Assistance Dogs
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01655, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on assistance dogs are working dogs too. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that, under current VAT legislation, food for assistance dogs is not VAT exempt but that food for other working dogs, such as sheepdogs and greyhounds, is; notes that working dogs’ food is exempt as they require a high-protein diet but that such a diet is not appropriate for assistance dogs as they work in a different manner; considers that, where a charitable organisation, such as Guide Dogs Scotland, which works with clients in East Kilbride and across Scotland, was to supply food for assistance dogs from donations, an exemption from VAT would result in significant savings, which could be used to assist its client group, and believes that this issue could be easily resolved to the benefit of relevant charitable organisations and individual owners who feed their own assistance dogs.
17:09
When one speaks in a member’s business debate, one usually thanks whoever lodged the motion. Tonight, I am introducing the debate, so I begin by thanking Mr Chris Sinclair from East Kilbride and his guide dog Hugo, who initially brought the issue to my attention—or perhaps I should say “Hugo and his man Chris Sinclair”, as there have been a couple of occasions over the past wee while when assistance dogs have, indeed, made the Parliament their own.
In particular, I thank Guide Dogs Scotland for the help and information that it has given me and, more than anything else, I want to reassure our very own Parliament additional member, Mr Q, who has recently taken a bit of a huff with me because I have had other guide dog friends coming to the Parliament.
I am delighted to open the debate and to pay tribute to the assistance dog organisations that do such sterling work: Guide Dogs Scotland, Canine Partners, Therapet and the Search and Rescue Dog Association. I know that there are guide dog owners and volunteer puppy walkers in the public gallery. I thank them for attending the debate and for bringing the issue to my attention and to that of a number of my colleagues across parties and Parliaments and, of course, that of the many people throughout the country who have now signed the petition that asks for the United Kingdom Government to change the VAT legislation in respect of assistance dogs. I hope that members who are unable to be here for the debate will take the opportunity to sign that petition when they get a reminder to do so.
I have found that most people naturally assume, as I did, that guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs are classed as working dogs, given the nature of the tasks that they perform for their owners. They are loved, but they are very different from the average family pet. When Chris Sinclair first told me that there is a VAT issue, my natural instinct was to say, “This can’t possibly be right.” We do, after all, have legislation that ensures equality of treatment. I was sure that there must have been a mistake somewhere, but after some investigation, I found that it was true that guide dogs and other assistance dogs are not defined as working dogs under the Equality Act 2010, so their food is not VAT exempt.
Let me turn to the definition of a working dog. A working dog is a “canine working animal”—a type of dog
“that is not merely a pet, but learns and performs tasks to assist and/or entertain its human companions, or a breed of such origin.”
Assistance dogs would certainly meet that criterion, especially as their duties mean that they are physically active for the majority of the day, but the current HM Revenue and Customs definition of a working dog appears to be based on the type of food that it consumes rather than the role that it performs. Working dogs are broadly defined by HMRC as sheepdogs, gun dogs and racing greyhounds. The food that is formulated for those types of working dogs is high in protein in order to provide them with enough energy to be active for long periods of time and thus to work effectively. That type of food is not suitable for assistance dogs, which require a specific diet to ensure low faecal output. That allows a guide dog to work out in public and provides the guide dog’s owner with greater control over their dog’s habits. It seems to me that that is not a sufficient reason to deny such dogs working-dog status. Their food is selected to best support the person with a disability whom they are assisting, and HMRC should take that into account.
Assistance dogs have a right of access, which allows them to accompany their owners everywhere and offers their owners confidence and independence. Assistance dogs greatly enhance the lives of an often-disadvantaged minority of people in Scotland and throughout the UK. They help their owners to perform everyday tasks, which increases their owners’ physical, emotional and mental wellbeing, and they contribute to improving their owners’ self-esteem. They are trained to assist with everyday tasks around the home and out and about, including unloading the washing machine, opening and closing doors and drawers, helping people with undressing and bedtime routines, retrieving items, assisting with shopping, and fetching help in an emergency. They do wide-ranging and fascinating work, and they are working dogs.
Assistance dog charities do remarkable work in training the dogs to perform those jobs, in raising funds and in ensuring that dogs are given to people who need them and not just to those who can afford them. To take guide dogs as an example, it costs about £50,000 to breed, birth, wean, train and support a guide dog through its working life. Guide Dogs Scotland pays for the majority of the food that is given to its dogs. In 2011, the charity was responsible for 1,000 dogs. It incurs a yearly VAT spend of £40,000 on dog food. If we made that food VAT exempt, we could provide a much-valued guide dog to another person with a disability in Scotland. In the UK context, in 2010, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association supported 8,000 dogs, incurring a VAT spend of £300,000. That would provide a lot of help to more people if the charity could use that money in another way.
Folk donate to assistance dog charities not to see part of their donation ending up in the UK Treasury, but to support the services that those charities provide to people with disabilities. At a time when we are all too aware of the financial difficulties that many disabled people face in Scotland and the UK, I hope that the Westminster Government will take this opportunity to do the right thing. I accept that that might be difficult in terms of VAT exemptions for some individual owners who rely on their assistance dog and buy the dog food themselves, and that that would need further discussion; I get that. However, I believe that the situation with regard to VAT exemption for food for working dogs for registered charities could easily be sorted and very quickly implemented. I ask that the UK Government consider the matter without delay—I have done that in the form of the petition to Westminster—and, once again, I urge members to sign it. Legislation could be amended, if necessary, to make the food for assistance dogs that are funded by these charities VAT exempt.
I ask that the Scottish Government note the debate, take on board the issues and perhaps write to Westminster on behalf of people in Scotland who rely on assistance dogs.
17:16
This is perhaps one debate in which I absolutely should state my interests. As most members here tonight know, I have guide dog Mr Q with me in the chamber this evening.
I congratulate Linda Fabiani on lodging the motion and on securing this members’ business debate. This is an extremely important issue. For many people with disabilities, especially those who have a sensory loss, an assistance dog is of immeasurable value and, as Linda Fabiani has said, when most people in the general public donate to a worthwhile charity, they do not expect part of that money to end up in the Treasury.
I understand that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has spoken with the Treasury with regard to the issue that we are discussing and that the Treasury has stated that it is not just a question for it, because it is restricted by European legislation. In fact, it says that it could not introduce zero VAT for guide dogs under the current regulations. However, as far as I understand the matter, the UK Government can—and should, if it sees sense as a result of the e-petition—reduce VAT to 5 per cent, which would be an interim measure that would save the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and other assistance dog charities a great deal of money.
When a person loses their vision—they are the only people for whom I can speak—and considers getting a guide dog, they think about the cost. For many years, many people have decided not to have guide dogs because of the cost. That is why the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association pays the majority of the costs of having a guide dog, such as the vet fees, the training fees and—for many people—the cost of the food. There should be no financial reason why a person should not get a mobility aid such as a guide dog. I sincerely hope that Mr Q is having a nap because, when Linda Fabiani explained all the other tasks that assistance dogs do, I worried that he would want to renegotiate his contract with me.
This is an extremely serious issue, and I sincerely hope that we can convince the Treasury at Westminster to reduce the VAT to 5 per cent as an interim measure, if it feels that it is, due to European legislation, unable to reduce the VAT to zero.
17:19
I, too, congratulate Linda Fabiani on securing the debate, in which I am pleased to make a short speech. I also congratulate her on exposing what appears to be a rather unfair anomaly.
Like other members, I am happy to take the opportunity to commend the valuable role that guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs play in helping many of our citizens. Guide dogs and hearing dogs are perhaps the most well known to many of us, but I am aware that assistance dogs can make a huge difference to the lives of wheelchair users by helping with everyday tasks such as opening and shutting doors, unloading washing machines, picking up dropped items, pressing buttons and switches and by getting help in emergencies. As well as helping with the physical side, assistance dogs can often provide psychological and social benefits for their human companions, including increased independence, confidence, motivation and self-esteem.
I have owned dogs all my life—dogs of different breeds and of all shapes and sizes. They have all become my best friends. I hope that they would say the same about me, although they might not, of course. Dogs cannot speak, but the least that we can do is feed them as well as we can.
I praise the excellent work that is done by charities such as Guide Dogs Scotland, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People and Canine Partners, including the work that is done in my region of the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to all those who are involved in those charities for their work and their brilliant fundraising efforts.
I accept that it appears to be an unfair anomaly that only high-protein dog food for working dogs is zero-rated for VAT. Such dog food is unsuitable for most of the assistance dogs that we are talking about. Currently, VAT must be paid on assistance dogs’ food, unlike the food for sheepdogs, gamekeepers’ dogs and police dogs. If the charities that train assistance dogs did not have to pay VAT on those dogs’ food, the saved money would—I hope—be reinvested in other aspects of those charities’ work.
There is no doubt that assistance dogs are very important working dogs. They do a fantastic job. As VAT is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, I am happy to write to Treasury ministers to make a case for a derogation for assistance dogs. I will enclose a copy of this evening’s debate, ask those ministers for their comments and ask whether they can show flexibility, so that the VAT exemption might be extended to the cases that we are talking about.
17:22
I congratulate Linda Fabiani on securing the debate, on an issue of which I was not previously aware. I also congratulate Jamie McGrigor on his speech.
Two constituents of mine—Alison and Betty Brown, who are sisters in their 80s—are puppy walkers. They started 40 years ago, when Betty read an article about the urgent need for volunteers to instil basic obedience in would-be guide dogs at a tender age. The aim is the same now as it was then: to produce a puppy that is socially well behaved, friendly and which will be responsive to its future handler.
Alison and Betty Brown’s first puppies were called Cambus and Lang and were sponsored by the women’s guild of—not surprisingly—Cambuslang. As other puppy walkers do, the sisters keep their charges for an average of a year. They are quoted as having said:
“It’s our job to prepare the dog for the working life that lies ahead”—
I emphasise that—
“so we take them on buses, across busy roads and into shops both in Melrose and Galashiels ... We even take them to church on Sundays.”
The puppies even pray, seemingly.
After their year with puppy walkers, who get expenses to cover food and vet bills—we now know that VAT is paid on their food—the animals go to one of the Guide Dogs charity’s four specialist training centres. In Scotland, they head for Forfar, where they can spend up to six months under expert mobility instruction and temperament assessment before being matched with their guide-dog owner. If that is not training a working dog, I do not know what is.
The two wonderful ladies whom I named have voluntarily walked more than 90 puppies between them since they began with Guide Dogs. They are prolific fundraisers for the charity—so much so that they even have a Guide Dogs shop in their house. In 2008, they entered the record books when their 86th pup—Uri—was entrusted to their care. That makes those ladies the most prolific as well as the longest-serving puppy walkers in the long history of a charity that provides dogs for more than 4,500 blind and visually impaired people in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is thought that the sisters have raised in excess of £1 million at fundraising events in the Borders, mainly by selling their charity’s merchandise at local shows. I am sure that, when they were raising that £1 million, they did not know that the VAT man was going to collect VAT on it, and neither did the people who contributed. It is disgraceful that that continues.
I note the UK Government’s argument that it is constrained under European Union law and that, at best, it could reduce the VAT to 5 per cent. However, it cannot possibly be beyond the wit of man to redefine “working dog”. I might be wrong; it might be the food that needs to be redefined. Surely the definition of a working dog must include hearing dogs for the deaf, guide dogs for the blind and, indeed, canine partners, as well as possibly others that we are unaware of at the moment.
I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say. Perhaps there is a way of getting the VAT down to 0 per cent.
17:26
I commend Linda Fabiani for securing the debate and raising such an important issue in Parliament. I am sure that every member knows that when Linda gets involved in an issue, she is dedicated to getting a positive result. She will have my full support for this campaign.
I chair the Parliament’s cross-party group on visual impairment. This issue has not come before the group in either this parliamentary session or the previous one, but I will certainly try to get it on to the agenda at future meetings. I was not aware of the VAT problem and the exemption for working dogs, so I was quite taken aback. Disability legislation has gone through the Westminster Parliament, and I can only imagine that the issue has slipped through the net.
After hearing Dennis Robertson’s speech, I am a wee bit disappointed, to say the least. I did not think that there was anything sinister on the part of the Westminster Government, and I hope that the current coalition Government can work towards rectifying the situation. Any support for the issue from this Parliament would therefore be very welcome.
As we have heard, a guide dog is very expensive, but it is essential. The definition of a working dog should be clarified. The current definition excludes guide dogs but includes working sheepdogs of any breed, gundogs and racing greyhounds. However, labradors, pointers, retrievers and greyhounds are excluded. There is an inequality in the current system. I appreciate that the UK Government cannot fix every problem, but I hope that it can look at the situation and establish a remedy. I also whole-heartedly welcome Jamie McGrigor’s contribution and I am sure that everyone in the chamber appreciates it too.
We all realise that the Scottish Government cannot do anything about this issue because VAT is a reserved matter. I ask it to correspond with the UK Government to ask it to look at the issue and try to get to a satisfactory outcome. I am sure that that would be appreciated by and beneficial to all those concerned.
I do not intend to take up my full allocated time, but I will bring the issue to the cross-party group on visual impairment. I ask the Scottish Government to contact the UK Government on the matter, and I hope that the UK Government can find a satisfactory solution to the problem. That would be massively beneficial to assistance dog organisations across the UK and to people who require a guide dog.
Once again, I thank Linda Fabiani for bringing the issue to Parliament.
17:29
I am grateful to Linda Fabiani for raising this important issue and for the work that she is doing on behalf of Guide Dogs Scotland. The contributions in the debate have all been extremely useful, so I thank all members for them.
The facts of Linda Fabiani’s motion are entirely correct. The current arrangement, as HMRC explains on its website, is that all dogs, with the exception of working dogs, are classed as pets. Pet food is standard rated for VAT, so a product that is claimed to be suitable for all breeds, sizes and ages of dog is standard rated for VAT purposes. If a specially formulated food that is high in protein is available for sale exclusively for working dogs, it will fall within the scope of the VAT relief, unless it is biscuit or meal. When owners wish to provide their dogs with food that is not sold as pet food—commonly known, I believe, as dogs’ dinners—they are free so to do.
Does the minister know whether, when a working dog reaches old age—and, I presume, takes less exercise and moves on to a lower-protein diet—it is forced to go on eating the wrong type of food because, otherwise, VAT would have to be paid?
That assumes that the owners would not be willing to pay VAT to provide their dogs with the appropriate food. I do not know whether that is the case, but I appreciate that Jamie McGrigor has owned dogs all his life, which I have not.
The UK tax position results in an outcome whereby food for working dogs that is high in protein is zero rated for VAT, whereas regular dog food that is eaten by assistance dogs such as guide dogs is not, so the full VAT rate applies. For VAT purposes at least, HMRC appears to treat guide dogs or other assistance dogs as pets simply because of the food that they eat.
The point has been made—it was first made by Linda Fabiani, who did so clearly and well—that it seems extremely odd that, for the purposes of VAT, dogs are classified not by what they do but by what they eat. That seems to be an extremely odd criterion on which to formulate tax law—I use the word “odd” in a diplomatic sense, for want of another word.
However, it seems to me that, as the UK Government has already accepted the principle that there is a justification for food for some dogs to be zero rated—it did not need to do that, but it has done it: working dogs are entitled to have food that is zero rated for VAT—the question is whether that rationale should be applied to dogs that serve other purposes. The case has been made beyond peradventure that zero rating should be extended to food for other types of dog that serve purposes that are useful. Indeed, it could be argued that the purposes that such dogs serve are more useful than those that working dogs serve.
We heard from Dennis Robertson—he spoke very eloquently, as always, and acted as a sort of trade unionist for Mr Q—that some people who are blind might not have a guide dog for financial reasons. That is an extremely worrying possibility. I do not know whether it is an issue that could be explored further; perhaps the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has looked into it.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association tries, as far as possible, to ensure that no person is prevented from having a mobility aid such as a guide dog for a financial reason. It does all that it can to promote that message and to ensure that finances never get in the way, but some people do think about the cost of dog food and vet bills prior to making an application to the association.
That is an extremely helpful clarification, for which I am grateful.
I think that we have established that the current law is illogical. We hope that the upshot of the debate will be that we can seek to persuade the UK Government to think again.
Before I turn to how we may best do that, I endorse Christine Grahame’s comment that we should consider an exemption for hearing dogs for deaf people, as well as one for guide dogs for the blind. Hearing dogs alert deaf people to everyday sounds that hearing people take for granted, such as the alarm clock, the doorbell, a crying baby or a smoke alarm—or, indeed, the division bell of the Parliament. Instead of barking, the dog alerts the deaf person by touch using a paw to gain attention and then leads them back to the sound source.
We should consider exemption for dogs for the disabled and dogs for children with physical disabilities. Support dogs have also been mentioned.
Dogs that serve essential purposes should be considered for exemption, whether they do so as guide dogs or in one of those various other purposes. It would not be appropriate for the UK Government to fail to consider all relevant categories if it were to consider the matter, so I am grateful to Christine Grahame and others who mentioned that we also need to consider other dogs.
I acknowledge the marvellous work that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association does without, as I understand it, public subsidy. It has no Government support funding, so it depends entirely on public support for its massive operations, which a number of members explained well.
There are 4,500 guide dog owners in the UK and the association is responsible for 8,000 dogs. The sum of VAT that was mentioned is, I think, £300,000. Perhaps I did not get that correct, but it is plainly a substantial amount of money. For a voluntary organisation that is entirely reliant on donations and not in receipt of Government subsidy, that is a serious matter indeed, as many members said.
I am struck by the figure in the briefing that, I assume, emanates from the association originally, which says that the lifetime cost of a guide dog is around £50,000. That is a lot of money and a lot of VAT.
For the UK Government, the cost of acting in a budget would be nugatory—it would be de minimis. There is a strong case for action. Members from various parties have urged me to write to the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will certainly do that. We will write to the UK Treasury and invite it to consider the case and to explain why it cannot act to zero rate. We will also ask it whether it has considered the option of reducing the VAT to 5 per cent as an alternative. We will invite the Treasury to act as quickly as possible, preferably in the budget that is forthcoming in a couple of months’ time.
It has been said that a dog is a man’s best friend; we will see whether Governments can be dogs’ best friends.
Meeting closed at 17:37.