the sentencing guidelines, as was highlighted and supported by the witnesses this morning, and not always in statute. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Redcar would create a statutory aggravating factor. Statutory aggravating factors are used only for the most heinous criminal offences, such as domestic violence or terrorism. For other offences, it is normal for other aggravating factors to be included in the sentencing guidelines, which the courts are required to follow when determining the appropriate sentence in a particular case.

There are sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty, drawn up by the independent Sentencing Council, and they were last reviewed and updated in April 2017, following a public consultation. Under those guidelines, the use of technology to publicise or promote cruelty is already considered an aggravating factor, as has been referred to. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been in contact with the Sentencing Council. As the Bill will change the maximum sentence available for animal cruelty, the sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty will be subject to review by the Sentencing Council, which will publicly consult on the updated guidelines.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was, I think, concerned about the question of statutory guidance. Our view is that this behaviour will be one of the other aggravating factors. The good news is that it is already included in the Animal Welfare Act guidelines, so, as the hon. Member for Workington said, we hope that it will be more straightforward. The fact that DEFRA officials are speaking to the Sentencing Council gives us real cause for optimism.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made an interesting point about the online harms White Paper. Based on that suggestion, we will be meeting the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and talking closely with it about what we can do in that area. It is scary when we see what people—young or old—are watching now. They seem to get relative highs on really disgusting material, animal cruelty being one. That has to stop, and hopefully we can make some inroads on that.

The proposed aggravating factor of filming an offence is already taken into account by the courts when sentencing for certain relevant offences. For example, the sentencing guidelines on “Robbery—sentencing children and young people” includes the following other aggravating factor:

“filming of the offence…or circulating details/photos/videos etc of the offence on social media or within peer groups”.

That is for consideration by the court when sentencing the offender. I assure the hon. Member for Redcar that DEFRA will raise that issue and will continue to engage with the Sentencing Council, which I am sure takes this matter very seriously.

In addition to the guidelines on sentencing, existing legislation provides an offence that covers filming animal cruelty. Section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 creates a specific offence of sending grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages over a public electronic communications network. It is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide which charges to bring, but it is possible that someone filming an act of animal cruelty could be charged with an offence under section 127(1). That would result in a maximum sentence of six months simply for the offence of posting abhorrent or offensive material online. Evidently, there are options to ensure that the offenders who film and upload or distribute footage of their animal cruelty are met with an appropriate response. When this Bill is passed, these pre-existing options could enable courts to impose a higher sentence. It is useful to see what legislation is out there in the round and also what guidelines are there.

Committing animal cruelty is repugnant and filming it to share with others is beyond comprehension. As mentioned, we will discuss this matter further with the Sentencing Council. When they review the guidelines, we will ensure that this point is raised during the public consultation. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady whether she would be kind enough to consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

As I said before, we are pleased to support the Bill and the increase in sentences. It is good finally to see it here and I hope we can get it on the statute book shortly. As I said on Second Reading, we have no intention of voting against it, but would rather seek to improve it where we can through amendments such as that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar.

As I mentioned, we are concerned about the scope of the Bill and its narrowness, because it applies only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore does not apply to wild animals. I will come on to that in more detail when we reach new clause 2.

I will not say much, because it is important that the Bill moves forward as swiftly as possible. We welcome the fact that it will increase maximum sentences to five years and the fact that that brings England and Wales more into line with the rest of the UK. The Minister mentioned that Northern Ireland has moved on to five years. Scotland, as we know, has been consulting on doing the same. It is important we are not left behind in England and Wales.

As we have heard, public consultation was an important part in getting the general public and animal welfare organisations to support the work that the Government are doing. I know that Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and many others have worked with us and the Government to support the Bill and enable it to come forward. I know that a lot of people have worked very hard to get us to the place we are at now. I thank all those who have worked on this Bill.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s 2016 report on animal welfare referred to the increasing disparity in sentencing powers on a range of offences relating to animals. That report also included the recommendation to increase the maximum sentence for cruelty offences against animals to five years.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me and the evidence we heard this morning that one great advantage of increasing the sentence is that in the horrible cases where there is torture, where a service animal is attacked, or where a number of animals are killed or badly treated, it is possible to mark that if the maximum sentence is five years, so those aggravated features can be reflected in the sentence?

[Sue Hayman]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an extremely important point. One thing that has been quite difficult when looking at the evidence is some of the extraordinary cruelty against animals of which people are capable. The work he did with other colleagues on Finn’s law was really important, because service animals put themselves in front of their police officers or whoever they are working with to protect them. It is important that that has now been recognised.

It is important that we are finally giving judges the tools they need to start handing out the kind of sentences that are required if we are to have not only a punishment that will act as a deterrent, but a punishment that is right for the crime. We do not have that at the moment. In conclusion, the Opposition will support the Bill, and I thank everyone for their work on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Extent, commencement and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

New clause 2(1) and (2) would create a statutory obligation for the Government to report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the Act within two years of it coming into force, including specific assessments of its effect on animal welfare and the overall coherence with animal welfare legislation, including sentencing under specified Acts relating to wildlife.

It is important to note that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was subject to review by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010 and informally through its domestic animals inquiry in 2016.

The 2010 assessment concluded that there was broad agreement that animal welfare had been improved as a result of the 2006 Act by bringing together diverse legislation and adding a preventative measure that allows action to be taken without animals suffering unnecessarily. The 2016 inquiry encouraged the Bill and the proposed increase in maximum penalties.

New clause 2(3)(a) would commit the Government to including an assessment of the welfare of animals that are not protected animals under section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Subsection (3)(b) would commit the Government to look at sentencing for offences under various pieces of legislation pertaining to wildlife.

Wildlife legislation that protects animals in a wild state is a separate matter and, as we know, not in the scope of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. All animals that come under the control of man, whether domesticated or wildlife, will be subject to the maximum penalty. Indeed, there are separate pieces of legislation that focus specifically on wildlife, with appropriate sentences and penalties.

Relevant points are being made here and, of course, we want to respond to them. I do not think we know the general consensus but we need to move forward with the Bill. We do not want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have heard that before but it certainly applies to the Bill. Notwithstanding that the courts will have to make some interpretation, as is always the case, I reinforce the fact that any act of serious cruelty against a wild animal would most likely, by its very nature, entail that animal being under the control of man, and so would be caught by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Some of the deeply upsetting cases we heard about this morning, such as putting an animal in a microwave—if one could ever consider somebody doing that—could be committed only if the animal were under control of man. Although I understand the concerns, and that there are lawyers in the room, I am sure that courts will be well able to identify the most serious acts.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I do not know whether the Minister would agree with me on a point that may need further consideration. If an animal is under a person’s control, does that not give that person a duty towards that animal? In those circumstances, is it not part of the wrongdoing that, having control of an animal, a person abuses it?

[David Rutley]

As I said, we have distinguished lawyers in the room for a reason—they make important points such as that one, which only my right hon. and learned Friend could make with such eloquence. I completely agree that there is an added responsibility. It is a privilege to be able to look after animals and, when we do, we should expect higher standards of ourselves. There are laws that are relevant to other wild animals but, when these animals are in the control of man, a higher standard needs to be adhered to.

I do not really want to mention these cases, but I am trying to provide clarification and confidence to members of the Committee. We heard the example of a rabbit being kicked in a very serious way. Whether a rabbit is wild or not, rabbits are commonly domesticated, and that would be covered by the Bill. Similarly, if other animals were mistreated under the control of man, they would be covered. I understand that there are concerns, but I reassure members of the Committee that the courts will be in a better position, as a result of this legislation, to hold people to account and put the right sentences in place. They will be able to make judgments that will help domesticated animals and, in many cases, wild animals too—I will come to the point about wild animals more broadly in a second.

A review of wildlife legislation has already been conducted. At the request of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Law Commission commenced in 2011 its wildlife law project to develop proposals for a modern, simpler and more flexible framework. The commission published its report and draft Bill in November 2015, and recommended that the existing pieces of wildlife legislation be replaced with a single statute.

Exit from the EU provides an opportunity to re-examine our regulatory framework and how it works so that it is fit for purpose to meet our national needs in the future and to fulfil our international obligations. As hon. Members may be aware, much of our wildlife law stems from EU directives. That is why EU exit would provide an opportunity to take that wider look. We will need to consider the implications of EU exit for our approach to wildlife policy before deciding whether and how to implement the Law Commission proposals.

In addition to the existing reviews of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Ministry of Justice regularly publishes criminal justice statistics. Under the 2006 Act, data on prosecutions, convictions and sentencing speak to the impact of higher penalties on animal welfare.

In summary, I completely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Workington, but the Bill focuses on the most heinous crimes involving animals, including wildlife, under the control of man. The penalties for wildlife crimes that focus on animals in their wild habitat are separate from this legislation. Welfare groups have long called for an increased maximum sentence for the serious crimes under the 2006 Act. It is important that we get this change of an increased maximum penalty on to the statute book as soon as possible and without amendment.

I would be happy to commit to meeting the hon. Lady in the very near future to discuss different maximum sentences for Animal Welfare Act offences and offences relating to the welfare of wildlife. In line with our normal, standard procedure, we will look at the impact of the Bill in three years’ time. On that basis, and with a commitment to hold an early meeting, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing her new clause. I hope she can support the passage of this important Bill at this stage without amendment.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Q It is. Listening to the accounts that you just gave, which were absolutely horrific, I cannot comprehend the thinking that must have gone on before those incidents took place. Do you think that this Bill will reduce the number of those acts and, if so, why? Do you think it will act as a deterrent?

Michael Flower: I certainly hope so. To my mind, one of the great drives behind the Bill is to try to deter people from committing those offences. I go back a few years working for the RSPCA, and one of the main drives we had for bringing in the welfare offence at the time of the original Act was to introduce to English law preventive measures to stop animals being caused to suffer. The RSPCA is about preventing cruelty, not prosecuting it. We will prosecute it where offences are committed, but we want to prevent it. I hope that, if there is a five-year custodial sentence, that will act as a deterrent. It seems to me that there is a huge difference between an offender serving a 16-week custodial sentence, as is the case at present, and serving two and a half years. That must make some difference to some people, and it can only be beneficial.

Claire Horton: We are aware of research by the University of Birmingham and similar research in Italy that found even a relatively small change in sentences can have a significant deterrent effect. Certainly, given some of the examples we have cited, the sentence at the moment is disproportionate, considering that the sentence for fly tipping is five years, the sentence for theft is seven years and the sentence for driving while disqualified is significantly more than this. For someone who knowingly and determinedly kills animals in the way you have heard about, there has to be a deterrent. There has to be a punishment that fits the crime. At the moment, it just does not at all.

Of course, as was said, there is significant public and cross-party support for this change. I think people recognise that we need to be seen to be taking this seriously and to be acting. Certainly, at the moment, we are the worst of 100 countries in the sentence we offer. Battersea did some research in 2017—I am sure most of you have already seen it, but I have brought some copies for the Committee’s benefit, which I will leave here—that looked at sentencing for animal cruelty in England and Wales. We surveyed 100 jurisdictions around the whole of Europe, the US and Australia, and all of them, including Ireland and Northern Ireland, had higher sentences than England. We really do need to act on this, and we need to do it soon.

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

Q On deterrence, do you agree that it would help if the courts and the Sentencing Council worked up a list of aggravating features that would merit a long sentence within the bracket of up to five years? For example, you mentioned torture—setting one animal on another. You will know about my interest in service animals—I thank you both for all the support we had with Finn’s law. I suggest that if a service animal that is defending a police officer is attacked with a 10-inch knife and stabbed to within a very close shave of losing its life, that would be an aggravating feature too. What do you think of that?

Michael Flower: The Sentencing Council has actually produced sentencing guidelines for Animal Welfare Act offences already—the most recent version was introduced in 2017, I think—and they contain examples of aggravating features. As a prosecutor, we find them very useful. We would certainly welcome the Sentencing Council revising those guidelines to take account of the Bill, if it is enacted. In fact, I suggest that it is essential that it does. We have had an indication somewhere down the line that it is prepared to look at this fairly quickly if the Bill comes into force. Yes, I would definitely welcome Sentencing Council guidance.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q I understand that is the position, but do you agree that if you have up to five years to work with, it is possible to make those distinctions more clearly than if you have just a very short sentence, such as six months?

Michael Flower: Oh yes, it gives you much more scope, because in that short period of six months, when you take account of discounts for early guilty pleas and so on, you have a very limited band in which to work, so five years should improve the situation quite considerably.

Claire Horton: Yes, we agree with that. Certainly, we are expecting up to five years to be used for the most serious offences, and aggravated offences come under that banner. We would certainly welcome the capacity and the ability to do that.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Would you see torturing an animal, setting it on another animal or attacking a service animal as being the main areas for aggravating features, or are there others?

Michael Flower: All those should be aggravating features. Some already are, under current guidelines. The use of an animal to cause injury to another is also an aggravating feature at the moment. Another aggravating feature that already exists, and that should continue to exist, is cruelty to multiple animals. Although the examples I have cited have all been physical abuse of an individual animal, there are some very serious cases involving the wholesale gross neglect of multiple animals. It can be a horse dealer with 100 horses, and the vast majority of them are in a suffering state. In my view, that must become an aggravating feature.

Claire Horton: Of course, the law now is that if an animal—a dog—attacks a service dog, then the owner can receive up to three years’ imprisonment. However, if that owner himself attacks that service dog or any other dog, the owner would get up to six months, and that is it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I think there is an overwhelming case. Thank you very much.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q First, I thank both of your organisations for all the campaigning work that you have done to support us in getting to this place, and for all the work that your staff do every day. The case of Baby the bulldog, which was mentioned earlier, is what drove me to get involved in this, and that came to sentencing only because of the really good work by the RSPCA and your members of staff. I am sure that they felt the same as the public did—all that work to get these people to court for that horrendous event, and then to see just a suspended sentence, an electronic tag and a fine. That was insufficient. Thank you for everything that you do.

Building on Sir Oliver’s point about aggravating, I have an interest in filming and the use of social media. Is the filming of incidents of abuse and harassment for entertainment on the increase? How is that affecting your ability to prosecute or to take cases forward, and could that be an aggravating element in the seriousness of a case?

Michael Flower: We receive quite a number of complaints that make reference to the social media site Snapchat. The figures I have seen show that in 2015 there were 27 complaints that mentioned Snapchat, and in 2018 there were 214. That would tend to indicate that there is a significant increase.

On an individual case-by-case basis, I am often asked why cruelty continues and seems to be increasing, and why serious cruelty seems to be increasing. I do not really know the answer, but I have a very strong suspicion that social media is a contributory factor. I have children who are on Facebook and so on, and a lot of people on these sites seem to live an almost artificial life, where they want to glorify their activities. One way a proportion of people seem to do it is to commit acts of cruelty and then put them on the internet so that others can see it. It is damaging, because it is almost publicising and promoting cruelty. To my mind, this is yet another aggravating feature. I believe that the Sentencing Council will recognise that fact—it has included that in the current sentencing guidelines. That is all positive, but it is an issue and I am sure that it leads to more cruelty.

From an enforcement point of view, it is sometimes helpful, because if we can secure the material that is being posted, we have pretty good evidence of what is being done by which individuals to which animals. It does not always work, because some of the material on these social media sites is deleted very quickly and cannot always be retrieved. It is quite surprising that we have had a number of pretty high-profile cases, including dog fighting. In one of the last cases I dealt with, they were going into fields in Bedfordshire, I think, and staging fights in the middle of the field and filming them. Then they put it on social media, where one of our researchers saw it and we were able to deal with the offending. It is a mixed blessing. It helps to perpetuate cruelty and it does not always solve it.

Claire Horton: We see that in all sorts of other issues. It is not just in animal cruelty; it is in everything. It is people trolling young people and encouraging suicide. Social media has an awful lot to account for. Certainly, anecdotally, I would agree. I agree, actually, that in some places it is quite useful to have that footage. It works as some sort of shock tactic, for many people. It raises awareness for many people, but it also drives copycat behaviour with others. That is probably the real concern. I don’t think it is going away any time soon, but the more we can be clear about our intolerance of that sort of behaviour and how it is punished, that has got to help in tackling these crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Fantastic. I would like to come back to Inspector O’Hara later when other Members have put their questions.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q As you know, there has been a recent change in the law to make it more straightforward to prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act, in the case of service animals. At the moment, the sentencing guidelines talk about taking account of the fact that an animal is in public service.

Do you think there is a case for making the situation of the service animal clearer in the sentencing guidelines, and making it absolutely clear that it is an aggravating feature to attack a service animal? Inspector O’Hara might like to start on that.

Inspector O'Hara: Obviously, the service animal provision is relatively new, and we have yet to see how that will play out in court. I take quite a pragmatic view that the courts will be able to read between the lines with what is specifically written in the guidelines, to come to a correct conclusion in that regard.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q So, you do not think there is a need? There is a general view, expressed by earlier witnesses, that there is a case for reviewing the sentencing guidelines to make them clearer on a number of aspects. That is partly because with a sentence of five years there is more scope to make distinctions than there is with a very short sentence. Do you think that is worth while?

Inspector O'Hara: Clearly, it is a matter for the judiciary, and not necessarily the police, to put that forward. We have certainly called over the past couple of years for an increase in penalties. That is something that we put forward with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on companion animals a couple of years ago. I just think that we have not got the evidence base at the moment, with the service animals notion particularly, to suggest that it is posing a particular problem that requires a review.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q There was a problem with criminal damage, as you know. Finn, the famous police dog, was attacked and there was no separate penalty at court. The reason was that criminal damage is largely judged by the value of the animal. Of course, a seven or eight-year-old police dog is not really worth very much money, although it does a very valuable job.

The aim of the change in the law and, I hope, this increase in sentence is to have something that is more tailored to the situation. Is that something that you would recognise as worth while? Do you not think that the sentencing guidelines would need to be looked at in those new circumstances?

Inspector O'Hara: With any change in legislation or provision, a review of the subsequent sentencing is useful, because five years is a long period.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q Mr Schwarz, would you like to comment?

Mike Schwarz: That was obviously an important piece of legislation and I know you are rolling it out. I think the sentencing guidelines—the 2017 ones—on the Animal Welfare Act do cover that point. They say that if the animal is being used in public service or as an assistance dog, there is an aggravating feature, but that might not have the priority that you and others might wish to accord it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q The Animal Welfare Act was devised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when he was Secretary of State to cover a particular area. Obviously, as you have said, Mr Schwarz, there are many other similar areas that are covered by other Acts. There is a short period available to us before the end of the Session and the opportunity to pass this Bill. Do you accept that it is well worthwhile to do that, even though the Bill does not have the wider coverage that you had hoped for?

Mike Schwarz: I would not come here either as an expert or a politician, but my personal answer is, “Yes, but.” The “but” may come in the proposed amendments, recommending a report or a review to see what disparities and distortions may be caused, with a view to that being the trigger to further analysis of the whole sector—or both sectors.

As I understand it, though others here will know better than I do, there was the existing wildlife law and then Labour passed the Animal Welfare Act to get domesticated animals on the same level. As you know, that makes things more advantageous for prosecutors in one sector, leaving another behind. That would be a reason for trying to build in some sort of process, such as a report or a review, to try to get the other sector back up to speed with the first.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Q I have a friend who lobbies on this Bill on behalf of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. One thing we often discuss is the fact that people who are capable of committing unspeakable acts against animals are surely quite likely to display that lack of empathy and go on to harm people. If we get any sort of comeback, it is along the lines of, “It’s just animals. Why is it so important to sentence people?” I would like to know Paddy’s experience. Do such people go on to carry out acts of domestic violence or other acts against people?

Inspector O'Hara: Some research from the US in particular tends to suggest a link between animal-related violence and human-related violence. I do not know that we are quite so far advanced in this country to have the dataset available to help us understand that, but the five-year penalty broadly brings causing suffering to an animal in line with actual bodily harm, which is the human equivalent. That is something we strongly suggested at the last EFRA Committee.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I agree with many of her comments about the importance of the sentencing increase applying generally to cases of animal cruelty and various other offences under the Animal Welfare Act, and how there should be no distinction between particular offences. I welcome the Bill because as well as increasing sentences for animal welfare offences in respect of all animals, it has a special relevance for me and those of us who supported Finn’s law, the Bill that became the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019.

When I first met my constituent PC Dave Wardell and Finn, who live in Buntingford, and heard their story, I knew we had to try to change the law. Finn had been badly injured in October 2016, saving Dave’s life in an attack by a knife-wielding suspect, yet there was no separate penalty at court for the attack on this service animal, and the charge was criminal damage, treating Finn as though he was just a piece of kit. Because a seven-year-old police dog is not worth much money and criminal damage is judged by the value of the damage, no separate penalty was imposed at court for the harm done to Finn, despite the fact that the dog was almost killed in the attack, faced a four-hour operation, and had saved his handler’s life. Solicitor Sarah Dixon started a national campaign for Finn’s law that has united press, public and politicians. Both the Daily Mirror and The Sun have supported Finn’s law, and a petition raised over 125,000 signatures.

I first drafted a Bill based on Qanto’s law—a Canadian law named after another brave dog—and was given permission by the House to bring it in as a ten-minute rule Bill in December 2017. I discovered that Ministers had reservations. After many discussions and lots of pressure from supporters, I decided that a different approach was needed—one based on measures in Western Australia. Ministers were worried that, were we to have only an offence of attacking a police dog carry a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, it would not reflect properly the point made by the hon. Member for Workington that the same maximum sentence should be available for ill treatment of all animals. Ministers agreed to go with the Western Australian approach and I presented the replacement Bill, which became the 2019 Act.

The original Bill was drafted with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for an attack on a service animal, but Ministers made it clear to me that my new Bill should make it straightforward to prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act for causing unnecessary suffering to a service animal and they would bring in this Bill to increase the sentence for Animal Welfare Act offences against any animal. I have therefore always regarded this measure as Finn’s law part two—putting in a proper maximum sentence.

I had great support for my Bill from Members of all political parties, including the author of the original Animal Welfare Act, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). It took many months, but we made progress. Lord Trenchard took the Bill through the House of Lords, and Royal Assent was given on 8 April, as has been mentioned. The Act is now in force. Importantly, Finn attended Parliament on all occasions and helped to get the support we needed. When the Bill finally got through in the other place, Finn let out a loud bark in the Public Gallery, to the amusement of many noble Lords and Baronesses. Very few ten-minute-rule Bills become law, so it was a great moment.

The Finn’s law campaign has maintained the social media pressure, and holds a twice-weekly twitterstorm called “Finn hour” which has been directed very effectively to help change the law. Every mayor and all the police and crime commissioners in our country have supported Finn’s campaign. It has been a privilege to work with the team and to see the part two Bill introduced.

Let me just read out some of the comments I have received from Finn’s law campaigners about this Bill. I have received hundreds of messages of support during “Finn hour”. People have said things such as:

“There are far too many instances of animal cruelty reported every day. The increased sentences are needed urgently”;

“Here’s wishing the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill a speedy and successful passage”;

and:

“Hopefully, a speedy passage. Finn ‘barks’ for…the country”.

It is also important that, in time, this should cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. My colleague Liam Kerr MSP has been pressing in Scotland, and we have met Nicola Sturgeon, with Dave and Finn, and there is now a consultation in Scotland. That shows that Finn is a very effective dog. We are also in touch with Northern Ireland MPs.

Finally, the House may be interested to hear that since the passing of the Bill, Finn, already the most decorated police dog, has continued to collect awards: he won at Crufts; he has been given the freedom of the town of Buntingford; and he was recently a finalist on “Britain’s Got Talent”, where his story and Dave’s pitch for this Bill to become law brought the great Simon Cowell to tears. So, I welcome the Bill; Finn’s law part two takes a big step forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Indeed, that was a point I made in the Second Reading debate on the Bill that became the 2006 Act, and I will say more about that later.

When we compare ourselves with every other European country, we see that the maximum sentence for cruelty to animals in England and Wales is woeful. A substantial number of European countries have already legislated for a maximum sentence of between two and three years, and in some cases it is up to five years, as the Minister pointed out. Further afield, Canada, Australia and New Zealand already offer a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Even within the United Kingdom, the maximum sentences in England and Wales pale in comparison with Scotland’s one-year sentencing power and, even more so, with Northern Ireland’s sentencing power of up to five years. I pay tribute to Northern Ireland for having made progress on this before any other devolved Administration or indeed the UK Parliament. I also recognise that Scotland has announced a consultation on proposals to increase sentences to five years, and I hope the Scottish Parliament sees that consultation through and implements stronger powers, so that we can all be in line and be in the same place as a United Kingdom.

There are several reasons why sentences for animal cruelty need to be increased, not the least of which is that public attitudes have no doubt changed in the 10 years since the passing of the 2006 Act. I served on its Bill Committee and I recall the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who led for the shadow team. I remember those sittings clearly. It is now becoming more obvious that the courts, too, want to be given the option to pass tougher sentences for extreme forms of cruelty, with many magistrates and judges asking for an increase in the punishments they have at their disposal. Without this increase in sentencing powers we could also be in the invidious position of facing the prospect of no prison terms for animal cruelty or for fighting with animals being available to the courts, if the Ministry of Justice’s proposal to abolish sentences of six months or less is taken forward and implemented. We need to bear that in mind, and it is another reason why this legislation is so important.

I also want to draw attention to the link with domestic abuse. Blue Cross has pointed out that research clearly suggests a link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and other serious crimes. It found that women in domestic violence shelters were 11 times more likely to report that a partner had hurt or killed pets in the home, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out. The research also shows a direct correlation between cases of animal abuse and cases of child abuse, with children at risk in 83% of families with a history of animal abuse. It should not surprise any of us to hear that. We need to do more as a society to join up the investigative powers of social services, the education system and the animal welfare charities, which work so hard to identify cases of animal abuse in homes up and down the country. We could do more to encourage joint working between these different agencies and charities to raise awareness of where the risk lies to animals, children and women, and to people generally.

Before I draw my comments to a conclusion, I want to pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, for his leadership of our inquiry—the pre-legislative scrutiny we carried out on the original Bill, which put animal sentience provisions and animal sentencing powers together in the one Bill. It was a very good inquiry, and the recommendation we clearly made was that the two sets of provisions needed to be separated and that we needed to implement the sentencing powers provisions quickly. I am only sorry that it has taken so long to get to this point. A number of Opposition Members have asked the Secretary of State repeatedly when we were finally going to see this Bill on the Floor of the House. We have got here now, so I will leave that there, and just say that I am thankful to be able, at last, to get this on to the statute book.

I hope that the Bill will quickly pass its legislative hurdles and gain Royal Assent later this year, because we need to see these measures enacted. I take the point that there are various other issues that could be addressed in these provisions, such as extending the powers to cover cases involving wild animals, but I think we just need to get on and get this Bill through Parliament and on to the statute book. I know that the animal welfare charities are keen that that should be the case. I have been contacted and asked, “Please keep it simple.” So I understand the debate about other areas of animal welfare policy, but let us just get on with this. It is long overdue and we need to get on with it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I very much agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that as we are towards the end of the Session and have a limited window in which to do this, we really need to get it done?

[Angela Smith]

I take that point entirely, although it is not the fault of Opposition Members that we are up against it in the way that we are, with, I hope, the Session due to end at some point soon and the Queen’s Speech on its way. We do need to get on with this, and we should keep it simple.

The measure is supported by all the major animal welfare charities. I pay tribute to the work on this issue by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, all of which are worthy charities that I have worked with over a significant number of years. I also wish to mention World Horse Welfare, which of course feels strongly about this issue and needs to be included in any list of tributes to the animal welfare sector for the campaign to increase the sentencing powers.

It is right that the situation in England and Wales comes into line with that in the rest of the UK and in other western countries. I repeat that the current limit of six months, which is often reduced by a third if the defendant pleads guilty, is clearly not adequate and does not act as a deterrent, as shown by the fact that many of the associations that deal with animal cruelty have reported increases in cruelty, especially of the most serious types, despite the Animal Welfare Act being on the statute book.

I conclude by saying again: can we please just get on with this and get it implemented? Let us give the courts the powers that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Perhaps unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am interested in any proposal that can drive economic growth in the north of England. Free ports are an interesting proposal, which we have discussed with a number of communities. We have urged them to come forward with well-thought-through business cases. We have yet to receive them from many places, but we have received one from Teesside and we will consider them carefully in future.

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

6. What estimate the Government have made of the number of promoters of loan schemes subject to the 2019 loan charge who have been convicted; and if he will make a statement.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of the 2019 loan charge on people working in the (a) public and (b) private sector.

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

The loan charge tackles so-called disguised remuneration arrangements, which use loans to avoid tax. It applies in the same way to people in the public and the private sectors. A tax information and impact note published in 2016 and a report on disguised remuneration published in March 2019 both considered the impacts.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

What more can be done to tackle the promoters of loan schemes who gave workers and businesses assurances, even though the Treasury had made it clear that the schemes were unacceptable? Should they not be brought to book? Have any of them been convicted yet?

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and HMRC will continue to take firm action against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. As he will know, and I think has been made public, it currently has more than 100 promoters under civil inquiry. It is important to be clear that although there are no criminal offences of promoting or marketing tax avoidance schemes specifically, HMRC may conduct criminal investigations and make referrals to prosecuting authorities where, for example, there is evidence that promoters have deliberately misrepresented the facts to it.