Examination of witnesses (Questions 380
- 397)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999
MR MICHAEL
CLAYTON, MR
GAVIN PRITCHARD
GORDON and ANNIE
DODD
Mrs Gorman
380. We have more horses per capita in
Essex than in other parts of the country. The question is this.
Besides bridleways, which I take your point that we have got to
do something to persuade the farmer to love horses coming along
his bridleways, and you might give us your view on that, what
other places might we not open up, because not everybody wants
to go galloping up a bridleway; should we not have more open parkland
or woodlands where horses could roam and go?
(Mr Clayton) This is not an official part of the policy
at the moment. In the world of practicalities, we would like to
make progress on the area of bridleways, and we would like to
see country lanes safer to ride on, because a great many country
lanes are very attractive to ride on, as a matter of fact, or
they would be if people did not pass you at 75 miles an hour,
three inches away from your horse. I think any road user, any
person on foot, has a similar problem in a country lane, too,
or a cyclist.
Dr Ladyman
381. I asked the previous witnesses how we make
the countryside more welcoming to townies, and one of the most
welcoming areas I have ever come across, for a townie, is the
Berkshire Downs, where there seems to be very good co-existence
between horse, industries and ramblers and people visiting. Is
that your experience? How do we capture that sort of synergy,
and how do we spread it out to other areas?
(Mr Clayton) I think the fact that the horse world
is now getting itself together better, if you like; we have a
British Equestrian Federation, we have this Confederation. I think
it is very important that bodies such as ours communicate with
user bodies of these as well, which we do, and the local authorities.
We have a network of access officers throughout the country, in
the British Horse Society, which is nationwide, we have a nationwide
network. I think all these are the best way, really. And, of course,
we would like to see more riders joining our organisations. But,
nevertheless, it has made progress, and it is making progress,
and I think it is an example of the fact that the countryside
has always been an environment for the horse, it has always been
an environment for the walker, and, with common sense and care,
it can be used effectively for both.
Mr Olner
382. Can I put it to you, Mr Clayton, that you
and your Society are showing a little bit of an arrogant attitude,
when you say that horses and pedestrians do not mix very well?
(Mr Clayton) I hope we are not arrogant. I think the
perception of somebody on a horse as being on his high horse is
an historical one, but, I promise you, we do not have a—
383. You moan about the motor-car, but the horse
is equally as dangerous to a walker?
(Mr Clayton) I do not think that a horse is as dangerous
to a walker as a car, on a bridleway or anywhere else, and, on
a roadway, we do not ride horses on the pavements, the incidence
of pedestrians mown down by horses is nowhere near in the same
category.
384. But you do not collect the figures, do
you?
(Mr Clayton) We certainly make an effort to collect
the figures.
(Mr Pritchard Gordon) Mr Chairman, could I just say,
I live in Newmarket, and horses and pedestrians cohabit extremely
well in the town of Newmarket; that I would say.
385. But it is this question of redesignating
footpaths into bridleways, which I think is extremely dangerous?
(Mr Clayton) Footpaths are redesignated into bridleways
at times, when it is proved that there is, in fact, a very long
usage of that path as a bridleway and it was wrongly defined.
But we would rather work with Government on a mutually agreeable
system of bridleway networks.
386. You mentioned, in reply to one of my colleagues
earlier, the growth within the riding industry; were riding schools
having difficulty in paying their way then, if there is all this
growth?
(Mr Clayton) The riding schools situation is one of
the main reasons why we would like to have a Minister designated
to our cause. If I may briefly answer your question, it is very
relevant to the problems we have, which we would very much like
Government to help us solve. The problems of the riding schools
are three- or four-fold. The imposition of business rates on the
riding school totally ignores the fact that a riding school has
a specific educational responsibility, it is an educational activity,
and, in part, has a great deal to do with quality of life and
enhancement of life for people, and it enables a great many people
who do not own horses to ride and learn to ride horses. Now they
have suffered very badly from competition from agricultural colleges,
which have started, and quite rightly, and we encourage this,
equestrian activities as well, equestrian courses; now, as they
are recognised as purely educational bodies, they do not pay business
rates, and nor do they have to apply VAT to the fees that they
charge. Riding schools are particularly prone to problems with
VAT because they deal with the general public and have to charge
VAT on the fees they charge, but a great many of the products
they use are VAT-free and therefore they cannot reclaim them.
387. Why should the horse industry be singled
out to get these tax breaks?
(Mr Clayton) The horse industry, as I said, is the
second largest economic activity in the countryside, and if we
want a viable countryside the horse industry should be encouraged.
Because, if you want a countryside where people live and have
jobs, horses are labour-intensive, you want people to live in
the countryside, you want a living countryside, horses are-tourism-friendly,
they offer training and employment opportunities for young people,
a lot of young people want to work with horses.
388. But if this industry grows, will not that
bring more traffic into rural areas?
(Mr Clayton) This industry is growing, but we are
not seeking, as an industry, to come before you today to ask you
to suggest things which will produce rapid expansion of the horse
industry, the horse industry will always be regulated by economic
possibilities. But we think it is unfair, if we take the case
of riding schools, that a long-established activity like this
is suffering so badly; for example, riding schools in this country
have declined by 7.5 per cent in the last year, according to a
survey of the Association of British Riding Schools.
Mr Gray
389. How many is that?
(Mr Clayton) At the moment, there are about 2,050
riding schools, the ABRS having recorded a drop of about 200 from
over 2,300 in the past 12 months. The British Horse Society has
noticed a reduction of some 40 riding schools this year alone
in the number of approved riding schools we have, which is about
780, it has slumped to about 730 at the moment. And I think this
is going to do a great deal of harm to the prospects for young
people who want to learn to ride, it is a perfectly long-standing
activity in the countryside, it will affect the quality of life,
it will certainly affect our medal-winning prospects higher up,
because the horse is an animal which has certain dangers—
Mr Olner
390. So you are telling us, you are telling
the Committee then that, because these riding schools have failed,
they have failed because some of the agricultural colleges are
now giving ridership lessons; because you said ridership growth
was going up?
(Mr Clayton) That is one factor, but we think that
a revision of business rate, a reduction in business rate, is
justifiable, in this area, because they are not purely commercial
activities.
391. This is just a whinge to get more money,
is it not?
(Mr Clayton) I think it is a way of easing the tax
burden on an area which is not entirely simply just a commercial
activity.
392. Could you perhaps tell the Committee whether
you think farm diversification into the horse industry will replace
traditional agricultural jobs?
(Mr Clayton) No, we do not think it will replace traditional
agricultural activity, but there is already diversification going
on, because it fits very well. The Americans call a stud a "horse
farm", and that is exactly what a stud is, in fact, it is
animal management, it is animal husbandry, it includes using the
countryside in a pastoral way rather than agri-chemical farming;
it does not involve rooting out hedgerows. And this sort of thing,
it is something which a farmer, a stock farmer, who are having
a particularly bad time at the moment, in certain areas, can diversify
into, to a degree, for tourism, for trekking, he can do it in
a way that enhances the local economy in a tourism way, and he
can save himself by having a few horses on the farm which he lets
out to people, or keeping horses on the farm, keeping it down
to grass, using the environment in a way which is sustainable.
(Mr Pritchard Gordon) Can I add, too, Mr Chairman,
that in my particular part of the industry, in breeding, there
are 7,000 breeders in the country and there are only 350 who have
got more than five mares, so we are very much looking after the
smaller breeder.
Mr Gray
393. Can we talk a little bit about the machinery
of Government, which you have touched on once or twice. Can you
outline briefly the way in which the horse industry is currently
looked after by Government, and, in doing that, tell us what the
advantages and disadvantages are of that split responsibility,
and therefore what the advantages would be if there were one Department?
(Mr Clayton) Absolutely. At the moment, the horse
industry, because of its fragmented and very productive element
in our countryside, which in the past has not been seen as a whole
enough, inevitably does fall between a number of Government Departments,
and historically has done so, for example, the betting industry,
which makes very significant contributions to the economy, as
you know, in terms of tax, and we can give you the figures, of
course. Perhaps you would like to sketch in quickly what the figures
are for tax at the moment, where do we go?
(Ms Dodd) It raises about £450 million a year
in tax and betting duty.
(Mr Clayton) So the Home Office looks after the betting
industry and its relationships with the bookmakers, and the annual
levy which contributes to the maintenance of the racing industry,
somewhat unsatisfactorily at times, but nevertheless it does.
We have a very large role, as I said, in terms of horse-breeding;
you may ride a horse in Rotten Row but you have to breed a horse
in the countryside. And, therefore, MAFF very much comes into
play at times, but it does not have a specific role for the horse,
as things stand at the moment; horse diseases, horse imports,
all these areas, the veterinary side of the horse world, which
is very important indeed, go through MAFF. And then, of course,
we come up to the planning and land usage side of horse activities,
whereby stables are charged at full rates, by the way, and do
not have the agricultural benefits which farm buildings do; and
so you are into the DETR there. We need a champion, and we are
a trade, we are a specific, successful trade, and our relationships
in trade need far better championing by Ministers than they have
at the moment. And we would ask this Committee, very much, please,
to help us; if we could get that, if we could get a better voice,
we would then negotiate on these myriad of points, which would
help us through, in the way that other industries are, because
we are falling behind, I fear, our continental competitors, who
operate in an entirely different way, who do have specific Ministers
designated for the horse.
394. Two questions on that. Will not Mo Mowlem's
Committee do that, or, if the answer to that is no, do you want
a Department for Rural Affairs; and, also, have I not heard talk
about some kind of Cabinet Committee to do with equine matters?
(Mr Clayton) We have inquired into that, and we understand
that a Cabinet Committee on animal affairs has met so far twice,
and really we do not think that that is going to be sufficient
for an industry of our size. We do not know the dimensions and
possibilities of the Ministry of Rural Affairs but would be very
happy if there was in there a Minister with specific responsibility
for the horse, and we think that would work very well indeed.
395. Lastly, why do we not just redefine the
horse as an agricultural animal and then it can come under MAFF?
(Mr Clayton) At the moment, there is no consensus
of opinion in the horse world on the exact definition of the horse,
and we do not come before you today to make the case for the horse
to be redefined as an agricultural animal. There are a great many
taxation implications which affect areas of the horse world in
different ways, and we would like to revisit that one later.
Chairman
396. So actually we need a new definition of
a horse?
(Mr Clayton) That may come up later on, but we are
not asking you to enter into that one today, Chairman.
397. On that note, can I thank you very much
for your evidence.
(Mr Clayton) May we thank you very much indeed.
Chairman: Thank you.
|
