Skills and Labour Shortages

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of skills and labour shortages.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on labour and skills shortages across the UK. The reality of those shortages affects my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and every single constituency across the UK, so the matter should be of concern to all of us. It acts as a drag on our whole economy, and unless specific and deliberate measures are taken to address it, it will undoubtedly prevent the kind of economic recovery that we all want to see. I thank hon. Members for turning out for this important debate.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the Government’s post-Brexit approach to migration has had a negative impact on the UK’s ability to fill crucial posts in sectors such as agriculture, farming, healthcare and the arts. Does she agree that the Home Office should be looking wholesale at the efficacy of visa programmes, rather than bit by bit, country by country?

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. She tempts me to get into that particular area before I am ready to do so, but I will say more about it in a moment.

I extend my thanks to the Association of Colleges, the Chartered Management Institute, the Heart of London Business Alliance, the House of Commons Library, the Open University and several others for the helpful and informative briefings that they have provided for this debate.

The shortage of skills and labour affects, to a greater or lesser degree, every single sector of our economy and every area of our lives. It affects our productivity and our public services. We see it in areas such as health and social care. There are shortages right across our NHS —in radiology, audiology and that is not to mention doctors and nurses. The Nuffield Trust estimates that in England alone, the shortage of doctors in the NHS could be as high as 12,000, and the shortage of nurses could be over 50,000.

There are also shortages in food processing, agriculture, transport, haulage, construction, butchery, tourism, manufacturing, veterinary medicine, information and cybersecurity and hospitality. Pressures on supply chains have helped to increase the cost of goods and services, which we see particularly in the soaring cost of food.

As the title of the debate indicates, there is a shortage of labour and required skills in a range of areas. That matters. The Open University’s 2022 business barometer estimated that 78% of UK organisations suffered a decline in output, profitability and growth as a consequence of a lack of available skills. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation estimates that if labour shortages are not addressed, the UK economy will be £39 billion worse off each year from 2024. The Chartered Management Institute found that overall, 71% of managers said that their organisations experienced ongoing difficulties in recruiting the skilled staff they need.

The cost is huge. Research, again from the Open University, found that 72% of businesses had increased the workload on other staff because of staff shortages, and 78% reported that those shortages were causing a reduction in activity, service delivery, profitability and long-term growth plans. Significant strains are consequently placed on service levels and supply chains, and members of existing workforces leave due to the impact on their own wellbeing of prolonged staff shortages. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, 80% of small firms face difficulty recruiting applicants with suitable skills.

The number of vacancies unfilled across the UK is now slightly higher than the number of people registered as unemployed. Managers are doing all they can to recruit the staff they need. They may be doing so through the old-fashioned method of word-of-mouth recommendations, by engaging recruitment agencies, by use of social media and print media, by distributing leaflets and flyers advertising vacancies, by offering introductory pay bonuses, by paying more competitive salaries, and by revising their wider employment practices and policies to attract and retain those with the skills they need—such as offering flexible working hours where possible—but despite those best efforts, the challenges remain.

There are several reasons for the shortage of labour and skills across our economy. We know that the demand for labour has recovered faster than the labour supply since the pandemic; indeed, the labour demand is above pre-pandemic levels, while the labour supply is below pre-pandemic levels. When the pandemic hit, older workers responded to the initial reduction in labour demand by no longer looking for work, so they went from being unemployed to being inactive. Since the pandemic, the number of people unable to work due to health reasons seems to have increased. However, in October 2022, the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ longitudinal data showed that many among the older population who are economically inactive because of long-term illness left the labour market before they became ill—they left because they decided to retire. Indeed, with the advent of remote working, many older workers found that they quite enjoyed spending time at home and did not wish to return to the workplace, and they took the opportunity to retire as a result.

The other driver of the labour and skills shortages we face, which poses the real threat to our economic recovery and potential prosperity, is—as everyone in this Chamber and outside it knows—Brexit. Even a House of Lords report last month pointed to an increase in early retirement and changes to migrant worker patterns since the Brexit referendum as exacerbating the main drivers of those shortages. It found that

“Over the last few years many EU workers, who filled these roles, have left the UK.”

There is no dispute about the fact that before the EU referendum and the pandemic, free movement from the EU was a major source of labour in the UK. By 2020, an estimated 55% of foreign-born workers who said that they originally moved to the UK for work-related reasons were born in EU countries. Now, many have left the UK since the UK left the EU—years that coincidentally saw a pandemic, as well. Even if those workers who have left want to return to the UK, many will find themselves unable to do so because of the UK’s restrictive post-Brexit immigration policies. That is despite the fact that our economy—our labour market—needs them to fill the gaps that we are suffering, which are acting as a drag on our economy and our current and future prosperity.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Member will have noted that the most recent figures for net migration are around half a million, which demonstrates that this country still has a pretty liberal immigration policy that is focused on the needs of the economy and business.

[Patricia Gibson]

I plan to touch on that. However, migration is not enough; it does not fill the range of gaps, including skill gaps, and needs in our economy. I will say something about that in just a moment.

Between Brexit and the start of the pandemic, the number of national insurance numbers issued to people from the EU fell by 24%. That impacted our NHS, and the number of specialist doctors in the UK from the EU or the European free trade area; it was more than 4,000 lower than if pre-Brexit trends had continued. Just to be clear, the shortfall is not being made up by non-EU workers. The situation is particularly acute in rural areas, prompting the Migration Advisory Committee to warn of the risks of rural depopulation, which is pretty serious.

The Minister will wish to argue that this serious situation could be addressed by investing in skills and education, to which I would say this: first, that would require real investment that is not forthcoming at the levels that we would all wish to see; and secondly, that strategy would not help the situation right now. It would perhaps help us to plug some gaps in the longer term, but our economy—our public and private sectors—need help right now. The situation is particularly worrying for Scotland, given that ours is the only country in the UK in which the population is projected to fall in the next decade.

What can the Government do about this situation? Well, they could make it easier for businesses to recruit from abroad as and when they need to, for all skill levels. Employers are concerned about how onerous, time-consuming and bureaucratic it is to recruit staff from abroad, and it should not be. Employers make every effort to recruit locally, but when that does not result in their gaining the staff and skills that they need, it should be much easier and smoother to tap into the labour markets of our European neighbours. That would make perfect sense for our employers, our economic prosperity, and those who are recruited. The Government’s own MPs are coming to realise how urgent the situation is. That was evident when the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) echoed the Scottish Government’s calls for the Home Office to provide long-term stability for migrant workers with a 24-month visa.

It pains me to say it, but the UK Government are prisoners of their own rhetoric; they have somewhat boxed themselves in over visas and immigration, despite the demands of our economy. The Chancellor told us in his autumn statement last November that the Prime Minister would ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to

“do a thorough review of issues holding back workforce participation, to conclude early in the new year.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 848.]

Some people’s hopes were raised that those words might signal change, driven by common sense, but as we have heard nothing since about a review, I fear that those hopes were misplaced. Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate, he can update us on that review.

The temporary exception to the skilled worker criteria under the Government’s points-based immigration system for care workers, and the introduction of a bespoke visa for seasonal agricultural workers, are absolutely fine moves, as far as they go. However, they are clearly inadequate to address the scale of the workforce challenges faced by the sectors to which they are directed. They also take no account of the range of needs in other sectors. Similarly, the kickstart scheme, well-intentioned though it is, is simply inadequate to address these challenges.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on her speech. She is absolutely right about the impact that Brexit has had. That impact has perhaps been escalated and exacerbated by covid; a lot of migrant workers went home as soon as the pandemic began. Obviously, it is more difficult than before for others to come in, which has escalated the situation. I want to clarify what she is asking for by way of response. Am I right in saying that it is a 24-month visa, and an escalation of the schemes that she mentioned, within the confines of not returning to freedom of movement? Or is she saying that we should have a return to complete freedom of movement, and that anyone from the EU who wants to come and work here should be able to?

[Patricia Gibson]

I have absolutely no problem with freedom of movement—we have suffered enormously as a result of no longer having it—but I appreciate that the Government will not move in that direction, so I am asking them to allow our public and private sectors to recruit from Europe as and when they need to in order to fill their skills gaps and jobs gaps. That is very difficult. The skilled workers criteria are too narrow and do not fill the gaps, even for the sectors that they are intended to help. They are not enough and do not take into account the strains and shortages in areas of the economy that they are not directed at. I believe that the Minister and the Government understand all the difficulties that I and others have mentioned, but feel trapped by their rhetoric. I hope they will get over that and take a common-sense approach, for the sake of our economic prosperity.

The Government commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the shortage occupation list, but I understand that the review has been paused pending clarification of the Government’s priorities surrounding the skilled workers route. When the Minister gets to his feet, perhaps he will give us more detail of how the review is going, when it will be unpaused, and when we might see some benefit from it.

In the absence of any attempt to address the very serious situation in the way that I and many people across this House would like, and that would have the necessary impact on the challenges, I urge the Minister at the very least to play his part in persuading his Government to allow a Scottish visa to be established, so that those who wish to live in Scotland and contribute to its workforce may do so. By way of precedent, similar successful schemes have been established in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland on a regional basis. Scotland should not suffer from a one-size-fits-all UK approach; its demographic, geographical and labour needs are entirely different.

It makes sense to allow asylum seekers who come to the UK to enter our workforce. They are stuck in hotels or Home Office accommodation at huge cost to the taxpayer, but many of them have valuable skills that we need, and they are desperate to enter our workforce, while we suffer skills and labour shortages. That defies all common sense.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the hon. Lady’s comments. In Northern Ireland, the Syrian scheme came in, and that was followed by the Afghan scheme. We still have people who came in through the Afghan scheme in the Marine Court hotel in North Down. I have made representations to the Minister and the Department. Local companies such as Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct are willing to give those people jobs, and those people want to work, but we cannot get them into employment. They are still stuck in a hotel. Would anyone like to be stuck in a hotel for one and a half years?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. We often hear from those on the Government Benches about how expensive the system is. Well, there is a way out. There is a way to benefit our economy, the asylum seekers, our communities and our workforce. It is a no-brainer. The situation defies all common sense. Refugee Action has calculated that if asylum seekers were given permission to work, that could generate up to £330 million annually for the UK Treasury. I urge the Minister to do what he can to persuade his Government to support the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill.

The Scottish Government are doing everything they can with their very limited powers to address skills and labour shortages across Scotland, and have developed a “working with business” action plan. They are identifying new and existing actions that they can take, alongside business and partners such as skills agencies, to mitigate the impact of skills and labour shortages, and to stimulate economic recovery through a range of employability, skills and sector-specific interventions. However, the Minister knows that the real levers of power that have to be used if we are to address the issue are with the UK Government. If he says that the UK Government are not willing to take the necessary steps right now to address the shortages that are damaging the economy in Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK, he should make the case to his Government for devolving the necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament, so it can tackle this problem in a more effective and logical way in the interim, before independence for Scotland. In that way, Scotland can in the meantime attract and retain those with the skills and attributes that we need in our workforce, so that our communities, our economy and our country can grow for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

There is scope to review the apprenticeship levy and make it more flexible; I will come on to that. We also have to recognise the success in recent years in delivering apprenticeships; there have been around 5.2 million since the Conservatives returned to office in 2010. Yes, there has been a slight fall since the covid pandemic, which we need to address. I will come on to that later.

I commend Middlesex University, which is local to my constituency, for its work on degree apprenticeships. They deliver a great combination of academic and in-work learning, without creating the burden of debt that comes with a more traditional degree. It was great to meet young people in the university’s apprenticeship programme who are training for roles in the NHS at Barnet Hospital. Those dedicated apprentices show that skilling up people already working in the NHS can help to address labour shortages in healthcare, which we urgently need to tackle if we are to expand the NHS’s capacity for dealing with rising healthcare need.

I also praise the work of the BioIndustry Association. Last year, I met the association, along with some of its young people who are undertaking apprenticeships in the biotech and life sciences sector, to discuss these important matters. That part of our economy is truly world beating, as the inspirational work on delivering a vaccine during the covid pandemic showed. We need to ensure that the life sciences sector has a great pool of talent from which to recruit if it is to live up to its potential to deliver the new treatments, vaccinations and diagnostics that could transform healthcare in years to come, and if it is to provide hope for people suffering from devastating conditions such as cancer and dementia.

In his winding-up speech, I want the Minister to consider how we can get more people into apprenticeships. When it comes to tech sectors such as life sciences, co-ordination between the Government’s research and development and skills programmes can be invaluable. For example, the network of catapult centres created by the Government to encourage cutting-edge science and innovation could play a positive role in supporting small businesses in handling the apprenticeship process. That is illustrated by the cell and gene therapy catapult’s development of ATAC—the Advanced Therapies Apprenticeship Community. That engaged over 48 companies in using apprenticeships to attract, train and retain talent. Over half of the companies were small or medium-sized enterprises at the time of first recruitment.

Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I ask the Minister to consider the wider point of how we can make it easier for small businesses, such as that owned by my constituent, to employ and train apprentices. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, which considered that issue in a report published last July.

[Patricia Gibson]

The right hon. Lady is making important points about apprenticeships, which we all understand are important for our young people and economy. Of course, the situation is urgent. Does she agree that Government action on the issue so far, such as the kickstart scheme, which cost £2 billion and had a take-up of around 25%, shows that more bold and radical thinking is needed to address the challenges we face?

[Theresa Villiers]

A great deal has been achieved so far—not least more than half a million apprenticeships—but of course we can always do more. We need to ensure that schemes such as kickstart, and the other skills programme, have as wide an uptake as possible. I am particularly keen to see minority ethnic communities engaged effectively in those skills programmes. There is more that can be done, but much has already been achieved.

In the APPG’s July report, we appeal for a reduction in the complexity of both the creation of new apprenticeships and the delivery of current ones. I hope that the Minister will look at how the system, including the apprenticeship levy, is working, to make it more cost-effective for small businesses to take on apprentices. We also need the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to engage closely with sectors such as construction, healthcare, life sciences and green tech, to ensure that apprenticeship standards keep up to date with the pace of change. All of us, whether we are MPs, parents, teachers, Ministers or employers, need to do more to promote apprenticeships as a great way for young people to get on in life and achieve their goals. I have welcomed the opportunity to do that in today’s debate. I hope that there will be many more opportunities to discuss these important matters in the House in the months to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate, and I thank all Members who turned up and participated to give this important subject wide-ranging consideration. We have heard a lot about long-term solutions and apprenticeships. Of course we want to upskill and invest in our young people and provide positive destinations, but there has to be recognition that this is an urgent and pressing matter. I feel that the Minister did not give Brexit the consideration that it is due. The impact of Brexit must not be underestimated.

The Minister says this is a global issue. That means that our competitive edge needs to be even sharper as we seek to bring in workers to fill the gaps in our workforce. That is not happening because bureaucratic and other barriers are being put in place for people who might otherwise choose to come to work in Scotland or the rest of the UK. If the Government are not willing to tackle these matters and take the necessary action that the SNP would like, they should devolve the powers to Scotland, so that we can do it for ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady has been in this House long enough to know that rates are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She is raising the question at the wrong Question Time. It is worth bearing in mind, with unemployment at its lowest level since 1973, that every single socialist Government, including their brief period in office in 1923, have led to higher unemployment. What are they talking about?

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

2. Whether his Department plans to take steps to support (a) domestic and (b) non-domestic energy customers after March 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am proud of the support the Government have provided to energy customers. His Majesty’s Government launched a Treasury-led review into how we support energy bills beyond April next year. The review will result in a new approach that ensures there is enough support for those in need while costing the taxpayer less than planned. The cost has come down significantly because of the fall in gas prices in recent weeks. Any support for non-domestic energy customers will be targeted at those most affected. This new approach will better incentivise energy efficiency.

[Patricia Gibson]

Citizens Advice Scotland has warned that it is already seeing huge demand for advice on the cost of living, energy bills and food insecurity. The uncertainty on the future of the energy price guarantee beyond April is frightening for consumers, not to mention the impact of insecurity faced by business. During the pandemic, the current Prime Minister kept U-turning on furlough extensions at the last minute. Will the Secretary of State offer reassurance and give at least some idea of when a post-April energy price scheme could be established?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me offer the reassurance that, if not for the United Kingdom, there would not be this level of support for businesses and individuals in Scotland. Scotland simply would not be able to afford it. It is the strength of the United Kingdom that allows this all-encompassing support to be provided. That is what the Government are doing. The package is one of the most generous that any country in the world has introduced. We are supporting people through the winter, and we will ensure there is focused support for the least well off in future winters.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is important for our economy that we have competitive energy prices and that we do not go out of our way to burden British business. I agree: the hon. Gentleman is right to campaign for lower energy prices.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The energy package announced yesterday is fine—as light as it is and as far as it goes. The Secretary of State has heard widespread concerns about the cliff edge in the support in three or six months’ time. In view of those concerns, will he give further urgent consideration to additional support for energy intensive business sectors, such as manufacturing and hospitality, as well as longer-term support for investing in energy saving measures?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think we have covered most of that already, and the answer is broadly yes.

Shale Gas Extraction

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure me and my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran that the pernicious and insidious United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, or any other sinister mechanism, will not under any circumstances be used to impose fracking in Scotland, against the expressed wishes of the people of Scotland and Scotland’s democratically elected Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act is like the Koh-i-Noor diamond; it is one of the jewels of our constitutional settlement.

Energy Update

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The energy price cap is set to double. Businesses have received no support with energy costs, households have simply not received enough and those in park homes have been completely ignored so far. On top of that, the cost of supplier failures means that the poorest, who use less energy, will continue to be disproportionately impacted by punishing standing charges. Today the Minister has said nothing about any of these issues, because today’s statement is about a zombie Government giving the illusion of activity. When will we see urgent and decisive action to tackle this increasingly painful and in some cases life-threatening crisis for businesses and households on the brink?

[Greg Hands]

There is a lot in that question. The hon. Lady raised a new issue, not raised in these questions so far—the issue of park homes. That is a serious concern, because around 1% of households in this country are not reached by the current £400 scheme, although they are being reached by other schemes. We have said clearly that we will announce measures to assist those living in park homes, houseboats and so on, which are not covered because they do not have a meter point. There will be a scheme announced this autumn to help them, with funding attached, as part of an additional scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on consumers of removing standing charges on energy bills.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

As the hon. Lady knows, the standing charge is designed to reflect the costs of connectivity and usually covers the fixed costs that the suppliers incur. If it was removed, that cost would simply be passed on to consumers. Standing charges are a matter for Ofgem, which has launched a call for evidence. The Government are focused on helping consumers through the £9 billion package of relief announced by the Chancellor a few weeks ago and the £5 billion announced last week to help families and households with the cost of fuel.

[Patricia Gibson]

From this Friday, households will face an average 80% increase in standing charges for electricity. Negligent policy making and bad practice in the industry will be paid for by the poorest and most vulnerable consumers, who will pay the highest standing charges, with those in Scotland amongst the hardest hit. Will the Minister consider capping or even scrapping these standing charges on the basis that they are discriminatory to the poorest and most vulnerable consumers?

[George Freeman]

If it was as straightforward as that, the answer might be simple, but it is not—[Hon. Members: “Yes it is!”] No, it is not. The energy market is extremely complex, and there is a whole raft of charges. It is not true to say that Scottish consumers are hit particularly hard, as Scotland is also a net exporter and English and Welsh consumers are paying for it. The Government are absolutely focused on helping consumers with the cost of energy through the £9 billion relief announced in February, the £5 billion announced last week, the extra money for the warm home bonus and all the support mechanisms for the vulnerable. It is not simply a case of constantly tinkering with market price.

Penrose Review: UK Competition and Consumer Policy

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to participate in this debate on UK competition and consumer policy in response to the Penrose review. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for all his work on the review. The goals of the Penrose review, which are to improve consumer choice and outcomes, are, of course, very important; they are things that we can all sign up to. Now more than ever, with household budgets being badly squeezed in this cost of living crisis, consumers must be supported, so that they can secure the best value for money and have sufficient protection under the law. For that to happen, we need UK competition and consumer protection that is fit for the modern age.

Consumers need confidence that if they fall victim to exploitation and unscrupulous practices, there is redress and the consumer protection that they need and deserve. It is clear that some markets simply do not work for the consumer. I understand that the clear statement of intent in the Penrose review was that markets must work for people, not the other way round. Who could argue with that?

Consumer confidence is essential for economic growth, so it is worrying that research by consumer champion Which? has found that up to one third of consumers experience at least one problem with a product or service every year. That not only causes financial loss and anxiety but has a detrimental impact on consumer confidence. We all know that there are gaps in consumer protection and enforcement, some of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic. For example, we all witnessed how the disruption to the travel industry during covid left passengers out of pocket when airlines either refused to pay for cancelled flights or delayed refunds.

Digital markets are not subject to the same regulations as their offline counterparts, and that opens the door to fake products reviews, which have exploded on online marketplaces. We heard a lot about that from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Members in all parts of this Chamber have expressed concerns about digital markets, and our constituents share those concerns.

The situation is made worse by the fact that regulators do not have the necessary powers to hold companies to account when the law is flouted. The Competition and Markets Authority does what it can to uphold consumer law, but its investigations can take years and tend to result in commitments instead of fines, and offer little in the way of deterrents for those who would flout the law. The problem is that to be more effective, the CMA needs more powers to properly perform the task of protecting consumer rights.

I note with interest the conclusions of the Penrose review, which proposes that the Competition and Markets Authority be given sharper teeth, so that it has increased power to drive consumer rights, supply-side reforms and productivity improvements. It also proposes a streamlined legislative framework for UK competition and consumer policy.

Of greater interest is the question of which of the Penrose conclusions the UK Government will take forward. Indeed, if the Penrose review is implemented in full, it could constitute the biggest shake-up of the UK’s competition and consumer law regime since the creation of the Competition and Markets Authority in 2014. The changes would range from providing the Competition and Markets Authority with the same powers to prosecute consumer law cases as it has for competition law investigations to reforming sectoral regulations. The review contains some very interesting ideas and would give the Competition and Markets Authority significantly increased powers.

However, concerns have been expressed that concentrating such increased power in the Competition and Markets Authority at a time when it is adapting to its new post-Brexit case load and the challenges of a digitised economy could be very challenging indeed for the CMA. We simply do not know yet what the Government response to the Penrose review will be, although it does appear—I underline the word “appear”—that the Chancellor and the Business Secretary have welcomed the recommendations. The question is: where do we go from here?

We have all waited so long. The chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Lord Tyrie, set out recommendations for reform in 2019. In 2020, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was asked by the Government to look into competition, and he published his report last year. The UK Government recognised the need to reform the enforcement regime in their 2019 manifesto, and the Departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have undertaken consultations.

Last year, the Business Secretary set out plans to bolster competition regimes, but that must be underpinned by legislation. Consumer and competition policy has been under review for over four years, which has meant that the challenges that consumers face in the marketplace have continued, and have often become much more difficult. If the Competition and Markets Authority had more power, as other regulators do—enough power to protect consumers and hold companies accountable for breaking consumer law—we could raise standards in the consumer marketplace.

We can see clearly what the lack of such powers can lead to in practice. We have had the example of the secondary ticketing platform Viagogo for six years; after the threat of legal action, it finally changed its practices and paid attention to the Competition and Markets Authority guidance on advising consumers. Had the immediate imposition of fines for not complying with guidance been an option, it would not have taken six years for Viagogo to comply, and for us to secure the changes that everybody wanted. We have all seen that the Competition and Markets Authority lacked the power it needed, during the time of covid disruption, to ensure that consumers were refunded in a reasonable timeframe by some players in the travel and wedding sectors.

A consumer and competition Bill could tackle the bad business practices that harm consumers and consumer confidence. There could be simpler investigation procedures, and fines could be imposed, so that matters were not dragged through the courts in lengthy processes, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said. That would be nothing but a boon to consumer confidence and protection.

I agree with the call in the report for stronger protections for consumers against the so-called loyalty penalty, unfair contractual terms, perceived attempts by digital businesses to nudge consumers into making decisions, making it hard for consumers to exit contracts, and of course the practice of creating an unreal sense of urgency to pressurise consumers into making purchases, as well as trapping them in subscriptions.

A code of conduct would benefit both business and consumers. It would ensure that the largest online platforms did not abuse their market power. There would also be an alternative dispute resolution scheme that offered an efficient, affordable and proportionate route for resolving difficulties relating to high-value transactions while avoiding the complexity and cost of going to small claims court.

Finally, a consumer and competition Bill must be introduced in the upcoming programme for Government. That would be the point at which all the work that has been done at last comes to fruition—when a competition and enforcement framework fit for the modern economy is delivered through legislation. There is real impatience for the Government to finally commit to action on these important consumer protection matters. It is not clear how far the Government will go in improving competition and consumer policy. We do not know how they will interpret and implement the recommendations of the Penrose review. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

Alongside the proposals made by the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Lord Tyrie, we have had consultations by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Penrose review. What we have not yet had is the introduction of a consumer and competition Bill. We all look forward to a Bill with proper teeth that will confer real power on the Competition and Markets Authority, so that it can support consumer confidence and create a marketplace in which the consumer is protected, and in which, as the Penrose review boldly set out, the market works for people, not the other way around.

I look forward to this long-promised, long-awaited and much-anticipated Bill. I hope the Minister will at least say when we will be able to see and scrutinise it.

Gas and Electricity Costs

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate, and for his excellent introduction to the issues involved. Our constituents are genuinely worried about their gas and electricity bills. In Scotland, 640,000 people —one in seven—find that their energy bills are unaffordable at the moment, and those bills are only going to rise. The energy crisis and the cost of energy have once again thrown into sharp relief the glaring inequalities in our society. Inflation is expected to rise to 6%, energy costs are doubling and the national insurance hike is about to kick in, so there is huge concern. Alongside and because of that, we face a debt time bomb as credit card lending jumped by 41% in recent months. Much of that borrowing was to pay for household essentials.

As things stand, 6 million people will slide into fuel poverty because of the rising cost of energy. That will impact on the wider economy, driving up the cost of food, goods and other services. As petrol prices increase, consumer prices will continue to rise, and at a faster rate. Alongside that, we can expect the cost of mortgage repayments to rise as well. We need Government action to tackle this. It is real, and it is crushing my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran.

We have heard today about the need to cut VAT on energy bills and on the warm home discount, to offer some respite to those who are struggling right now. In 2016, the now Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said:

“If we vote to leave the European Union, we can cut VAT on domestic fuel to zero and that would save households about £60 a year… that would help the poorest families most of all.”

Let us ask the Minister to do what his Government promised they could and would do. We need action on that.

It is time for the Government to listen to the calls to provide loans to energy companies, which are teetering on the brink, rule out a future rise in the energy price cap and reintroduce the £20 universal credit uplift. Households need help right now. The Scottish child payment could be replicated across the UK, and we could deliver a low-income energy payment, introduce a real living wage and raise the level of sick pay. There are a number of things that the Government could do to help families who are struggling right now.

We heard earlier that there are real, genuine and well-founded worries about cold-related morbidity this winter. In this day and age, in a state as rich as the UK, that is a cause for embarrassment and shame. Even the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), has admitted that it was a “mistake” to close off the storage sites, which the Government withdrew support from. Although these issues are global and there are many global factors at play, not having sufficient storage for energy leaves the UK much more exposed to price shocks than it needs to be. We have the lowest storage capacity in all of Europe—1% of all of Europe’s capacity. Any kind of protection we might have had from dramatic price shocks has been given away by this Government. That is really not acceptable.

The UK is going through this whole situation while suffering from the worst levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe; in-work poverty is at record levels this century. We really need to get a grip here and listen to our constituents’ problems. We need fundamental and radical measures to protect our constituents. Some have no idea how they are going to cope with the price rises hitting their doorsteps. We have heard about the differentials in energy transmission costs. Those need to be tackled, but when will they be? We need an equitable energy policy that works for all consumers, and I am really looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

That is exactly what we are doing. The new contract for difference auction that was launched in September is as big as the previous three auctions, when it comes to renewables. Our dependence on foreign gas is less than 20%. Our dependence on gas from Russia within that is less than 3% or 4%. That is action that we have already taken.

Our long-term strategy is about finding effective replacements for fossil fuels, which are reliable and do not expose us to the volatility of international commodity markets. We already have the world’s largest capacity in offshore wind, but we are not resting on our laurels, because we are going to quadruple that over the course of the next decade. That is all a major step towards delivering the Government’s increased ambition on renewables.

In answer to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on new technology, it is both renewables and nuclear, to which I will turn briefly, which is a key plank in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan in the energy White Paper and the legislation that is passing through the House of Commons. I will return in a moment to the comments from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

In the brief time of six minutes available to me, I will answer some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to his constituent, the businessman Andrew Mackay. I am happy to engage with the hon. Member on behalf of his constituent. Business bills tend to be set on long-term contracts, which give a certain insulation from volatile prices, at least until the point where the contract comes up for renewal.

On rural support, 15% of the energy company obligation—ECO3—must be delivered to households in rural areas. We consulted in the summer of last year on its successor scheme—ECO4—for delivering energy efficiency heating measures in off-grid homes in Scotland and Wales. We are already extending the warm home discount from about 2 million to 3 million households, from £140 to £150. It is worth pointing out, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun knows well, that the warm home discount is not a zero-cost option. There are people who have to pay additional money on their bills to support recipients of the warm home discount, so it is not something that we can just take action on with the stroke of a pen, like the Labour motion last week—the trebling—without considering the consequences.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is absolutely right on cost-of-living issues, but let us look at a lot of what is happening in this country. We have record figures for those in employment. We have the national living wage increase. We have beneficial changes in the universal credit taper rate and so on. All these things are providing support for people facing cost-of-living issues. I totally appreciate and am totally with the hon. Lady on the impact that energy bills may be having and will be having later this year. On levies and on the heat and buildings strategy, we said that we would publish a fairness and affordability call for evidence, which will set out the options to help rebalance electricity and gas prices and to support green choices, with a view to taking decisions in this year—2022.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that we are scrapping the ECO scheme. No—as I have already pointed out, we are moving from the ECO3 scheme to the ECO4 scheme. I guess, Sir Edward, technically you may describe that as scrapping it, but we see it as improving it and building on it. The hon. Lady called for a windfall tax. She praised German energy company E.ON for doing a great job, and it does do a great job, but she and other Members have to be careful when they call for a windfall tax while also praising those investing in the energy sector. She has to be mindful of what impact any windfall tax would have on those investment rates.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made a very moving speech about the situation for low-income households and prepayment customers. There are 4 million prepayment customers. Ofgem obviously put in place licensing conditions to protect prepayment customers at risk—particularly of self-disconnection—including dedicated helplines for prepayment meter customers. There is a lot of support in place, but the issue of PPM customers is something that we keep a very, very close eye on in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and I know Ofgem does as well.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wanted an indication of what the Government are doing to help. We are doing a lot. We have in place winter fuel payments of between £100 and £300. I have already discussed the warm home discount. There are the cold weather payments. There is the £421 million household support fund. There is a lot of support. I say that while recognising Northern Ireland’s particular status as regards electricity. Obviously, a lot of that is devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) called for a VAT reduction. That is obviously, as she rightly pointed out, a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. It is not a very targeted way of supporting vulnerable customers. We heard from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I do not think this is really the right place for a Brexit debate, but she said that leaving the EU allows us to cut VAT on domestic fuel. Her policy of rejoining the EU would surely negate that policy.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No. I have only two minutes left. The hon. Lady asked a question about storage, and I repeat that the current issue is not a question of supply. Storage helps if there are supply issues, but we have an issue relating to price. Storage does not protect, generally, from price shocks if the supply is secure, and I have already said that our supply is secure.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made an extraordinary speech, in which she said, I think, a windfall tax would be a powerful message to Moscow. I thought the intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun slightly exposed that. If the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon can show me how to design a windfall tax that would clobber Gazprom, I am all ears. Bearing in mind that our imports of gas from Russia are almost entirely liquefied natural gas and only less than a handful of percentage points, if the hon. Lady can show me how her Robin Hood tax would have an impact on Gazprom, I am all ears. We are not dependent on—she said “rogue states”. More than half of our gas imports come from Norway. I do not think anything she is proposing is going to protect us from rogue states.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made a number of familiar points on supplier of last resort costs. SoLR is there to protect customers when their energy supplier ceases to trade, so that they can transfer their account.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his comprehensive exposition of the debate.

Every year we have the same debate, and every year a Minister stands up and says not very much at all that takes into account the reality of the disruption and distress that fireworks cause in our communities. To be clear, no one in the Chamber today or in any of the six previous debates—we did not have one in 2019 because of the election—has ever called for fireworks to be banned, although that is often how the kind of concerns that have been expressed today are dismissed. For example, I recently raised this very issue in business questions. When I asked about the regulation of fireworks, the Leader of the House responded by calling me “a killjoy”, then began to recite the words of a traditional bonfire-night rhyme.

We all know that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) believes that he has his finger on the pulse, but that response will sound contemptuous to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran—but that is only because it is contemptuous of the disruption and distress to which they are subjected because of the misuse of fireworks. From the right hon. Gentleman’s response, I can only assume that the good people of North Somerset are not plagued by fireworks, as my constituents are—they seem to have quite a different experience. I wish to repeat and make it absolutely clear that no one is calling for fireworks to be banned. The current situation—anyone over the age of 18 can purchase fireworks, with all the potential for community disruption that entails—is simply not tenable, and it is not acceptable. The distress, as we have heard, caused to the elderly, beloved family pets, veterans with PTSD, and to children and babies, shaken from their sleep, makes the compelling case that the sale of fireworks should be restricted to organised community displays, and that only those with a licence to deliver such displays should be able to access them.

Fireworks, whether for bonfire night, a wedding, or some other important celebration, are a hugely enjoyable spectacle. Indeed, some 10 million of us in the UK enjoy them throughout the year. Nobody has any quarrel with that; the point at issue is the fact that the irresponsible misuse of fireworks must be tackled properly, and that is most sensibly and most effectively done at the point of sale.

As Members have said in this debate, and have said in every previous annual debate on this subject, we know all about the accidents and injuries caused by fireworks, which are sobering indeed. We also know about the increased pressures this places on public services. The fact is that selling fireworks to the general public entirely on the basis that they are aged 18 or over is very hard to justify and yet, year after year, a Government Minister is trotted out, trying to do just that, very unconvincingly.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

In a moment. This is my sixth debate on this issue, and I remember when the illusion of action was played out in previous debates, with talk of consultations and evidence gathering. Today, it seems to be a proposal for a review group. All of this is excuse after excuse for inaction—and, of course, all of those previous initiatives came to nothing. It seems that all they were designed to do—if Members will pardon the pun—was take the heat out of the issue.

For reasons that very few of us can understand, the Government are simply not willing to regulate the sale of fireworks, and nobody can honestly understand why. We do not need review groups; we do not need consultations; what we need is the Minister to get on his feet and announce concrete action. I have no optimism that he will do so, based on the previous six debates. To advise constituents to call the police when fireworks plague their community is disingenuous. By the time the police are able to attend, the damage has been done and those who are responsible are long gone. In their wake, fireworks have caused huge disruption to communities, scared family pets out of their wits, and sometimes literally scared them to death.

In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has the authority to regulate when fireworks can be set off, but no power at all over the regulation of the sale of fireworks, which in effect means it has no power at all. If we cannot influence who has access to fireworks, we cannot deal with the disruption that they cause.

Fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but as I have said in the past six debates, so what? We know that children can get hold of them, and that people using fireworks irresponsibly are often perfectly entitled, under the law, to buy them. The irresponsible use of fireworks is not confined to those who got hold of them illegally, which is why more needs to be done to protect the elderly, people with pets, and a whole range of people in our communities.

As we have heard, every single Member of Parliament present for this debate, and many who are not, have had constituents telling them about the onslaught of fireworks and the profound effects they have had on their quality of life and on their pets, who undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. Of course, this cannot be prepared for, because the outbursts of fireworks come from nowhere when someone has fireworks and thinks they will have a wee bit of fun. Some people think it is a great idea to set fireworks off in tenement closes, or in shared entryways to flats in the middle of the night.

What is interesting about this debate is that the sale of fireworks is tightly restricted in the Republic of Ireland, while in Northern Ireland, fireworks have long been subjected to some of the strictest laws in the world. Perhaps the Minister—I keep asking this; I have asked it six times in the six previous debates—can tell us why the rest of the United Kingdom is denied similar or greater protection than Northern Ireland. Even the United States, which has liberal gun laws, believes that restrictions on fireworks need to be strict.

The current situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre. The use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved. It does not take a genius to work out that unless the sale of fireworks—who can get their hands on them—can be tackled there will be no meaningful influence over who uses them, which makes it extremely difficult to police. Our local environmental, health and anti-social behaviour teams work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, but that is dealing with the consequences of their wide availability rather than tackling the fear, alarm, distress, and safety hazard that they cause, which we have heard so much about. As the Minister knows, the only way to deal with this issue is to tackle the sale to individuals—to tackle the problem at source, and be mindful of the fact that fireworks are far more powerful and prevalent today than in the past.

Organised and licensed displays allow the many people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely. Importantly, they allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets and get on with their lives. The Dogs Trust says that when public displays are organised 93% of pet owners alter their plans during the display time to minimise their pet’s trauma, which protects its welfare. We cannot help pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhood when fireworks are going off randomly without warning. The solution, as we have heard across the Chamber, is patently obvious to anyone who chooses to look. We need greater restrictions on the sale of fireworks, instead of selling them to all and sundry over 18 years old.

Organised public firework displays are a safer option for all our communities, and would become the accepted and welcome norm. We need to get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but the status quo must not continue. Is the Minister finally going to announce action on this issue, or are we to rehearse these arguments every year to a Government who appear unwilling to listen and, like the Leader of the House, dismiss us and our constituents as killjoys? If the Government do not want to act on this issue, give us the power in Scotland and we will get on with it ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing today’s really important debate and at such a pertinent time, as ever. I algo congratulate him on his considered speech, which framed the debate on the e-petition that has been signed by so many people. I also thank the other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, and I am grateful to the members of the public who took the time to sign the e-petition that has brought us here to Westminster Hall to discuss this important matter, because it has received more than 300,000 signatures and calls on the Government to limit the sale of fireworks.

Therefore, I will take the time to outline and explain the Government’s position on this matter, and to say, first of all, why we believe—although I understand that it is not the subject of this debate, as has been outlined—an outright ban on fireworks or an outright ban on their sale to the public is not the appropriate course of action.

We have concerns that banning fireworks in that way could have significant adverse and unintended consequences for public safety, particularly in leading to the emergence of a black market in illicit fireworks. There was a reason why there was not a 2019 debate on this issue. Yes, it was the year of a general election, but more importantly in 2019 the Petitions Committee conducted an inquiry on this issue, which I was a part of as a Member of the Committee, and the evidence given by interested parties aligned with the Government’s current view. Those interested parties included both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council.

The petition being debated today also highlights the concerns that some people have—understandably—about the impact of fireworks on vulnerable groups and animals. These are issues that I was only too pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) when we met back in July to discuss the fireworks survey that he had carried out in his constituency; as he said, it went somewhat viral. I really sympathise with those views, and I am always sorry to hear the stories of how some individuals and animals have been affected by fireworks. That is why the Government are committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks, and why we have been carrying out a programme of action on fireworks to ensure that those who use them do so safely and appropriately.

It is important to say that this is a highly regulated area, with a comprehensive regulatory framework already in place to control the sale, availability and use of fireworks. We believe that this framework strikes the right balance for people to enjoy fireworks while aiming to reduce risks and disturbances to people and animals. For example, current legislation sets an 11 pm curfew on the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year.

[Patricia Gibson]

I interrupt briefly to ask the Minister if he believes that this “highly regulated area” is fit for purpose. Can he still say, given the concerns that have been raised today and in previous debates, that he thinks enough is being done? If not, what more can he do?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and hopefully I will flesh out some more of our thinking, including on enforcement and what other action is being taken.

There is a 120 dB noise limit on fireworks available to consumers. Retailers are restricted to only selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I just referred to, and retailers may only supply fireworks to the public outside those periods if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority. However, I fully appreciate that it is just as important to ensure that legislation is enforced effectively. We have heard of some issues where that has fallen short, but I will describe what powers and mechanisms are in place against the illegal sale and use of fireworks.

Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that the fireworks that are sold are safe, and have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market. Trading standards and local fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside of the normal selling period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I have not had a discussion at ministerial level, but officials look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—and in other countries. Clearly, there is a difference in the law in Northern Ireland, predominantly because of troubles and the historical context there; however, officials from the Office for Product Safety and Standards do look at that.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is generous with his time. He has clearly set out how he thinks this should be dealt with, but it is not satisfactory for many of us. Will he support devolving power to regulate fireworks to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can choose our own path and solutions that fit our communities, given that his Government are not interested in going down that road for the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Paul Scully]

Scotland has put forward some proposals and there has been a consultation; I am interested in seeing what happens there. I am also aware that the Scottish Government are drafting a Bill on fireworks to be introduced next year; that primary legislation is still at the proposal stage. My officials engage regularly on the matter with officials in the Scottish Government; it will be interesting to reflect on what happens in Scotland as a result of that work.

We are continuing to engage with local authorities to understand the issues they face, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the Government provide appropriate support.

Animal Testing

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his comprehensive exposition of the issue we are debating today. I want to echo the tributes paid to David Amess. We very much feel his presence in this debate, despite his absence, as a great champion of animal welfare. I am sure his colleagues in the main Chamber, who are currently debating the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, have David Amess at the forefront of their minds as well.

I know how interested my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran are in this issue, as I suspect citizens across the UK are, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of signatures to the petitions we are debating. That can be said with some confidence because of a survey carried out by the UK charity, FRAME, which undertakes research into alternatives to animal testing. In a survey conducted last year, it found that 84% of respondents would not buy cosmetics if they knew that any of their ingredients had been tested on animals. Based on my experience as an MP in this House since 2015, I can say without hesitation or equivocation that I receive more emails about animal welfare-related issues than about any other issue currently facing politicians or this Parliament today. I can see some nods of agreement. I am sure we are all in the same boat in that regard. People care about animal welfare issues profoundly and deeply. It is something that I think every constituent shares with every other constituent. There is no disagreement on it and we have to take note of it.

The sad fact is that, despite widespread public abhorrence of animal testing, it is a significant industry in the UK. Home Office statistics show that 3.4 million procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2019. Unfortunately, there is growing consensus that not enough is being done truly to represent a significant and consistent decrease in animal experiments. We have heard much about that today.

Evidence shows that people in Scotland and Wales believe that more should be done to prioritise humane and human-relevant science. I suspect that the good people of England feel exactly the same. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of people believe that where alternative non-animal research methods are available, experimenting on animals becomes even more unacceptable. It is worrying to learn that animal tests have been undertaken in Europe and the UK for which there are accepted, validated alternatives. What my North Ayrshire and Arran constituents and I what to know is: why is testing in such circumstances permitted? Why is it, for example, that tests are carried out where a substance is dropped into the eyes of a live rabbit that causes damage and blindness or where a lethal dose of botulinum is injected into mice that causes paralysis and suffocation within days, as documented in the short briefing from Cruelty Free International? Why are these tests carried out when non-animal viable alternatives are available?

When asked about specific species in research, the overwhelming view of the public is that testing on animals such as dogs, cats and monkeys is unacceptable and that alternatives to animal testing should be a funding priority for science and innovation, yet the UK remains one of the top users of primates and dogs in experiments in all of Europe. We know that recent developments in evolutionary and developmental biology and genetics have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for the human response to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases.

What is needed—what my constituents want to see—is the UK Government to mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing to reduce the unnecessary harm involved in animal experiments and ban this immoral practice, pursuing alternatives instead. We need greater transparency in the animal research industry and a commitment by the UK Government to understand the sentience of animals and their welfare in relation to the outdated methods of animal testing.

I am sure that my constituents and those of every Member in this Chamber would be shocked to learn that although the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill enshrines in law the ability of animals to experience joy and feel suffering and pain, the UK Government do not recognise animals undergoing scientific experiments as having sentient rights, as they are excluded from the protection of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and its “unnecessary suffering” clause. That is an unacceptable state of affairs, especially in view of the fact that in a previous debate in which I participated, on the testing of cosmetics in animals, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), said that testing on animals is carried out

“only where there are no practical alternatives”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 111WH.]

Clearly, that is not the case—perhaps the Minister can comment on that and provide clarification—as has been pointed out in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. There is an apparent contradiction, so I hope that the Minister can clear it up today.

New approach methodologies do not use animals and instead use advanced in vitro and in silico technologies to model diseases, test treatments and investigate biological processes in humans. With the new medicines manufacturing innovation centre to be based in Renfrewshire, we in Scotland are well placed to spearhead a paradigm shift to next-generation human-relevant medicine. That is the kind of shift that we need to see and which our constituents want to see, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) indicated.

In the debate on 1 May 2018, I remember the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth saying that the Government would continue to tighten regulations on animal testing. Will the Minister tell us today what tightening of regulations has taken place over the past three and a half years since the previous Minister gave that commitment? It is also the case that, in that debate, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said that an independent trade policy would provide “opportunities” to look at this issue. Will this Minister tell us what exactly has been looked and what actions that looking has brought about, as I am sure we are all keen to know? I hope it is not the case that we have had three and a half years of drift and delay on this matter, because that would be most disappointing.

We have been told repeatedly that Brexit offers the opportunity to raise the bar on the quality of the products that we import, as well as on animal welfare issues. My inbox—I am sure many other Members would echo this—is filled with messages from constituents who fear that standards will fall, not rise. Nevertheless, if Brexit really does offer that opportunity, as we have been told, to go further on issues such as animal testing than we did before, can the Minister update us on what advantages have been taken so far of these much-lauded opportunities, which were so loudly proclaimed at the time? Again, I am sure that we are all keen to know.

Like many in this Chamber, I represent tens of thousands of constituents who are very exercised about these matters, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us on these points and the other questions raised today. We are keen to hear progress on this issue since anything that is, or is perceived to be, unnecessary cruelty to animals is anathema to the overwhelming majority of people, and has no place in our society.