Non-domestic Energy Support

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Just to be clear, we are aware that some domestic customers receive energy bill support via the EBRS—the current scheme, which is non-domestic. They include people in park homes and on heat networks, which are presumably the sort of case that he is talking about. While domestic consumers on a non-domestic meter will continue to benefit from the discount offered through the extension of the EBRS to the new discount scheme, we are developing options to ensure that they receive support in line with other domestic users after April.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Micro and small businesses are the lifeblood of my constituency. Many of those businesses will be off grid and will be using oil. I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but can he say something to give them a crumb of comfort? Can he assure me that they and others in similar circumstances across the country will be in his thoughts going forward?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those cases and exceptions, as did his fellow Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who chairs the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. As we announced at the 2022 autumn statement, the Government will provide £150 in support for UK non-domestic consumers who are off the gas grid and who use alternative fuels, with larger users of heating oil receiving additional top-up payments based on actual usage. No decisions have been made on further support. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box to respond to the many powerful and passionate contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the sometimes incorrect contributions made by other hon. Members, and it is a genuine privilege to wind up on behalf of the Government in support of the autumn statement. We have discussed and debated many aspects of the autumn statement. We have heard some passionate and clear analyses of the situation in our constituencies as well as nationally and internationally, and of the state of the economy at home and around the world.

The autumn statement sets out our ambitions for stability, growth and public services. We say that it is a balanced plan: on the one hand, it will strengthen our public finances, bring down inflation and protect jobs, and on the other hand, it will protect standards in schools, cut NHS waiting times, fund social care, cap energy bills and support those on benefits. We have been frank, however, that that has been difficult. We as a Government are prepared to take those decisions in the country’s best interests. There is no question but that these are challenging times, but neither the origins nor the impacts are unique to this country.

To correct some Opposition Members, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the fall in living standards is almost entirely driven by rising world prices. We can see the evidence in the international figures. Inflation is high here, but it is higher in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) explained the terrible impacts that inflation can have and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made the critical point that inflation hurts the poorest the most. That is precisely why the Government’s No. 1 priority is to tackle inflation.

Interest rates have risen here, but they have risen more quickly in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) reminded the House that the Governor of the Bank of the England gave evidence to the Treasury Committee this week and said that the disruption in the mortgage market caused by the mini-Budget had subsided—indeed, that it subsided in mid to late October. I am grateful to her for that reminder.

Growth forecasts have fallen here, but they have also fallen elsewhere in the world, including falling further in Germany. The OBR says that higher energy prices explain the majority of the downward revision in cumulative growth since March. Governments do not have the luxury of choosing the context in which they must operate. Indeed, the IMF expects one third of the world’s economy to be in recession this year and next. The job is to understand what we face, address those issues deliberately and responsibly on behalf of the communities we serve and then deliver that action, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that the measures set out in the statement and under discussion over these last few days will mean that, when the international economy and our own start to improve, we will be in a far better place to reap the benefits of that global economic improvement than if we were just to sit here, twiddle our thumbs and pretend that everything was okay?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the OBR—the independent OBR—again confirms that because of our plans the recession is shallower, and inflation is reduced because of these very difficult decisions we have taken. Unemployment is also lower, with about 70,000 jobs protected as a result of our decisions.

Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Edward Argar)]

I think I last stood at this Dispatch Box about three months ago, so it is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I welcome the kind words from the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I suspect, knowing him as I do, that he will be tough in his challenges, with, as we have seen, a suitably dry delivery and sense of humour, but I have huge respect for him, as he knows. I have yet to be treated to his singing voice—sadly, we were not just then—but on a future occasion he might be tempted.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. The debate has understandably invited the expression of strong views on the part of all Members who have spoken. That is because economic stability is not just about abstract numbers and graphs. As the shadow Chief Secretary knows, I am nothing if not a pragmatist. This is about our constituents, our families, our friends and our neighbours, and it matters. As the Chancellor set out to the House on Monday:

“Behind the decisions we take and the issues on which we vote are jobs that families depend on, mortgages that have to be paid, savings for pensioners, and businesses investing for the future.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 395.]

Sometimes those decisions are difficult or, indeed, very difficult, as the Chancellor acknowledged. We know we need to do more to give certainty to the markets about our fiscal plans, and we have. I am clear, as is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, indeed, the Prime Minister, that we need to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable, and we will.

We also know that the long-term economic wellbeing of this country relies on our achieving sustainable growth. In the coming weeks and months, responsibly and sustainably, we will continue that urgent mission. Indeed, the reason the United Kingdom has always succeeded is that, at big and difficult moments, we have taken tough decisions in the long-term interest of the country. When conditions allow, when it is consistent with sound public finances, we will seek to cut taxes to support further economic growth.

I remind the House that, since 2010, the United Kingdom has seen the third highest real GDP growth rate in the G7, increasing by more than Germany, France, Japan and Italy. The UK is forecast to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2022. We have a strong labour market with the lowest unemployment rate in almost 50 years, which gives genuine grounds for optimism about our long-term prospects for growth.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. He has used the word “pragmatism.” The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury was on the money with regard to the folly of applying ideology when the circumstances do not allow it. Will my right hon. Friend, from the Dispatch Box, give both the country and the House confidence that good, old-fashioned Tory pragmatism and common sense—people can call it Treasury orthodoxy if they wish—are back at the helm?

[Edward Argar]

I have just set out where we are and what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said about the approach we are adopting. It is my firm belief, and the Chancellor’s firm belief, that we wish to be a tax-cutting Government, but that must be done from a basis of sustainability. When taxes are cut sustainably, we see behaviours change that help to generate investment and growth, which is what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seek.

Economic Update

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I completely understand how important it is to support our most vulnerable pensioners, what they need more than anything is a strong economy that can pay for the support that we would want to give them.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and breathe a sigh of relief at the grown-up and sensible approach he has taken to the issues at hand. I also echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) about the need to take into account those who are off grid and using heating oil. They deserve as much support as possible.

My right hon. Friend is newly empowered and he is able to slay many dragons. Could he slay the dragon of fracking, which was not in our manifesto?

[Jeremy Hunt]

This is an issue that has raised its head in my own constituency. Let me simply say to my hon. Friend that the Government’s position is clear: we will not proceed unless there is local support.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The truth is that this tax cut is going ahead at a time when bankers’ earnings are on the rise, with investment banks’ profits soaring off the back of a wave of takeovers and mergers caused by the pandemic. The UK arm of Goldman Sachs—a business that the Chancellor will know well—boosted its pay by more than a third last year, Barclays is set to raise bonus payments by more than 25% in its corporate investment bank, and boutique banks in the City are expected to do especially well, as they are exempt from rules that limit bonuses.

These measures show just how out of touch this Government and this Chancellor are: they are championing a tax cut for banks while ignoring calls from the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Labour MPs, some on their own side, and the British public, to abandon their tax cut on working people and their jobs. If Ministers are still refusing to listen, today we are giving their Back Benchers an opportunity to say, “Enough is enough.” They can vote with us tonight to cancel the banking tax cut and make the Government think again.

The national insurance hike is wrong because it threatens people’s financial security. I will now turn to other aspects of the Bill that relate to wider economic security and the threat of economic crime.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Just before the hon. Gentleman leaves the rise in national insurance contributions—a difficult decision for any Government, particularly given the backdrop of a manifesto commitment—surely he would criticise the Government were they to put the ideology of a manifesto front and centre, instead of trying to find a way of ameliorating what would clearly be growing waiting lists and people queuing at all our advice surgeries and offices, complaining that they could not get the treatment they needed, which they were denied during the pandemic. Surely that is the right thing to do for public health and all our citizens.

[James Murray]

No one denies that the NHS needs more money, but hiding behind the hon. Member’s intervention is the idea that there is no other way to raise the £12 billion that the national insurance rise will raise. It takes some cheek to hear that from Conservative Members, when just yesterday we heard of £8.7 billion being wasted on PPE procurement and £4.3 billion of fraud being written off by the Chancellor—there is the £12 billion. Frankly, the Chancellor should stop wasting money, stop letting criminals get away with fraud, and stop expecting working people to pick up the bill.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for instigating the debate. It is nice to see a mainstream debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland taking place on the Floor of the House.

Let us remind ourselves of two things at the start. Lord Frost confirmed to our Committee, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, just a few weeks ago that he negotiated the protocol, he understood the protocol and he signed off the protocol. How people have interpreted one or two parts of it may be surprising, but it is not legitimate for the Government effectively to say, “This was new, it was an impost, it crept up on us.” This was a negotiated document between the two parties.

Without the protocol, there would still have to be checks. We are talking about the defence, for want of a better phrase, of an internal market and a single market. Those alternative arrangements, as some called them some little while ago, would, according to HM Revenue and Customs, be likely to be as, if not more, complicated and possibly more costly. For those who may be thinking that, if we get rid of the protocol, everything will go back to being normal, that will not happen. We are all in a new normal now.

This is important because there are a lot of concerns, predominantly among the loyalist community, that this is in some way a stepping stone to a united Ireland or a move to a border poll. Everybody, from the Taoiseach to the Prime Minister—at last week’s Liaison Committee, in response to a question from me—to those in Brussels and anywhere else, has to recognise that the integrity of Northern Ireland as an intrinsic and key part of the United Kingdom remains. The protocol does not change that constitutional balance one way or another.

I take the point just made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I have yet to be persuaded that anybody, in their heart of hearts, ever defines their sense of belonging or loyalty by invisible trading arrangements. Citizenship, a sense of belonging and a sense of nationhood are far more powerful and emotive than that.

We should remind ourselves that there are some—there will be none in this House, I know—who refuse to accept the referendum result on the Good Friday agreement itself, and have gone around saying, “Unless we get our way on the protocol and unless it is scrapped”. Let us pause there for a moment to say that there is no majority view in support of the scrapping of the protocol. Nobody by the same token is saying that it is perfect; there is scope for change and improvement. But let us not inadvertently fall into the trap of using this debate on the protocol as a Trojan horse to undermine the Good Friday agreement. Everybody knows that, without that bedrock, there can be no progress in Northern Ireland, and none that we have seen over the past several decades.

Business wants to be engaged. Let me say to the Minister, and I look forward to her summing up: let us have that investment conference. Let us maximise those opportunities. Invest Northern Ireland is dealing with 30 requests at the moment. The business engagement forum needs to be formalised with a set agenda and regular meetings.

Trust is so important here. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex talked about the need for the EU to change. I agree in many respects. We need to see flexibility on goods at risk. We need to see flexibility on the precautionary principle and the differential of how we use laws. It is either illegal unless it is made legal, or legal unless it is made illegal. The benefit of the extensions of the grace periods has illustrated that the single market does not collapse as a result of that. Common sense is required.

I am not here to act as an apologist for the EU, but from all my conversations with them I think the issue is one of trust. They still remain uncertain as to whether Her Majesty’s Government are intent upon implementing a reformed protocol using the offices of the Joint Committee. Without that trust or certainty, there can be no progress. We need to switch our mindset from negotiate or renegotiate, to reform and implement. Let us remind ourselves that the Vice President has no mandate to renegotiate. That would have to be given by the member states and any hope for that would come only if we see that trust rebuilt. I therefore urge the Government to have that joint investment conference, build on the trust and formalise business engagement.

The Select Committee heard today from two witnesses. Let me quote both of them. Aodhán Connolly, from Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said: “The most frustrating thing for business in Northern Ireland is we can see the solutions, we just don’t see the political will to do them.” From the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Victor Chestnutt said: “Solutions are sitting there.” Well, let us not just let them sit there; let us grab them. Let us make them work and let the twin benefits of access to the UK internal market and the European Union’s single market be that blue touch paper that will reignite and light a post-covid Northern Ireland economy where the benefits to business and to citizens can be fully felt.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

To confirm the answer to the question which is being silently asked, there is no mechanism whereby Members can intervene on someone who is speaking virtually. I just ask for patience from hon. Members. Hopefully, we will only have three more days of this arrangement—we all hope.

Economy and Jobs

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

‘but respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech fails to put an end to a decade of austerity, to invest in the UK’s underfunded public services, or to scrap universal credit; notes the damaging impact that the four-year freeze in working-age benefits has had on families on low income; and calls on the Government to bring forward a plan to reverse the damaging impact austerity has had on communities in the UK, tackle the climate and environmental emergency, and reshape the economy to work for everyone by clamping down on tax avoidance, tackling insecurity in work by extending full employment rights to all workers, ending in-work poverty, and introducing a real living wage.’.

I appreciate that many new Members will want to speak today, so I will seek to be as brief as possible. [Interruption.] I thought that would be appreciated on both sides. We aim to please.

You, Mr Speaker, have been in the House as long as I have, so you will know that the classic approach to a good Queen’s Speech and its subsequent debate combines an assessment of the position of the country—a state of the nation address—with at least some attempt to address the issues facing our people. On both counts, the latest Queen’s Speech and this process is by any stretch of the imagination crushingly disappointing—I believe that the overriding view that will come to be associated with this Government may well be one of disappointment. They appear to have no appreciation of the lives so many of our fellow citizens live or of the often heartrending problems they face.

The Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech fails to reverse the decade of austerity. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, austerity is baked into the Government’s economic policies, which fail to tackle insecure work, to end in-work poverty and to introduce a real living wage. Worst of all, the Queen’s Speech fails to address the brutal hardship caused by universal credit, introduced by this Government. We face twin emergencies: first, a climate emergency, an existential threat to our planet that, as we have seen only too well in Australia and Indonesia, is rapidly spiralling beyond control; and, secondly, in this country, a social emergency resulting from a decade of harsh austerity and decline. Last year, the House resolved that we faced a climate emergency. We should also resolve that we face a social emergency.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If what the right hon. Gentleman says is true—and I very much doubt it—and if his Eeyore approach to what the country thinks is correct, to what does he ascribe the best result for the Conservative party since 1987 just last month?

[John McDonnell]

I suppose we will have a longer debate at some stage about the outcome of the last general election. I will be straight with the hon. Gentleman: I think the overriding issue was Brexit and that the overriding message was the one the Conservative party put out of “Get Brexit Done”. I ascribe the victory of the Conservative party to that. I cannot be straighter with him than that.

In the last three months in this Chamber, we have had debates on the spending review and the last Queen’s Speech in which hon. Members have highlighted report after report from independent agencies exposing the impact of a decade of austerity. I want to seize on one group as an example—a group dear to all our hearts. If we are to lay any claim to being a compassionate or even a civilised society, surely the most effective test is how we care for our children, and on that count the Government fail appallingly. Surely no Government could ignore organisations such as the Children’s Society and the Child Poverty Action Group, which have reported that more than 4 million of our children are still living in poverty. That means that one child in three is living in poverty in our country in the 21st century. Some 125,000 of those children are homeless and living in temporary accommodation.

The effects on our children of living in poverty are well documented by the Children’s Society. Those children are more likely to be in poor health, to experience mental health problems, and to have a low sense of wellbeing. They underachieve at school, and experience stigma and bullying. The shocking statistic, though, is that 70% of children living in poverty are in households in which someone is in work. The Children’s Society describes that experience as being hit by a perfect storm of low wages, insecure jobs and benefit cuts. The result is remarkable: this Government have achieved the historic distinction of being the first modern Government to break the link between securing work and being lifted out of poverty.

The Chancellor boasted recently that wage rises were at record levels compared with those of the last 10 years. That is a bizarre boast. Wage rises are at a 10-year record high because his Government have kept wage growth so low for the last decade. Average real wages are still lower than they were before the financial crisis. [Interruption.] The Chancellor, from a sedentary position, has again used the slogan “Labour’s crisis”. Let me try to find a quotation for him. George Osborne said:

“did Gordon Brown cause the sub-prime crisis in America? No.”

He went on to say that “broadly speaking”, the Labour Government

“did what was necessary in a very difficult situation.”

The Chancellor, again from a sedentary position, refers to the deficit. Let me quote again. In 2007, George Osborne said:

“Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative Government will adopt these spending totals.”

He was referring to the spending totals of a Labour Government, by implication. Let me caution the Chancellor, because we might want to examine his role at Deutsche Bank, where he was selling collateralised debt obligations, described by others as the weapon of mass destruction that caused the crisis.

As I was saying, average real wages are still lower than they were before the financial crisis. The Resolution Foundation has described the last decade as the worst for wage growth since Napoleonic times. The recent increase in the minimum wage. announced with such a fanfare by the Government, reneges on their minimal commitment that it would be £9 an hour by this year. It certainly is not. The UK is the only major developed country in which wages fell at the same time as the economy grew after the financial crisis.

The Government seem to believe that the answer to low pay is raising national insurance and tax thresholds. When tax thresholds are raised, the highest gainers are largely the highest earners, and raising them and national insurance contributions is the least effective way of tackling poverty. According to the IFS, only 3% of the gains from raising the national insurance threshold would go to the poorest 20% in our society. A £3 billion cut in the national insurance contributions of employees and self-employed people—which, at one stage, was promised by the Prime Minister—would raise the incomes of that group by 0.1%, which pales into insignificance in comparison with the losses endured from benefit and tax credit cuts since 2010. It is also worth bearing it in mind that, while the heaviest burden of austerity has been forced on the poorest in our society, this Government have given away £70 billion of tax cuts to the corporations and the rich.

We have also heard Ministers refer to the so-called jobs miracle. Of course we all welcome increased employment, but when we look behind the global figures we find nearly 4 million people in insecure work with no guaranteed hours and 900,000 people on zero-hours contracts. Britain has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world. A FTSE 100 chief executive will be paid more in three days than the average worker’s annual wage. Surely no Member of this House can think that that is right, can they? The gender pay gap is 17.3% and there is now an inter-generational pay gap of over 20%. There is an 8% pay gap for black workers, and if you are disabled the pay gap is 15%. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that will address any of this. There is nothing that will address the grotesque levels of inequality in our society and at work, certainly on the scale that is needed.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

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

[Philip Davies]

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

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It has been pulled.

[Philip Davies]

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

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

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

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

The Bill currently states simply that a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 2 states:

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

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

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

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

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“‘travelling circus’ means a company or group of entertainers which (i) travels, whether regularly or irregularly, from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions, and (ii) as part of which animals may be kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, exhibition, display or otherwise).”

This amendment would ensure the inclusion of circuses which tour venues other than a traditional circus tent, or which use animals for exhibition or display away from the circus site, or which do not regularly travel.

It is good to see hon. Members back in their places for another fun sitting. I am not sure this sitting will be as exciting as yesterday’s second evidence session, but I will try to make it as enjoyable as I can for everyone involved. This is an important piece of legislation to free the 19 wild animals currently used for human entertainment in British circuses.

The Opposition’s amendment 1 would insert into the Bill a clear definition of “travelling circus”. It is necessary to have legislative certainty about what a travelling circus is to ensure that there are no loopholes or “get out of jail free” cards for people who use wild animals for our entertainment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about Mr Jolly’s evidence yesterday, which—no pun intended—slightly let the cat out of the bag? He said, “We don’t have to be in a tent. We could go to a county show. We could do exactly as we do at the moment and we wouldn’t fall under the auspices of this Bill.” The hon. Gentleman makes a key point, and I urge the Minister to consider a broader definition.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. The narrow scope of the Bill means that we need to ensure that the circus element is tightly drawn and understood. A good point was made in the evidence session about the other environments in which wild animals can be displayed, but, although I am a fan of broadbrush interpretations and including as much animal welfare as we can, I fear that that might slip slightly outside the scope of the Bill. However, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s request for the Minister to respond to the points that were raised in evidence yesterday.

It was obvious that the Government were not prepared for the level of cross-party concern that was raised on Second Reading that the Bill was missing a definition of a travelling circus, which was also raised a number of times by the organisations that we took evidence from yesterday. Our amendment seeks to use established wording, which will be familiar to people who have looked at other pieces of legislation that ban wild animals in circuses.

The Minister has a number of options. I think we have established that having a definition of a travelling circus would be beneficial. That definition can sit either in the Bill—in primary legislation—or in the guidance that accompanies it. There are merits to both options. If the definition sat in the Bill, it would be clear, it would have good legal standing and there would be legal certainty about it. Putting it in the guidance, however, would give us greater flexibility and perhaps allow us to include some of the environments that the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned.

There are advantages to both approaches, and it would be worth the Minister reflecting on how the definition should be drawn. My preference is for a clear definition in the legislation. However, I know that the Minister has strong thoughts on this matter, and I would like to hear his views before deciding whether to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I need to update the Committee on an important point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East. Everything is okay with Anne, who was rehomed at Longleat zoo, which is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anne was recently moved to a new purpose-built enclosure. She is not currently housed with other elephants but she does have other animals for company, so she is in a much better place. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and I apologise for not providing that update previously. I hope I have made up ground there.

I will move on to the Bill, unless there are concerns about other animals. I will try my best to find out, though perhaps not quite as speedily.

[Simon Hoare]

Tarka the otter.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset—soon to be right hon. no doubt—shows his age by mentioning Tarka the otter. Or is it timely?

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Q What is the panel’s opinion on the current state of wild animals in circuses? Are the guidelines being enforced strongly enough?

Dr Ros Clubb: From the RSPCA’s perspective, we did not agree with the introduction of licensing because we do not believe that the needs of animals can be met in a travelling circus. We were not in favour of that, and we do not think that deals with the situation at hand. The constant travelling, the temporary enclosures and the restrictions they place on the environment and husbandry you can provide for those wild animals are not suitable. When you look at the standards in the circus regulations, you see that they are very different from, for example, those for licensed zoos. An animal in a circus is treated very differently from the same animal in a zoo, and we do not think that is good enough.

Daniella Dos Santos: I would second that. I do not think there is any way we can meet the welfare needs of wild animals in a travelling circus situation. They have very particular welfare needs and, by the nature of a circus, where they are constantly moving, the spaces they are provided with have to be smaller and more portable. Therefore, you are not going to meet their needs. Because of the requirements of performing and so on, their day-to-day routines are not going to be adhered to. Therefore, that may impact on their diet and so on. We would say their needs cannot be met under any circumstances.

Nicola O'Brien: We would say something very similar. I do not have anything to add on that.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q I am a great supporter of this Bill and supported the proposal when it was made in a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). May I check a couple of things? They may seem a little peripheral. First—this may sound the maddest question of all—are all circuses across Europe travelling by definition, or are there any permanently located circuses?

Nicola O'Brien: When we reviewed this a few years ago, there were two establishments in the UK that had been classed as circuses by their local authority. They had a theme park set-up and did not have an attached zoo, but they did have a sea lion show. They were deemed by the local authority to be circuses because they did not meet the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 requirements on numbers of animals and on animals being out on display all the time. I believe one of them has closed down; I am not sure of the current legal situation of the other location, but it has not changed, grown or added to its animal collection, so we believe it would still not meet the requirements of the Zoo Licensing Act. That is, to our knowledge, the only one in England.

Dr Ros Clubb: That is also my understanding of the situation.

[Simon Hoare]

Q Ms Dos Santos, in answer to an earlier question you referenced educational purposes. Will you clarify where you think pony rides, donkey rides and falconry displays sit? Although those animals are not travelling long distances regularly, they do a huge amount of travelling in the season. Would you like to see those things included in the scope of the Bill, or are we best to leave that for another time?

Daniella Dos Santos: My feeling would be that they would not come under this Bill, because ultimately those animals would have a permanent place to call home with appropriate facilities and appropriate housing, and with their environmental needs met. The travelling they do would be to go from the home environment to a display and back again, rather than being constantly on the move.

[Simon Hoare]

Q You are satisfied that they are effectively outwith the scope of the Bill.

Daniella Dos Santos: I believe so, yes.

[Simon Hoare]

Q My final question speaks to Mrs Harrison’s question but it relates to inspectors. Inspectors are only as good as their powers. One thinks about the debate about police constables and police community support officers, for example. Do you envisage that there is enough under either the proposals or existing inspectory powers for inspectors to be able to go in and see each and every part of a travelling circus to satisfy themselves, and that they have the weapons and armoury to act in a speedy and expeditious way should they find a breach of what we hope will be the Act?

Dr Ros Clubb: From our perspective, we would like to see a couple of additional powers. We have talked about one already in terms of extending powers to constables as well as appointed inspectors.

[Simon Hoare]

Q To police constables?

Dr Ros Clubb: Yes. We would also like the power to seize an animal—that has been specifically excluded from the powers—so that if there is an issue, there is an opportunity to remove the animal from the situation rather than leave it there while an offence is being committed. We would also like to see more powers for the court to deprive someone of ownership of an animal, if it decides to do so.

[Simon Hoare]

Q On the issue of seizing an animal, I can understand how one might be able to seize a racoon, a fox or a squirrel. However, If it was something larger—for example, a camel—or if somebody was seriously in breach of the Act, one then has to think about the resources of high-welfare standards for kennelling purposes, in a general sense. I do not detect that there is a resource out there. People who have to round up dogs have enough difficulty. Were one to move in that direction, how do you meet that challenge?

Dr Ros Clubb: We would envisage that to be rarely used, but we think the powers should be there. There are powers under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to seize animals that are kept without licence, which would cover the larger, more dangerous creatures. We have worked with organisations to remove animals of a zoo-type nature and board them, obviously looking at the provisions and whether the welfare of the animal will be at a reasonable level if we remove it.

[The Chair]

Can I ask everyone to speak up? This is a dreadful room for acoustics. It would be really helpful. I am certainly struggling at this end of the table. I am sure everyone must be having the same problem.

[Simon Hoare]

Is that an invitation to repeat all my questions?

[The Chair]

I was leaning forward to make sure that I could hear everything. My apologies for the room. The microphones are at their maximum, so there is nothing else I can do except ask people to speak up. A lady at the back has also indicated that she cannot hear, so it is not just me.

If Members have one or two questions that they want to run together, I am more than happy for them to do so. You do not have to limit yourself to one. Equally, if you want to come back later with another question, I am happy with that.