International Men's Day

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to participate in this debate to mark International Men’s Day 2023. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) not just for securing the debate, but for the sensitive way that he drew out some very important issues that too often get buried under other matters that we discuss in this place. It is important that we continue to talk about gender equality, equal pay and the pension gender gap, but that does not mean that we cannot be cognisant of and exercised about the very important public health and social challenges that face men and boys. There is no doubt that those challenges and issues exist.

The theme of International Men’s Day 2023 is “Zero Male Suicide”, and that is where I want to focus my attention. The need to help men and boys cope with and understand mental health issues is beyond urgent. As we have heard, the overall suicide rate is 13.9 per 100,000 people—a similar figure to previous years—but male suicide rates are still three times as high as female rates, and in Scotland, 556 men died by suicide last year. Behind every statistic lies a family torn apart and a life that ought not to have been lost.

Suicide is the No. 1 killer of men under the age of 45 in the UK. It kills more men under 45 than car accidents, cancer, drug or alcohol addiction, or any other issue that can end lives. The fact that men take their lives by their own hands in such numbers is truly heartbreaking. We can wring our hands, but there must be something more we can do to reduce those awful statistics. Key to that is seeking to understand why so many men resort to suicide, which is a terrible last act of despair.

One explanation that many point to is the fact that males have traditionally not been expected to admit when they are finding life difficult. A number of Members have talked about the awful expressions that are often used, including “toughing it out” and “manning up”, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) first mentioned. As a result, men and boys often find it hard to admit when they are struggling and need support, and that can only undermine their mental health and increase their sense of isolation. Problems mount up, but they feel it is weak if they admit it, ask for help or simply need a chat to share their concerns and process their feelings. Instead, they are much more likely to internalise their feelings, which often detrimentally impacts their relationships with their family members and friends—their children, their wives and their extended social relationships.

How we as a society adjust our expectations of men is important. It is okay for someone to admit that they are struggling; it is not a sign of weakness. As boys grow up and develop in their homes, families, schools, workplaces and universities, we need them to learn that they will sometimes need support and that there is no stigma attached to talking to someone if they are suffering. In fact, it is perfectly normal, and actually it could be seen as a sign of strength. If we cannot get men and boys to open up and share their worries, concerns and problems with those closest to them, or a support organisation if that is easier for them, we are unlikely to make a meaningful dent in those awful statistics. Each number is a family torn apart—a life lost that could have been saved.

Although we know that suicide is the biggest cause of death in males under the age of 45, we also know that when it happens, the loved ones left behind are often bewildered. They often did not see it coming. For the rest of their lives, they are left with questions—“What did I miss?”, “Could I have done something to prevent this?”, “Why did they not talk to me?” That is why suicide does not just take lives but tears families apart and leaves wounds that truly never heal.

I pay tribute to the wonderful UK Men’s Sheds Association. In my constituency, I have seen at first hand the fantastic work undertaken by the Three Towns Men’s Shed, which serves Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston, and the Garnock Valley Men’s Shed, which serves the towns of Kilbirnie, Beith and Dalry. In these sheds, men get together to offer each other friendship, camaraderie and a sympathetic ear. They share practical skills, experiences and problems, and provide a shoulder for each other when times are tough. Men helping each other in their communities is what a men’s shed does at its best, and it is not overstating the case to say that men’s sheds have the potential to transform and save the lives of the men who join them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right to underline the issue of men’s sheds. I can think of four men’s sheds in my constituency: in Saintfield—I see them on the third Saturday of every month—Portaferry, Newtownards and Ballybeen. Those four men’s sheds have saved lives, which is what she is referring to.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am delighted with the men’s sheds in my constituency, because the three towns in the Garnock valley are post-industrial areas with great socioeconomic challenges. Sadly, we know that people who are socially and economically disadvantaged are also those at higher risk of suicide and at higher risk of developing mental illness. Middle-aged men living in the most deprived areas face an even higher risk of suicide, with rates of up to 36.6 per 100,000, compared with 13.5 per 100,000 in the least deprived areas.

The changing nature of the labour market over the last 60 years has particularly affected working-class men. With the decline of traditional male industries, they have lost not only their jobs, but a source of masculine pride and identity. We also know that men in midlife tend to remain overwhelmingly dependent on a female partner for emotional support, but today, men are less likely to have one lifelong partner and more likely to live alone, without the social or emotional skills to fall back on. Undoubtedly, loneliness is a significant factor in many male suicides; it puts men’s suicide risk at a higher level. Men’s sheds can truly mitigate that and help men to strengthen their social relationships.

I will briefly mention the impact of allotments. In my constituency, we have the Elm Park allotment in Ardrossan and the Kilbirnie allotment on Sersley Drive, which allow men to get out into the open air and forge friendships. Otherwise, they may be sitting at home, watching the telly and becoming catatonic with loneliness. At the allotments, they develop relationships with other volunteers in a very healthy outdoor environment. In my view, things that build the social fabric of our community, and which help men get together, save lives.

HMS Dasher

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a real honour and a fitting tribute to have secured a debate on HMS Dasher, 80 years to the day when it was lost. HMS Dasher was a Royal Navy aircraft carrier that went down off the coast of Ardrossan in my constituency, resulting in the deaths of 379 people—the single biggest loss of life of service personnel in world war two not to have been caused by enemy action—under the command of her new captain, Lennox Albert Knox Boswell.

HMS Dasher had been involved in flying exercises on that fateful Saturday. She was both fully fuelled with 75,000 gallons of ship oil and 20,000 gallons of aircraft fuel, and carrying more than 100 depth charges and at least six torpedoes. At 4.40 pm, Boswell announced that the exercises were complete and the ship was to return to Greenock, where the crew were to be granted shore leave. However, that was not to be, and no one could have predicted the tragic events that were about to unfold.

The Royal Navy Research Archive records that there was a tremendous explosion. The officers on the bridge looked in astonishment as the ship’s 2 tonne aircraft lift flew about 60 feet in the air before falling into the sea behind the ship. The fleet air arm deck was completely destroyed, with the lift between the hangar and the aircraft blown sky high, then into the sea on the port side of the Dasher. The ship was plunged into deathly darkness as lights and machinery failed, and a strange silence descended on the fatally wounded ship. Within eight short minutes, it sank almost vertically beneath the waves.

Those who could abandoned the ship, jumping overboard from any point of exit they could reach as the fires in the hangar deck grew more intense. With oil burning on the water, many crewmen who had managed to jump overboard were caught up in flames when the aviation fuel floating on the water’s surface was ignited by the flames of the ship. While help was quickly scrambled to undertake rescue efforts, the ship had gone down so quickly—witnesses estimate it took no more than seven or eight minutes—that there was little chance of saving those on board. Of a crew of 528, only 149 survived, with 379 losing their lives on that fateful day.

To this day, the remains of the ship lie in the firth of the Clyde, south of Millport and between Brodick on the Isle of Arran and Ardrossan on the mainland, and the exact cause of that terrible incident remains unknown. The ship was not under enemy fire, and there are no records of German U-boats or aircraft in the area at the time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand about this issue. Many families of those who sadly passed away on HMS Dasher still have no clarity to this day. They worry that they themselves will be gone, knowing nothing about their loved ones’ ending. Some have formed the view that bodies are buried in a mass grave somewhere; others are convinced that someone has to know something about what happened. Many will never give up hope that they will have some closure on what happened, and like the hon. Lady, I also have that hope. Does she agree that if documentation exists in relation to this issue that is hidden from the public, we in this House should do all we can through the Minister to encourage that it be fully disclosed, for the sake of those who need clarity in order to move on and to grieve in peace?

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There have been some explorations about mass graves, but no evidence has been uncovered to back up that theory. However, there is an issue of men unaccounted for from that day, which is a cause of grief for families.

At the time, the Westminster Government ordered a complete news blackout for fear of damaging morale, and fearing questions as to whether or not faulty US construction could have been a factor in the tragedy. Local media were ordered to make no reference to the event, and survivors were also ordered not to discuss the events of that day. As a result, the many lives lost and the bravery of the crew and rescue teams have not always been acknowledged as they ought to have been. There has been speculation that the authorities ordered the dead to be buried in unmarked mass graves, but none has ever been found. The Royal Navy insists that a mass unmarked grave would have been against Admiralty policy, and that all sources relating to the sinking of HMS Dasher are now in the public domain.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I will not detain the House longer than a moment or two, but I want to put on record that, although we in the SNP do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, our opposition to the entire Bill has been well documented throughout its passage. The Bill, alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, attacks the integrity of the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specifically devolved areas such as agriculture, aquaculture and animal welfare.

The intended scope of the Bill may be England only, but the Bill documentation is clear that it will have significant impacts on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In particular, the impact assessment for the Bill recognises that,

“products entering the market in England would also be marketable in both Scotland and Wales.”

It is outrageous that this Government did not see fit to work more closely—or at all—with the Scottish Parliament, to give that institution the respect it is due through this process and to listen to the concerns expressed. As a result, this entire Bill does not have the support of my party.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken to the Minister before, so he knows my thoughts on the Bill, and I am very pleased to add my support to what we have before us tonight. It is also good to hear from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who brings a wealth of personal knowledge to the debate—I thank him for sharing that with us.

I have been supportive of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for some time now, having spoken with a number of farmers in my constituency who have expressed to me their willingness to engage with and support it when they learned how exactly it could help their work. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and also as a landowner.

To my reading, the Lords amendments simply provide clarity and clarification. The Minister was very good to share his response, which highlighted the use of the terminology “natural transformation”, and I thank him for that. Five of the amendments serve the purpose of removing references to natural transformation.

The amendments were made following concerns raised by MPs and peers regarding the potential for misinterpretation of the term as allowing the stable integration of the functional transgenic DNA, through the use of modern biotechnology, in an organism that is considered to be precision-bred for the purposes of the Bill. That is not in line with the Government’s policy intention, which is to allow only genetic features similar to those present in the gene pool or that might arise naturally through existing breeding processes.

As that clarity has been furnished, it is clear that our farming industry can benefit without dangerously interfering with genetic structure. I am encouraged by that, and I believe that the information from the National Farmers Union, which outlined gene-editing applications in 46 different crop species, with rice, tobacco, wheat and soybean among the most cited, is an indication of the clear benefits of the ability to use precision breeding.

A broad range of products with market-oriented traits are being developed, and not just those with agronomic traits such as yield and disease resistance, but foods with consumer-facing traits such as lower allergenicity, reduced contaminants, higher antioxidants, longer shelf life, vitamin enhancement and heart-healthiness—all things we would wish to see in foods. There are also those with climate-resilient traits such as drought and salt tolerance.

No one can ignore what is happening and what we have before us. It is not gene modification in livestock, but instead gene editing applications being developed and researched, including on resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. These technologies are exciting, innovative and challenging and I believe they give the United Kingdom a chance to lead the way. For example, if the problems of African swine flu in pigs or bovine tuberculosis in cattle could be sorted out, my goodness, we could all put our hands up and clap hard for that. Mastitis resistance, hornless cattle, chickens that cannot spread bird flu, elimination of milk allergens and increased lean muscle—how would that not be good news for our farming sector? It could only lead to more efficiency and higher standards and make our farming industry even stronger.

It is clear that this Bill solidifies what farmers and indeed many of our grandmothers have done for years with their roses and their peas. I well remember in Strabane back in the ’60s my grandmother being one of those people doing things with roses and peas, making changes even in those days. My grandmother called it splicing, but this is splicing made technical, and it is past time we legislated to protect it. I very much welcome what the Minister is bringing forward tonight.

Skills and Labour Shortages

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

Christians and Religious Minorities: India

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is right that there are examples in the past, but in many Indian states, representation for minority groups is not in place. Previously, there was a free country where freedom to practise one’s religion was in place, as President Modi said in 2016, but today, in 2022, the same cannot be said. I note that the right hon. Lady is a sponsor of the annual Open Doors event. I gently remind her that in the past year, India has seen grave violations of freedom or belief. A report by the United Christian Forum highlighted that 2021 was one of the worst years for attacks on Christians in India, with ongoing impunity for the perpetrators of violence. In 2013, Open Doors’ world watch list ranked India 31st of the 50 countries where Christians face the highest levels of persecution; and last month, in its latest list, India was ranked 10th. In short, there can be little doubt that the situation is getting worse at an alarmingly fast rate.

The research sounds the alarm on the escalation of freedom or belief violations in India—not just against Christians, but against those of other faiths and beliefs. In many cases, freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for the full realisation of other human rights. When citizens cannot freely exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief, it is depressingly inevitable that other human rights are being compromised.

At the heart of all freedom of religion or belief is the ability freely to change one’s religion or belief, free from fear. In other words, a Hindu should be able to become Muslim or Christian. Unfortunately, that is practically impossible in about a third of India’s states. There is some flexibility in some states, but there are certainly states where there is no flexibility at all. A third of India’s 28 states prohibit or limit religious conversion to protect the dominant religion, Hinduism, from perceived threats from religious minorities. That is entirely unnecessary; it stems from prejudice against non-Hindu religions and support for Hindutva, an ideology that does not count Indians who are Christian or from other religious minorities as true Indians because they have allegiances that lie outside India. They might believe in something other than Hinduism, but their allegiance to the Indian state is not in doubt. The Indian Government must look at where they are on that, discuss those issues, and make sure that there is opportunity for all.

Speaking of opportunity, the background information given to us for this debate says:

“Christians and Muslims…do not qualify for the officially reserved jobs or school placements available”

to Hindus,

“putting these groups at a significant economic and social disadvantage.”

These things need to be fair. If a country’s constitution mentions freedom and equality, the country should ensure those things, not draw away from them.

This is not an easy debate. I am well aware of our countries’ close relationship and I welcome it. Indeed, the other day, the hon. Member for Harrow East and I mentioned how important that closeness was, particularly when it comes to trade between the UK and India.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about the close relationship between India and the UK. Does he agree that that relationship puts the UK in a unique position to be a positive force for change, and to encourage and pressure India to respect religious minorities?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope, as I think we all do, that we can achieve that through this debate. That is why I look forward to the Minister’s response. She is always fair and always gives a calculated response. We are conveying our feelings and thoughts to her, and ultimately, I am sure, to India, so that it takes the opportunity to address these issues.

It is not my wish to alienate a close ally, but these caveats must not prevent us from speaking up when we see the mistreatment of minorities and mistreatment on grounds of religion or belief. Indeed, it is the close relationship between the UK and India that necessitates our raising the alarm, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran says. The UK is the third biggest investor in India, and in 2020, India became the second largest investor in the UK, so trade is clearly an important issue. To be frank, people including my constituents—and me; I am no different—care where their taxpayers’ money goes. Customers increasingly care about corporate responsibility and social impact; our country should not think that it is above such standards. We are not. The majority of people think that if the United Kingdom were to trade with a country that violates and abuses the human rights of its citizens, the UK would be somewhat complicit in that abuse.

In various debates this week, most of them to do with Russia, we have highlighted human rights abuses and persecution. We have also talked about China and where it has done wrong. In the main Chamber and Westminster Hall, and through our Government officials and the steps that the Government are taking, we are highlighting these issues, and today, we are doing the same. One thing is clear: our nation cares about human rights abuses in India. A majority of people think that the amount of foreign aid that the UK provides to a country should be tied to its performance on certain human rights standards. It is undeniable that one human right currently being violated in India is freedom of religion or belief. A range of religious and belief minorities, not the least of whom are Christians, are suffering infringements of this right. I will go through some of these violations.

Attacks against Christians have been refuelled in recent years and months by the impact of online disinformation and hate speech. How easy it is to hide behind a screen and destroy people, or fill people’s head with things that turn them against others. On 6 December last year, a mob armed with stones and iron rods attacked St Joseph’s school in Ganj Basoda, days after a video was circulated on social media that falsely claimed that the school was forcibly converting Hindus to Christianity. The video was not filmed at the school; it was not even filmed near the school, and none of the students were present, yet the misinformation was peddled through that video. The language and disinformation in the video were deliberately provocative and sought to target the local Christian minority community.

The video succeeded in its aim, which was the attack organised for the following day. When the school’s principal was warned of the imminent attack, he immediately requested police protection, but—alarmingly—no such protection was provided. That is a terrible stain on the police. Although the police assured him that the protests would be peaceful and that they would send officers to guard the school, on the day itself the police failed to show up; they arrived only after the crowd had dispersed, having already caused distress and destruction. As this tragic event shows all too well, online misinformation and hate speech accelerate violent attacks, and the relevant authorities often do not do enough to prevent the brutality. There is no doubt that online misinformation can lead to violence, which happens on a frighteningly regular basis, and indeed today.

Another example of the horror that Christians face can be found in countless reports issued over the last year. Ours is a country of freedom of religion and belief, free from persecution and intimidation, and we know that Christmas is a very important date in the calendar for Christians—indeed, for many people, but especially Christians. In the run-up to Christmas in India, many churches in Karnataka state were forced to cancel their Christmas celebrations following threats from radical groups. More than 150 churches did not open over Christmas due to the fear of attacks, and many other churches opted to limit their Christmas celebrations. Their caution was not without cause. On 24 and 25 December, Christmas eve and Christmas day, dozens of churches were attacked across the states of Assam, Haryana, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. Services were stopped short, Bibles were set on fire, a statue of Jesus was torn down and the crowds shouted, “Death to missionaries!” Is that what their religion tells them—“Death to missionaries”? It is not what my religion or my beliefs tell me, and it should not be what any other religion or belief tells anyone else either.

Father Anand, a priest at one of the targeted churches and therefore on the frontline, said that the protests were indicative of the increased attacks that Christians in India have been facing in recent months. He said:

“This is a symbol of what is happening because these people have impunity, and it creates tension…Every Sunday is a day of terror and trauma for Christians, especially those belonging to those small churches”,

which feel under threat. I go to church every Sunday, Mr Stringer, as I suspect others in this place do. We are free to do so and we enjoy it in peace, but for those Christians in India every Sunday is a day of terror and trauma. Let the devastation of that phrase just sink in; think about what that means. When we go to church on Sunday, we do so in peace, and we thank God for it. If we had to go through a crowd to get to church, and if we came out to be stoned or potentially face attacks against our property or damage to our cars, it would put things into perspective.

Christians are not the only ones who suffer. In recent years, there have been several high-profile murders of well-known rationalist leaders. I am not sure my Ulster Scots accent will aptly render this gentleman’s name, but in 2015, Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi, a 77-year-old scholar and university professor, was killed after receiving death threats following criticism of idol worship during a seminar. In 2013, Narendra Dabholkar, president of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations, a member organisation of Humanists International, was murdered in Maharashtra state. Despite both cases being high profile, to this day there has been inaction and a failure to prosecute suspects for either crime.

Muslims suffer challenges and attacks too. At a conference of the right-wing Hindu Mahasabha political party on 31 December, delegates were encouraged to attack Muslims with the words,

“If 100 of us become soldiers and are prepared to kill 2 million”

Muslims

“then we will win. We will protect India, and make it a Hindu nation.”

That is not what should be said by any religion, and it certainly should not be said by the Hindu political party. My God tells me that he is a God of love. He is also a God of judgment, but he is a God of love. I suspect that everybody else’s religion tells them something similar, so why turn it into a campaign? Despite immediate international condemnation, Pooja Shakun Pandey, who made the remarks, was only arrested weeks later after sustained pressure from the international community.

The double vulnerability faced by female Muslims was also highlighted this year when Karnataka state introduced a ban on Muslim schoolgirls wearing a headscarf. Malala Yousafzai has since responded by saying that the move is forcing Muslim girls

“to choose between studies and the hijab.”

The choice between an education and one’s religion should never be a dichotomy that anyone, let alone a child, should ever have to face. In addition to the attacks, Muslims have faced increased discrimination during the covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, Indian Government Ministers accused the Muslim Tablighi Jamaat minority of spreading covid-19. It was an absolute fallacy, but people were geed up and fired up by it, and they took action against Muslims.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

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.

Gender Pension Gap

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I know that the Minister will be listening intently, and I hope he will take away the reasonable and straightforward suggestions that I will make this evening, so that we can truly level up in the way that the Government say they want to.

Women born in the 1950s—WASPI women, or Women Against State Pension Inequality—have suffered hugely as their state pension age was accelerated, giving them insufficient time to prepare for retirement. Despite the clamour of outrage, the Government have refused to do anything to address the hardship caused to the women affected. I wish I could say that that policy decision was the only one that targets women in retirement. I wish this was the only measure I could find that has transformed retirement into a time of financial uncertainty and fiscal pressure for women. Sadly, it is a mere continuation of policy choices that have contributed to—indeed, exacerbated—the gender pension gap under which too many women now labour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady, myself and others in this Chamber have supported the WASPI women the whole way through. Does she agree that there is not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to deliver for them and that the WASPI women in our constituencies who have contacted us deserve to know that the battle has not ended for them?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is impossible, in all conscience, to have any debate about pensions and not mention the plight and difficulties into which the WASPI women have been thrust. Indeed, it would be remiss not to mention them and to pay tribute to the dignified campaign that they have fought and continue to fight.

Let us take pension credit as an example. The uptake of pension credit is only around 60%—a matter that I have raised repeatedly over the years in the House, urging the UK Government to do more to improve uptake. Doing so could play an important part in helping to close the gender pension gap, since women are much more likely to need to rely on pension credit, which is additional support for the poorest pensioners, as their lifetime earnings tend to be lower than men’s. However, the so-called triple lock on state pensions does not apply to pension credit. This means that the poorest pensioners, who tend to be women, do not have the same income protection as those pensioners who are better off.

In addition to this gender penalty, the very lowest earners, who we know tend to be women—I keep saying it because it bears repeating—are excluded from building credit on their state pension. Those who have a job earning below the lower earnings threshold get no credit for their state pension at all, and that applies even if a person has more than one job. This exclusion disproportionately hits women hard as they are more likely to be in part-time work. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will explain why this stubborn inflexibility in the national insurance system has not been addressed and when we can expect this pitfall—that is what it is—to be removed, as it contributes to the impoverishment of women in retirement. The lower earnings threshold should be abolished so that all workers can claim credit for state pension, no matter the level of their earnings.

The gender pension gap is exacerbated in all sorts of sneaky and labyrinthine ways, some of which most women do not know about due to the arcane nature of the system. The UK Government could fix many of these problems almost at a stroke; why this has not happened is curious.

For example, even if a woman is not currently in paid work, if she claims child benefit for a child under 12, she will get national insurance credit towards her state pension, and is treated as though she has contributed to national insurance while she claims that child benefit, when her state pension is calculated. Even if her partner’s earnings deem her ineligible for child benefit, she needs to apply in order to get national insurance credit. Who knew?

If a woman finds out subsequently about this rather silly and pointless method of gender discrimination—well, too bad. She cannot backdate her claim. In addition, research has shown that huge numbers of women simply do not know how child benefit claims affect their state pension calculation. And who could blame them? It would be fairly simple for the UK Government to address this by allowing all women who are looking after their children to claim state pension credit. Why not? What is the obstacle to this change, which could play a part in reducing the shameful gender pension gap?

Let me turn to the issue of temporarily leaving the workforce to look after children adversely impacting on a woman’s pension. Workplace pensions discriminate against women, who tend to earn less and to have interrupted careers, meaning that they are active in the workplace for fewer years than men. This means that their workplace pensions are lower, as well as their state pensions. This could be mitigated if the Government introduced a family carer’s top-up, whereby the Government would pay the equivalent of the employer’s contribution—at least at the level of minimum wage—into women’s pensions if they are taking time out as carers. This would equate to around £820 per year and would boost pension outcomes for women by 20% if they took 10 years out of the workforce to undertake caring responsibilities and return to the workforce thereafter. Importantly, research shows that this could close half the pension wealth gap that is created by taking time out of work to care for others—so far, so good.

It was always traditionally the case that women were forced to leave company pensions if they married or switched to part-time working. I have lost count of the number of WASPI women who have told me that they were forced out of occupational pension provisions when they married. However, we know that women also tended to be less likely even to be offered an occupational pension in the first place due to the types of jobs women traditionally did. Again, we have inherent bias against women’s workplace pensions.

We also need to remember that some workplace pensions do not aggregate women’s pensions following maternity leave. Not merging periods of pension service means that women have a reduced pension when they retire, relative to their male counterparts. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of this Government to regulate pension provision so that women’s pension rights can be preserved whilst caring responsibilities are attended to?

If this litany of how women get a raw pension deal and suffer institutional bias seems to be long, I am afraid it is set to become longer still, because we have not yet considered auto-enrolment. This much-heralded programme to ensure all employers provide workplace pensions leaves out, ignores and simply does not take into account millions of women.

How can that be? It is actually very simple. Those who earn less than £10,000—again, disproportionately women of course—do not benefit from auto-enrolment and therefore do not benefit from their employer’s pension contribution. Again, it does not matter if someone has two part-time jobs, because if each pays below £10,000, they miss out on auto-enrolment and the employer’s contribution to the pension.

New research from the Pensions Policy Institute shows that almost half of single mothers are currently ineligible for auto-enrolment—almost half. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? What will he do to persuade his Government to remove the £10,000 earnings limit for auto-enrolment so that the threshold can be reduced to the very first pound earned? When one considers the part that that measure alone could play in helping to reduce the gender pay gap, I can think of no good reason not to do it.

If that was not bad enough, those who are auto-enrolled into their workplace pension are often forced to pay an additional 25% for their pensions if they earn between £10,000 and £12,000. Again, that situation tends to affect women disproportionately and is due to the type of pension an employer may use, which operates on a net pay basis. That means that the employee has to pay extra to their pension provider instead of receiving the tax relief they could have in a different type of pension scheme, such as a relief at source scheme. Sadly, it seems that most employers use the net pay scheme, so contributions are collected before tax.

However, if the relief at source scheme were used, women would benefit from an additional £8,000 in their pensions over their working lives. We have, quite frankly, a disgraceful situation in which women, who are most in need of help in building up their pension pots, are forced to pay more, usually without knowledge of how they are being financially penalised. If we want pension equality, why are the Government not legislating so that employers and pension providers ensure workers are enrolled into schemes that will qualify for tax relief?

If, after all that, a woman finds herself widowed, her late husband’s life annuity will probably not provide her with any income, meaning that after the shock of being widowed many women are thrown into poverty, financially unprotected. Similarly, if a woman is divorced, she may find herself in poverty in retirement. Indeed, she is more likely to do so. It seems clear that there are institutional, inherent, ingrained and unfair barriers to women being able properly and fairly to build up a pension pot that will offer them protection from poverty in their later years.

The obstacles, problems and barriers have been set out clearly tonight, and the Minister has been listening to the potential solutions. I urge him to respond to each barrier and to indicate what his Government will do to address the shocking and unacceptable gender pension gap that exposes women to poverty and hardship in their later years, because it does not have to be this way.

Covid-19: Vaccination

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 14th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes, I agree. The reason why I have talked about Qantas is that I do think that it is a knee-jerk reaction. People are afraid. I think that, as the vaccine is rolled out, as there is more information and as they see that more and more people are taking up the vaccine with no ill effects, the concerns that both business and the general public might have will all start to dissipate. Perhaps I am just the eternal optimist, but I genuinely believe that that will happen, because vaccinations are not new.

What I have heard from constituents and what I have read is that the overwhelming majority of people want to stop having to worry about this virus. They want an end to the restrictions that we face as soon as that is safely possible. They want a vaccine to help put this dark time behind us, and they want these things to be delivered as soon as that is possible.

Many have contacted me—I am sure that I am not alone in the Chamber in saying this—to ask whether, in the roll-out of the vaccine, we could include, as a priority, those who are living with a terminal condition, which makes their vulnerability to the virus very concerning. I share the view that those who are living with a terminal condition ought to be prioritised for receiving the vaccine. I throw that in, because it is important at this point, when we are talking about concerns about the vaccine, to say that there are also concerns about groups who feel they may be excluded from being prioritised, which is very important.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has outlined a concern on behalf of those who have terminal illnesses. The families want to enjoy that bit of time with their loved one as well. We can never ignore their feelings and input into this, either.

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes. I would expect and hope that anybody whose immune system was compromised would be prioritised in the roll-out. That is important, because those people have to be able to enjoy whatever time they have.

There is a minority—I believe it is a minority—of people who are concerned about the vaccine’s safety and/or efficacy. As we have heard, there is a job to do in convincing them that the vaccine is safe—that the vaccine is the work of top scientists and experts in the field and is as safe as the vaccinations that they have had and that have been administered, with their consent, to their own children when they were but babes in arms. Yes, we have a vaccine for covid-19 that has been delivered at breath-taking speed in scientific terms. However, that should not be a cause for concern or alarm; it should be a cause of pride. It should be the cause of a great sense of achievement that wonderful scientists and dedicated teams have worked flat-out to deliver this vaccine, and have rigorously tested it by undertaking mass trials with thousands of human volunteers to ensure that the vaccine is safe and effective.

The higher prevalence of covid-19 in the population, compared with other viruses against which vaccines have been developed, has led to a much faster rate of infection in respect of test/control groups, meaning that conclusions about efficiency were faster. In addition, the funding for this vaccine has enabled its rapid development, as there has been no delay due to financial considerations. Add to that the advances in technology to enable the mass manufacturing of huge quantities of the vaccine, alongside a global effort involving almost every scientific research institute, global health organisation and country, bringing together global, state and private power, as opposed to relying on a handful of scientists working for a small number of private companies. If we take all of that into account, we can appreciate how this vaccine has been delivered in record time. That is the message and information that need to be relayed again and again, to allay the fears of those who are concerned about the safety and/or efficacy of the vaccine. However, that may not always be easy, with disinformation and conspiracy theories thriving on the internet. I had no idea there were so many self-styled experts without any medical or scientific expertise expounding their view that the vaccine is not safe, but that is not surprising, given that they are probably the same people who, throughout this entire pandemic, have been perpetuating the myth that the covid-19 virus is some fictional, mythical dark conspiracy. We know that those who expound these bizarre theories are in the minority, but they manage to reach and even convince some people, and they frighten people. As such, the job for every Government and for all of us is to expound the positives of this game-changing vaccine, which will allow us to resume some kind of normality and save lives.

The roll-out of this vaccine is a good-news story: in fact, it is the best news story this year, if not this decade. It is a story that should be told with joy, pride and relief. We all have a duty to tell this story in our own way, and I know the Minister will be very keen to share in the telling of that story. Vaccines have protected us from birth to old age, and have saved countless lives. They are nothing short of a medical and scientific wonder, so I hope and believe that as this vaccine is rolled out, we will all be reminded of that fact, and the overwhelming majority of us will avail ourselves of this vaccine, which could save our lives.

Statutory Paid Bereavement Leave: Loss of Family Member

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate to highlight the need for statutory paid bereavement leave for all employees upon the sad loss of a close family member or partner. In recent years, I was privileged to be one of a number of MPs who worked cross-party to secure paid bereavement leave for parents on the loss of a child up to the age of 18 years old. That effort showed this place at its best when, finally, that right was enshrined in law as of April this year. As that work was going on, I said in this very Chamber that groundbreaking as that achievement was, it simply did not go far enough, and that I would immediately begin working to extend a similar two-week statutory right for paid bereavement leave to others. This debate is part of that effort.

It is true that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes, and while most of us are happy—comfortable, even—to talk about taxes, there remains a reticence to speak openly and honestly about death. I believe that is why the measures this House has already supported on parental bereavement leave for the loss of a child are only in their infancy, and why the measures under discussion tonight have not yet been adopted: we are too reticent to talk about death. Bereavement is a fact of life, and if only a fraction of the costs associated with it could be mitigated with better support at the right time, we could boost our economy and have a healthier society with a greater sense of wellbeing at its heart. Instead, we have the terrible situation where, in our society and, as a consequence, in our workplaces, people who are bereaved suffer in silence as they are expected to just get on with things. That is not healthy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on having brought this issue forward. I am very aware of what she has said, and support it. I have long supported the idea of paid bereavement leave for families in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that for some, getting back to work is a useful part of their grieving process; for others, they need time to work out how their world works without their loved one, and paid leave may well give someone the ability to take a breath without having to go to the doctor? It could be a way forward for their wellbeing and mental health.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it is something I will return to in just a moment, if he will permit me.

According to research commissioned by the charity Sue Ryder, a third of employees who experienced a bereavement in the past year did not receive any communication from managers or the leadership of their organisation about bereavement. Only 32% of employees are aware of whether their employer has a bereavement policy, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a global health pandemic, with covid-19 linked to over 56,000 deaths across the UK since the end of March. Of those who felt well supported by their employer after experiencing a bereavement, 60% cited being allowed enough time off and not being pressured to return to work before they were ready as key actions their employer took. This debate is timely, since the global health pandemic—which has touched us all in various ways—has sharply reminded us about the fragility of life, and the profound and cruelly random nature of loss and bereavement.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the whole point is that we do not know. We need to get our economy on an even keel; we need to make sure it is healthier so that then the damage can be assessed—but what a crime it is to throw away viable jobs because we think that some jobs will not be viable. There are potentially millions of jobs that are saveable here, and I think investing in our jobs is a price worth paying in order to save the vast majority, because that is what the experts are telling us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will make some progress.

Many businesses are awaiting further lockdown easing before some or all of their staff return to pre-covid working hours. Numerous other viable businesses are simply not in a position to keep staff in their jobs without this crucial support. Indeed, in our own island communities, such as the Isle of Arran in my constituency and the Isle of Cumbrae, there has been even greater disruption with the necessity of capacity restrictions on ferries. With the main tourism season drawing to a close, further support for viable jobs is essential.

Government Members continue to throw their hands in the air and ask, “For how long should support continue?”, to which we on the SNP Benches reply, “For as long as necessary to save tens of thousands of viable jobs, perhaps millions in the longer term.” We say: we want the Chancellor to keep his word when he said he would do “whatever it takes” to save jobs. Let us put to bed this economic illiteracy about what that would cost. The direct cost to the Government of extending furlough would be offset by income tax and national insurance contributions paid on the wages of those remaining on furlough and by savings on unemployment benefits that would not need to be paid. The net cost of extending the furlough scheme across the UK would be around £10 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We also need to factor in how that would help economic growth and leave public debt slightly lower as a share of GDP than if the scheme were closed down next month, and that is before we factor in the likely significant social cost of not extending the scheme. Without an extension, unemployment is likely to be as high as 10%.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but again we hear the argument that, because some of these jobs cannot be saved, no jobs should be saved. We say: let us invest in our people and assess the economic damage afterwards. At the moment, when the picture is not clear and the facts are still emerging, and when the extent of the damage is still unknown and the economy is still in a critical condition, we cannot afford to wind the scheme down in October.

[Jim Shannon]

With businesses slowly bringing staff off furlough, does the hon. Lady agree that extending the scheme will allow that slow rollback to continue, rather than having owners make the decision to let go of staff who could be brought back in a month’s time? We are talking about 700,000 people. Another month, or another few, could make all the difference.

Alcohol Harm

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to be participating in this debate. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for giving us a very thoughtful and comprehensive opening to the debate. I begin also by saying that people have mentioned the effect of being isolated at home because of the coronavirus and that it is worth bearing in mind, as we go through this crisis, that drinking alcohol lowers the body’s immunity.

We have heard a lot today about the damage of alcohol over-consumption. The cost to our families, our communities and ourselves is almost incalculable. It cannot be counted in pounds and pence, although very often we are forced to do that, for practical reasons. Alcohol abuse leads people to lose their homes, families and jobs. There is a cost in hospital admissions, perhaps on numerous occasions, and people may even end up encountering the criminal justice system. Victims of alcohol abuse become economically inactive. They often become absent parents. The damage to mental health and physical and emotional wellbeing is profound.

I remember standing in this Chamber a couple of years ago to speak on alcohol abuse. A number of us involved in that debate were willing to admit that we came from homes with an alcoholic parent. My father was by all accounts an alcoholic, although I never knew him, as he died when I was 15 months old—he was very much helped on his way by alcohol. The damage to my family was not insignificant. My husband’s father was also an alcoholic and died because of the demon drink. These stories are not unusual; in fact, they are far too common. Almost every person we meet has a family member or knows someone who is an alcoholic. That is very sad, but it is a fact of life. However, that does not mean that we cannot turn things around. It does not mean there are not measures that we can take and, in Scotland’s case, have already taken to combat this problem. There is no silver bullet, but much can be done to mitigate the harmful grip that alcohol has on our communities. In the round, a number of measures can be taken.

In Scotland, 686 hospital admissions and 22 deaths every week are due to alcohol. In 2018, the figure for alcohol-specific deaths was 1,136. In 2018-19, there were 35,685 alcohol-related hospital admissions in general acute hospitals. Worryingly, hospital admissions are still more than four times higher than the level seen in the 1980s. Clearly, in Scotland, we could not simply shrug our shoulders and tolerate that. We tried to turn the situation around. I am pleased that the SNP Government chose to use the powers at their disposal to tackle the level of alcohol harm suffered by our communities, at great cost to those communities, on every single measure.

The hon. Member for Congleton pointed out the need for England to have a revised or updated alcohol strategy, and she is correct to say so, as the current one is out of date. Indeed, the Scottish Government updated their own alcohol strategy in 2018.

I could stand here today and talk about the fact that the Scottish Government have invested almost £800 million to tackle alcohol harm and drug use since 2008 and will allocate a further £95 million next year to reduce the harms caused by alcohol and drugs. I could mention—indeed, I have already alluded to—the Scottish Government’s alcohol framework setting out 20 actions that build on existing measures to change Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I could even mention the legislation introduced by the Scottish Government to ban irresponsible alcohol promotions, such as the multi-buy discounts in supermarkets.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I am worried about time, so I will press on, if that is okay.

That legislation was associated with a 2.6% reduction in consumption in the 12-month period following its introduction from October 2011. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) might be interested to know that in 2014 Scotland reduced the legal alcohol limit for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg in every 100 ml of blood. That reduction has not been made in the rest of the UK, which, apart from Scotland, currently has the joint highest levels in Europe that are permitted for driving. I could mention a whole range of measures—

[Patricia Gibson]

Okay. I will give way briefly.

[Jim Shannon]

I compliment the hon. Lady and particularly the Scottish Parliament on what they are doing. The hon. Lady has outlined a blueprint for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should all take note of it and let it be our blueprint for Northern Ireland, Wales and England.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I will go on to say, there is no room for complacency in any part of the United Kingdom. There are things that work that every part of the United Kingdom should implement, and the UK should continue to review them to see how the measures can be improved.

All the measures that have been taken, on their own merits and collectively, represent real action and commitment to dealing with the scourge of alcohol on our communities. Many of them were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who has significant insight into the issue from his role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government. There has been broad agreement today that minimum unit pricing for alcohol is the single most significant action that can be taken to tackle alcohol harm, as we have seen in Scotland, but it is not a silver bullet. Nothing is, and nothing ever will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian reminded us, it is part of a package of measures and must be seen in that context. I urge the Minister to emulate that measure in England in order to benefit the communities that many Members in this Chamber represent.

When it comes to the strongest drinks on the market, in England we can buy cider for 18p, lager for 23p, vodka for 36p and wine for 38p—I am talking about units, not bottles. Minimum unit pricing was introduced in 2018 in Scotland. Shamefully, the policy was delayed for several years as the alcohol industry dragged it through every court it could find to stop it or delay its implementation for as long as possible. Studies indicated that there would be around 121 fewer deaths a year as a result, and there would be a fall in hospital admissions of just over 2,000 a year by the end of year 20 of the policy.

It gives me no pleasure to say that the initiative sadly met more blocks during its passage through the Scottish Parliament, as opposition parties opposed it purely on the basis that nothing the SNP Government introduced could ever be supported. Although that is the usual response to any SNP policy in the Scottish Parliament, eventually the Tories abandoned their absurd opposition. Labour, however, simply could not bring itself to do so because it was an SNP initiative. The Labour party argued and argued against it and grew more ridiculous with every word. In the end, unable to support it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it would be a key weapon in the battle against alcohol harm, Labour contented itself with abstaining on the issue. I know that many Labour MPs from other parts of the UK looked on at their Labour colleagues with bewilderment at what was going on—not for the first time, and probably not for the last. Willingness to put narrow party politics before public health is one of several reasons why the Labour party in Scotland is completely adrift. Some issues go far beyond party political lines.

The evaluation of the first year of alcohol minimum pricing has been very promising. As the first country in the world to introduce such a measure, we saw off-trade sales per adult in Scotland fall by 3.6% in the first year after implementation. In the same period in England, there was a rise of 3.2%. There was an 18.6% fall in off-trade cider sales per adult in Scotland in the year following minimum pricing, and an 8.2% rise in sales in England and Wales. There is still more to do, and there can be absolutely no complacency.

A 50p per unit price provides a proportionate response to tackle higher-risk alcohol use. We know there is a proven link between consumption and harm, and that minimum unit pricing is the most effective and efficient way to tackle the cheap, high-strength alcohol that causes so much harm. Going back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, the World Health Organisation said that tobacco education was not, and could not be, as effective as regulation and Government action. We need to remember that when we seek to tackle alcohol harm.

People in Scotland still buy 9% more alcohol per head than those in England and Wales, but that gap is closing because of growing sales of alcohol in England and Wales last year. A 50p minimum unit price is no longer sufficient, because after it was brought in in 2012, the implementation of the policy was delayed by court action for years after the 50p level was set. It is time to explore raising that unit price to 60p, because it has to be set at a level where it is effective; it is not there for some kind of virtue signalling. A 60p minimum unit price seems reasonable to me.

I urge the Minister to carefully examine the action that has been taken in Scotland to tackle alcohol harm. It is a basic economic fact that if the price goes up, consumption goes down, and if the price goes down, consumption goes up; it is not rocket science. There are no silver bullets for tackling this issue, but there is some good practice in Scotland. Scotland, as well as England, has to build on what we already know and what we are already doing. I urge the Minister to emulate this practice for the good of the families and the communities who live with this scourge every day, and who need action.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

This is the kind of wilful, fingers-in-ears attitude that we have come to expect. Not everybody in Scotland who voted SNP is yet persuaded of the argument for independence, but what they do want is the right to choose.

We know that the Minister will trot out well-worn phrases and lily-livered lines about the SNP not winning more than 50% of the popular vote in the election in 2019. However, he must consider that the first-past-the-post voting system that he supports is the one in which we are working. Further, the SNP in Scotland has won the council elections in 2016, the Holyrood election in 2016, the general election in 2017, the European elections in 2019 and the general election in 2019. Each of those five elections was contested on one proposition by the Tories: “Vote Tory to stop indyref2”. The Tories in Scotland never mentioned any policies or discussed any other issues. They simply said, “Vote Tory to stop indyref2”. And yet, still they could not get close to beating the SNP in these elections.

For anyone to deny the democratic right of Scotland to have a say over her own future path, or to try to shift the goalposts on what winning an election actually means or looks like, is deluded. Doing an impersonation of King Canute trying to hold back the tide simply shows the desperation and arrogance of this Government, who think that if they can just ignore the pesky Scots for long enough, they will just give up. We will not give up. We in Scotland have a right. We have a right which we claim in no uncertain terms, to choose our own future, and we will not be denied.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her hard work on behalf of her constituents and recognise how much it means for her to come back to this House. Does she accept that while many people have voted for her because of who she is and her hard work, and for her party colleagues here as well, many of those who voted Scot Nats—or a certain proportion, anyway—do not accept the case for independence?

[Patricia Gibson]

What I accept is that the people who voted for the Scottish National party want to have the debate and want to have the choice, and that matters. It is our job to persuade them over the line.

Women Human Rights Defenders

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for securing this important debate on women’s work to defend human rights globally, and for pointing out, in her well-informed and comprehensive speech, the importance of the path set by the suffragettes in the UK to secure votes for women.

In the spirit of celebrating human rights defenders, as this debate seeks to do, I want to pay tribute to the fact that across the world, as we have heard, ordinary women commit acts of great self-sacrifice in the face of persistent abuse, threats to personal safety, persecution and violence, simply for standing up for what is right. All of us who believe in human rights, certainly in all western democracies, have a duty to stand shoulder to shoulder with those women and do all we can to support them. All states that believe in freedom should use every diplomatic means and avenue at their disposal to secure human rights for all—no ifs, no buts.

We should support all women who stand up for human rights in countries where women are seen as mere chattels—the legal property of their closest male relatives—such as in Saudi Arabia. Women all around the world are denied their basic human rights simply because they are women. We need to talk about that and learn more about it. I learned much from listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) about the situation in West Papua.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to the appalling situation in Saudi Arabia. So-called wrongdoing in such regimes, such as women’s campaigning to be permitted to learn to drive, is sufficient to put one’s life in danger. We who believe in freedom must have the courage to stand up to those regimes and to support women, instead of turning a blind eye. We talk much in the west about the contribution of women in western societies, but we betray the women living under misogynistic regimes—such regimes are misogynistic, as the hon. Member for Leeds North Wests pointed out—where women have much lower status than men. We betray those women by staying silent about their plight.

We all welcome the recent decision of the Saudi regime to allow women to drive. According to some folk in Saudi, the lifting of the ban is controversial since they believe that it will lead to women becoming promiscuous. But we need to remember what we heard from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green: in the month before the ban was lifted last year, more than a dozen female activists who had campaigned for the right to drive were rounded up and put in jail. At least nine of them remain in prison. The families of the activists say that they have been tortured and put in solitary confinement for long periods. No formal charges have been brought against the women, only a series of allegations of their having been involved in a foreign plot against the Government.

It has been pointed out to me—and to many of us, I am sure—that we should have a care for cultural sensitivities. I am sure that we are all in favour of being mindful of cultural sensitivities, but we must not be complicit with our silence about a regime that believes that women are not equal to men in any sense. They are not allowed to go out unless they are accompanied by their male owners, and they can be cruelly treated and imprisoned for having the temerity to hope to be seen as individuals in their own right, rather than the possession of a man. We must not be silent about that in the name of cultural sensitivities. When we are silent in the face of others being repressed, we become a friend of the oppressor, or perhaps even a useful idiot for the oppressor if we continue relations with that state as though it were not a tyrannical regime. That simply will not do.

There is deep concern about reports of the torture and ill treatment of detained women’s rights defenders in Saudi Arabia. They have been imprisoned since mid-2018 solely for peacefully campaigning for the protection and promotion of human rights, including women’s rights. Some were detained incommunicado, with no access to their families or lawyers during the first three months of their detention, and were subjected to chilling smear campaigns by state media. They all remain without access to legal representation.

Recent reports have emerged that some of the detained women activists have been subjected to electric shocks, flogging, sexual threats and other forms of torture. Testimonies recount that the abuse has left some of the women unable to walk or stand properly, with uncontrolled shaking and marks on their bodies. At least one of them has attempted suicide on several occasions. Those women have long been advocating for Saudi women’s right to drive, have called for an end to the discriminatory male guardianship system and have peacefully campaigned for greater respect for human rights. For that, they risk being tried and sentenced before the specialised criminal court, the country’s counter-terrorism court.

In 2016 the United Nations Committee Against Torture, in its second periodic report on Saudi Arabia, expressed concern at the application of terrorism legislation through the specialised criminal court, which enables the criminalisation of acts of peaceful expression considered as “endangering national unity” or

“undermining the reputation or position of the State”.

Those regulations have been used to try human rights defenders for exercising their fundamental rights. They violate international standards for the right to a fair trial and have enabled the authorities to detain individuals without providing them with access to legal representation during the investigation phase.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women further recommended in March 2018 that the Saudi state should facilitate women’s access to justice and institutionalise legal aid that is accessible, sustainable and responsive to the needs of women. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable that Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Council. As such, it is obligated to uphold the highest standards for the promotion and protection of human rights, and to co-operate fully with the Council’s mechanisms. However, the Saudi Government have been largely unco-operative with the Council and continue to exhibit a flagrant disregard for fundamental freedoms.

My concern is that the international community seeks to stay on good terms with this rich and powerful regime at any cost, and the Saudi Prince knows that. Where is the motivation for Saudi Arabia to care about international opinion? I urge the Minister and the UK Government to lead attempts to bring pressure to bear on the Saudi Government to persuade them that their action is simply incompatible with civilised, modern codes of behaviour. Halting UK arms sales to a country that deals in terror, killing and oppression would be a good start. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), that would immediately benefit the people of Yemen.

It is worth noting that the Saudi Government require visiting reporters to be accompanied by a Government minder. That really says it all. I want to challenge the UK Minister to urge the UK Government to lead support for all women human rights defenders in the international community, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central pointed out, our constituents really care about these matters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for being late—my plane was delayed and I ran the whole way here, so I am still catching my breath. Women have been at the forefront of the defence of human rights for many years, such as Maud Kells from Northern Ireland, who has spent 50 years providing maternity care for Congolese women, even after she was shot by a bandit while in the missionary hospital she helped to found. Women like her deserve recognition and the utmost respect. That is what this debate is all about: giving women the recognition that they rightly deserve.

Post Office Network

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to speak in this debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing it. We all understand the value and importance of having post offices in our communities. More than 2 million small businesses—62%—use them at least once a month. In rural areas, they are vital; 36% of rural businesses use post offices weekly. One in four of all businesses are registered in rural areas and contribute well over £200 billion to our economy. Citizens Advice has been clear that eight in 10 small businesses in remote rural areas will lose money if local post offices close.

We all remember around 2008 when post offices were gradually being run down under the Labour Government of the day and when the services our local post offices could provide were wrested away from them, paving the way for mass closures. Long before I was elected in 2015, in 2008, I remember going round the doors in my constituency asking people to sign a petition to save their local post offices. I and other party activists did that in Skelmorlie, Glengarnock and Kilwinning. Naively, we thought we could make a difference. It turned out the Post Office’s so-called consultations were not much more than a sham. To make it worse, our then local Labour MP voted on five separate occasions under the Blair Government to close post offices across the UK and then immediately afterwards put out press releases to the local papers lamenting the closure of our local post offices. Sometimes it is not hard to see why people become cynical about politics.

Some post offices are now being closed by stealth. By that, I mean that postmasters are either retiring or shutting up shop because it has become so difficult to make a living out of the business, important though that business is for our communities. Postmasters in my constituency tell me that they were earning minimum wage. We know from recent announcements that as of October 2019—although I do not know why it is taking so long—our sub-postmasters will receive better remuneration from the Post Office for the key services that they provide for the public. The question is whether that improved payment is enough for the long-term sustainability of the service, and we will have to reserve judgment on that.

Postmasters tell us that they hand count thousands of pounds daily. That money is accepted, checked, double-checked, bagged, remmed out and sent away, for much less money than the banks charge their customers. The gap is large, which means that either banks or the post office are making a lot of money on the back of postmasters. That does not seem fair to me.

Our postmasters are taking on a greater role in our communities as banks abandon our towns. Post offices are an important amenity in our communities and offer a lifeline on everything from pensions to benefits and, increasingly, day-to-day banking services. In so many towns, our post offices are the last place where face-to-face services are still available.

We all understand how important it is that banks properly remunerate postmasters for the services they provide to major banks, which turn over huge profits, and I am pleased that there will be a near-threefold increase on current rates. However, some postmasters in my constituency say this simply does not go far enough, which causes me a lot of concern. Indeed, we are all keen to see if the details of this offer are sufficient to protect our postmasters and, importantly, the network’s sustainability as a whole. I have been lobbying the Government and the Post Office chief executive about this for two years, so I am delighted that we have at last made some progress, but the devil will be in the detail.

I have spoken out about the threat to our post office network in four different debates since I was first elected in 2015—we seem to have them once a year. It is an issue that I campaigned on with Scottish National party activists in my community long before I was elected, and I will continue to do so until our postmasters get the fair deal that they deserve. Our post offices are too important to be left to flounder at the mercy of banks that are apparently too big to fail, and of successive UK Governments who have consistently failed to recognise the importance of post offices to our communities.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to put on record what a very good campaign the Scottish National party and others have run on behalf of the banks that are closing, and the importance of post offices in filling that gap. Over time, their campaign has outlined and highlighted the issue of banks closing at a fast rate, which means that the importance of post offices is increasing. It is so important.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation and very much welcome it.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

I will just finish the quotation from the rapporteur. He continued:

“The impact of the changes to pensionable age is such as to severely penalize those who happen to be on the cusp of retirement and who had well-founded expectations of entering the next phase of their lives, rather than being plunged back into a workforce for which many of them were ill-prepared and to which they could not reasonably have been expected to adjust with no notice.”

I would be keen to hear the Minister’s response to the rapporteur’s words. If he wishes to intervene to rebut them, I would be delighted to give way, but in the absence of his seeking to intervene, I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The next best thing!

[Mr Cunningham]

I do not know about that. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate. We have had many such debates, but the Government do not seem to get the message. From the start of the recession until now, women have carried the burden of the recession. In tax adjustments, the Government saved something like £14 billion at the expense of women. The amount the Government are saving through not doing the right thing by these women probably runs into billions. A fraction of those billions could take care of the problem.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I am glad that the Minister has given us that clarification. As he says, I would be more comfortable with a broadbrush approach encompassing lots and lots of factors, such as I those I set out in my speech. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said, and I will certainly give it some thought.

[Jim Shannon]

I thought the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was going to go before me, but he has not bobbed, so he is obviously not going to. I always follow in his footsteps—I am always glad to do so, by the way, as he knows—but on this occasion I miss his comments, which I am sure would be more than helpful to us.

We are all very aware of the reason for these amendments. It is tremendous to be in the Chamber among many Members from across the House who are of the same opinion, including—he will forgive me if I say this, but I have to say it—perhaps a wee bit belatedly, the Minister, who is also committed to where we are on this.

If she does not mind my saying so, I would like to commend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her principled stand, her courage and what she has done to make this happen. The commitment she has shown does my heart good and does the heart of everybody else good. By the way, I am not surprised that she said 3,000 people had contacted her afterwards. I did not have 3,000 people contact me afterwards, but I had a large number and, for the record, every one of them commended the hon. Lady for her obvious commitment. The reason for the amendment is simple: the need for a massive lowering of stakes is clear.

I also thank my good friend, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for all her endeavours through the all-party group on FOBTs, which has done tremendous work. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) have also endeavoured, through the APPG, to ensure all that hard work came to fruition.

The one thing that sits in my mind is this: why was it important to have those six months slip back from October to April? It is very simple: as has been said, 300 lives—maybe more—were saved. That is a fact.

I am mindful that last week we had the Gambling with Lives event, which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) referred to. I thank him for initiating that event. I was very glad to be there with other Members and to support him. There were two people there who I knew long before the start of this FOBT campaign, which began about 18 months or two years ago. They are Mr and Mrs Peter Keogh from Enniskillen, who lost their son, Lewis, to a gambling addiction and who even today feel the heartache of that event.

It is for those people that we do these things. It is for our constituents whose lives will be saved because of it, and for those who have lost loved ones and feel the great pain of the loss of someone close to them, that today we can collectively make this legislative change in this House. That is why we make the effort.

The Government accept that they need to lower the stakes; they accept that damage has been done to individuals and families; they accept the fact that the ability to bet as much as £100 every 20 seconds on electronic casino games such as roulette is shocking; and they accept the campaign by anti-gambling campaigners that highlights the fact that machines let people lose money too quickly, leading to addiction and social, mental and financial problems.

The Minister responded to the previous speaker, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), about things we must address, including online gambling and how it is promoted on TV. At this early stage, I would also like to put down a marker about scratchcards. I was just telling a story to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). One day, I saw a lady with two children in a shop. She probably did not have £5 to spare. She was ahead of me in the queue and she put down £5. I was not being nosy, but her wallet probably only had two fivers in it, yet she spent £5 on scratchcards. She went outside to rub the numbers off them and by the time I went outside I saw that not one of the cards was successful.

I thought to myself, “How very sad.” That lady was probably looking at her financial needs for that week being provided by the turn of a scratchcard, which did not deliver. Other things need to be done, but I look forward to the things that the Minister referred to in his intervention on the hon. Lady.

Those arguments had all been accepted, but rather than looking at the human cost it appears that the Government wished to shore up the finances and allow thousands more people to gamble everything away. The situation is like cancer research finding a cure to cancer and the NHS saying, “Well, we have all the chemotherapy, which needs to be used, so we won’t pay for the life-saving drugs until stocks are down. We can’t afford to do this.” That is horrific. I say to the Minister, with respect, that the more I see of this Government's ability to put blinkers on and look only at one aspect—the pounds and the pence—rather than at the entire argument about the need to lower stakes, the more disheartened I become.

The Salvation Army, which deals with the problems that gambling brings to the community, has said:

“It is well acknowledged that FOBTs have caused concern across the political and social spectrum. FOBTs have been labelled the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling. One gambler told us that he spent £2,000 a day on FOBTs at bookies without being challenged.”

Taxi and Private Hire Licensing

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. Like the speakers before me, I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for initiating this debate.

As we have heard, taxis are now an integral part of our lives, providing jobs and opportunities to people across the UK and enhancing transport links to our local and rural communities. The report by the task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licences, which we are focusing on today, urges the UK Government to overhaul the regulatory regime for the taxi and private hire vehicle sector and has recommended minimum standards for drivers, vehicles and operators in taxi and private hire vehicle licensing.

There have been calls for the UK Government to convene a panel of regulators, passenger safety groups and operator representatives to determine what those minimum safety standards should be. It has been suggested that licensing authorities should be able to set additional, higher standards in safety and all other aspects, depending on the requirements of particular local areas, as the hon. Member for Cambridge and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) pointed out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on bringing this debate to the House for consideration. The lines between a hackney carriage, a black taxi and a private hire vehicle have become blurred; there are those who know how to play those blurry lines to their benefit and those who have paid the price, through fines and even the loss of their licence. Does the hon. Lady agree that this report gives the opportunity for regulation, and that that regulation should be across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the blurring of the boundaries. I will go on to talk about this in a wee bit more detail, so I will simply say for now that taxi licensing is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are pretty slight but pretty important divergences across the UK that deal with the kind of issues that he has raised.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s research on taxi and private hire vehicle drivers revealed that only 46 out of 316 local authorities were able to provide it with detailed information about drivers’ criminal histories on request. Indeed, the research went on to reveal a significant number of licensed drivers with serious criminal convictions. The fact is that the “fit and proper person” test that is used for anyone applying to drive a taxi or private hire car is pretty ambiguous, and means that some local authorities are granting and renewing licences that perhaps we would not want them to.

The Local Government Association in England is creating a voluntary register, as we heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge. That, of course, is an interesting idea, but if it is voluntary, inevitably its impact in bringing about the changes that many of us would like to see will be limited. We know that the advent of smartphone apps is already having a significant impact on the way taxis and private hire cars operate, which is challenging existing businesses and regulatory models all the time. We have heard a lot about that today.

We need all and any taxi or private hire companies to comply with the existing licensing requirements set out in legislation and to ensure that all vehicles and drivers are properly licensed. We heard much about that from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). We also need to pay attention to unfair working practices and ensure that those working in the so-called gig economy have fair, protected and decent working conditions. If work must be flexible, it should still be fair; the two are not mutually exclusive. Workers should have appropriate rights and protections, including sick pay and holiday pay. It was disappointing that the Taylor review did not quite match up to many people’s hopes in tackling the real issues facing workers in insecure employment.

As I said earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of course taxi licensing is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The licensing systems across the UK are similar, but there are important differences. One of the major differences, something that campaigners have flagged up and that has been made much of today, is cross-border hiring of private hire vehicles.

In Scotland, private hire vehicles are required to return to their licensing area to accept a booking after travelling outside that area. A private hire vehicle driver in, for example, Glasgow can accept a fare in Glasgow that takes them out of the city, but they cannot pick someone up outside the city. They must return to Glasgow to pick up another fare. I see no reason why the Minister cannot give serious consideration to the regulatory system in England.

There remains the problem of drivers illegally picking up off the streets without prior booking, which often overlaps with cross-border hiring. These so-called pirate cabbies have an impact on the livelihoods of other taxis and private hire cab drivers who follow the rules. They can also potentially put the public at risk, and I would wager that these pirate cabbies are causing problems across the entire United Kingdom—even in Scotland, where cross-border hiring is illegal.

Most particularly, I suggest it is likely to be a problem in big cities such as Glasgow, Belfast, London and Cambridge on the busiest nights of the week, especially Fridays and Saturdays. Clearly, more enforcement would help. The practice is a breach of cab licensing restrictions and invalidates car insurance. I know that in Scotland illegal taxi touting, where the illegal pick-up is often charged way over the odds for their journey, is an issue that Police Scotland are particularly interested in.

There is also the contentious issue of over-provision, about which we have heard much today. In Scotland, until fairly recently local councillors had no power to limit the number of private hires on the streets, but new legislation allows the licensing authority to refuse to grant an application for a private hire licence on the very grounds of over-provision of private hire cars in the area in which the driver plans to operate. Any assessment of over-provision must of course look at current provision, as well as the use of and demand for the service of both taxis and private hires, to ensure that demand can be fulfilled and there is fairness to all in the industry.

Local flexibility is important. It is also important that there should be a minimum number of wheelchair accessible vehicles, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out. We have heard calls for CCTV licensing in cabs, but that is more controversial, because as well as cost considerations there are concerns about intrusion.

As the way we live our lives and access our leisure pursuits is increasingly reliant on technology, and as public transport can be challenging for some of our communities at certain times of the evening, taxi and private hire licensing also becomes more challenging. Our priority must be to keep the public safe, as well as to create a fair and reasonable environment for those who make their living providing this important service. Today we have heard some of those concerns and a little bit about some of the divergences and the different direction we have taken in Scotland. The concerns raised are important and require our attention; I am keen to hear what the Minister intends to do to answer them, whether he has had a look at how things operate in Scotland and whether any of those measures are perhaps things he would wish to adopt.

Banking in North Ayrshire

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real source of the anger: people’s sense of abandonment and being left to their own devices with no other facilities on which to rely, despite the fact that the bank exists because the taxpayer made sure that it did.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and thank her for giving us a chance to participate in a small way. Given that banking is increasingly moving online, it is hard for urban and rural communities that are geographically isolated from physical banks if they are also limited by the provision of broadband services. Does the hon. Lady feel that that issue should be clearly considered before any proposed bank closures take place?

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which go to the heart of the issue of financial inclusion, social exclusion and digital exclusion. These things have to be worked out together in some kind of organised fashion.

At one point in its history, RBS championed vowing not to close the last bank in town, but now it is twisting itself into all sorts of shapes to dissociate itself from that promise. I suppose the PR men for RBS found the appeal of that vow attractive, but now it seems that RBS is embarrassed by it and is no longer holding to it. We have heard a little tonight about banking online. We hear about this a lot, and I accept, as we all do, that many people now choose to bank online. There is no dispute about that. If it suits the lifestyle and needs of those who choose to bank online, good luck to them, but many do not bank online, for a variety of reasons. As the hon. Gentleman said, many choose not to do so because they are digitally excluded; this is a choice that they are not able to make.

Mobile Phone Contracts

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. As I was saying before the Division bell sounded, the fact is that most providers do not tell the customer how much of their monthly bill goes towards the mobile handset and how much is paying for their calls and data. Citizens Advice has discovered that three of the four largest mobile providers continue to charge customers for a handset after the cost of the handset has already been paid during the term of the fixed deal. That means that loyal customers who choose to stay on the same phone plan after their fixed deal ends see no reduction in their bills. They continue to pay, unwittingly, for a handset for which they have already paid.

Who is most likely to be caught up in this so-called loyalty trap? Those aged over 65 are most likely to be stung, with 23% of over 65s with a handset-inclusive mobile phone contract staying in their contract for more than 12 months past the end of their fixed deal period, compared with only 13% of people aged under 65. Worse still, if someone does not switch they cannot tell how much their handset is costing them, and whether they are getting a good deal or not. Indeed, the total cost of a handset as part of a bundled contract can vary considerably, even among plans offered by the same provider. In some cases, the price difference can be as much as £400. Of the 706 bundled contracts analysed by Citizens Advice, 74% were more expensive than buying the same handset up front and using it with a SIM-only contract, which is quite astonishing.

Three, one of the largest mobile phone providers, has been in touch with me. That company recognises that the way the market is currently organised means that mobile bills lack transparency and are difficult for consumers to comprehend, which in turn leads to them paying more than they should—that is, more than they need to—for their mobile phones.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate on an issue that affects my constituency and all others. Does she agree that the thirst for the latest phones means that many people buy themselves out of a contract at a massive financial cost, and that we—or perhaps the Minister—should look at whether the way in which the industry works out the buy-out clause for contracts can be made fairer, and not to the advantage of the mobile companies?

[Patricia Gibson]

There is, indeed, a range of issues with mobile phone contracts. The real concern is when a consumer is paying for something for which they have already paid, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that mobile contracts need to be seriously looked at.

For consumers, the way to get transparency is to separate out costs so that they can see clearly what they are paying for. In any other industry, that would not be controversial. Some people have pointed out that regulations are an obstacle in the way of separating out those costs because they would require the mobile phone companies to become regulated creditors under the Financial Conduct Authority. Some argue that that would be bureaucratic, burdensome and complex for the mobile phone companies, as they would have to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, that need not be the case, since there is a well-established precedent, of which I am sure the Minister is aware; exemptions from full regulation under the Consumer Credit Act are given to appropriate sectors, especially for loans with an annual percentage rate of zero.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 created an exemption from the Consumer Credit Act regulations for providers of 0% APR loans of up to four months. That was raised to 12 months—the current limit in 2015—through a statutory instrument, to allow insurance companies to offer monthly payments for annual plans. Perhaps the Minister will consider raising that limit further to 24 months, to allow mobile phone operators to offer separate mobile handset financing. That would make bills more transparent for consumers, since handset and service contracts would then be separated. Given that it would be prohibitively expensive to ask consumers to pay off their handsets in 12 months, raising the current 12-month limit to a 24-month exemption in the Consumer Credit Act would offer a way forward. It has been done successfully in countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other countries, so there is no reason why it could not be done here.

O2 has told me that it is the only operator to separate the cost of mobile phones from the airtime on consumer bills and that when a consumer has paid off his or her mobile phone, all charges for it are stopped. That leads me to wonder why one such company can manage such transparency in its billing but others do not seem able to. I am sure the Minister is wondering that as well.

We must make it as easy as possible for those companies who engage in this blatant, unfair and unjust overcharging of customers to stop doing so and remove all the so-called obstacles and hiding places. In no other industry would such blatant ripping-off of the customer be tolerated; it should not be tolerated in the mobile phone industry either. Indeed, it undermines consumer confidence and trust in the entire industry, which is unfair to those players in the industry who play fair by the consumer.

Too many consumers in too many sectors endure a “loyalty penalty” and mobile phone charges are symptomatic of a wider problem. Indeed, in the wider telecoms market, people experience a persistent and ingrained level of detriment. We should be grateful for the sterling work of Citizens Advice, who I pay tribute to today, as its research has uncovered the fact that people experience 27 million problems with their mobile, broadband or TV services per year and those problems cost people £4.2 billion a year in wasted time and money. It is simply not good enough.

As the Minister will be aware, we currently have very powerful voices in the telecoms industry, with no independent voice speaking up for consumers. The telecoms industry has vast resources to expend on lobbying the regulator. It is time for the consumer’s voice to be heard.

The Minister will also be very aware that in their 2017 manifesto, the UK Government made a commitment to make telecoms billing fairer and easier to understand for consumers, including clarifying when the cost of a mobile handset has been paid off by the customer. That is not difficult to do. It can be done by statutory instrument, as I have said.

In a letter of 17 November to me on this issue, the former Minister of State for Digital told me that he hopes

“that providers will now take the initiative by clearly separating the cost of handset and tariff in mobile contracts”.

In Ofcom’s response to me of 8 November, it said that it wanted to help people to

“shop around and secure the right deals”.

But unless costs are separated out and mobile operators are forced down that path, consumers cannot and will not know what deals are the best value for money. We cannot rely on the goodwill of the mobile phone operators, because that has not worked. Action is needed and I have offered a way forward, which I urge the Minister to adopt.

The responses from the former Minister for Digital and Ofcom, although well-meaning, do not go far enough. In fact, the responses give me cause for concern—I am a bit alarmed—because they both, in their different ways, suggest that the mobile phone companies can decide if and when they take action on this matter. I would argue that the Government and the regulator must act urgently to protect consumers from being ripped off. When someone unwittingly pays for the same product twice, make no mistake: that person is being ripped off.

With inflation running high, as it has done for a number of years, and with a continuing squeeze on living standards, it is only right and proper that consumers are treated fairly and are able to see more easily what they are paying for, so that they can properly compare prices. I urge the Minister to set out a clear timetable to implement what she and her Government have publicly said they believe. That can be done very soon, very cleanly and very quickly, by statutory instrument. It is needed so that there can be no excuse or hiding place for mobile companies that continue to charge mobile phone customers for something that they have already paid for. It is time to redress the imbalance between the powerful voice of industry and the weak and too-often ignored voice of the consumer. It really is time to act.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I seek a lesser number in the shops, and fewer shops as well. We agree on many things, but we do not agree on this topic. The opinion that I express will win: ComRes did a survey of MPs seeking their opinion, and of the MPs who responded, seven out of 10 want FOBTs regulated. They want a reduction in the number of machines and shops. It was quite clear. If a private Member’s Bill is brought before the House—some in this Chamber are of a mind to do that—we can tackle the problem.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the maximum stake to £2, which is opposed by betting shops, would be a good way forward?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that; it is one of my concluding points. I know that other Members are of the same opinion. Yes, the maximum stake should be lowered; then we could manage the issue, so that people are not deprived.

The regulation of FOBTs is out of kilter, as I have said. The only material restriction is the four machines per shop. We have seen an increase nationally in the number of betting shops in town centres, and last year the Government stepped in and imposed a £50 staking threshold on fixed odds betting terminals, above which players are required to identify themselves to staff or sign up for a loyalty card. The objective of this measure is to help players stay in control. I suggest that that has not happened. The measure is non-evidence-based and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport failed to quantify what impact it would have on players other than the £17 million reduction—1%—in bookmaker revenue from the machines. Secondary research based on the British gambling prevalence survey 2010 estimates that up to 40% of B2 revenue comes from at-risk and pathologically addicted players—higher than all other combined gambling activities—so the Government predicted very little impact. There is also evidence that bookmakers are using the player registration as a mechanism to market FOBTs further.

An evaluation of the DCMS assessment of the £50 measure so far, carried out by Landman Economics, highlighted issues with the quality of the data provided by the bookmakers; it also noted that DCMS could not assess changes in staking, mentioned the absence of a pilot scheme so that the measure could be evaluated better, and noted that the evaluation omitted key questions that it is important to consider when looking at the success or failure of the £50 regulations. For example, the question why fixed odds betting terminal machine players might wish to remain anonymous is not discussed. Despite the Government measure, players are still able to stake up to £100 per spin, and it appears that bookmakers are using the change as an opportunity to further market products to vulnerable gamblers. Even £50 is still materially out of kilter in the normal gambling world.

Nuisance Calls

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Jim Shannon

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have secured a debate on this important issue following my early-day motion 223 entitled “Calling time on nuisance calls”, which was launched at the end of June and attracted support from Members from across the House. I am also pleased that so many Members are staying for this debate so late in the evening. That is an indication, if any were needed, that this issue affects constituents in every part of the United Kingdom.

Very soon after the election, a number of constituents raised this matter with me in exasperation and despair at the fact that they were unable to find peace and quiet in their own homes because of the constant torrent of nuisance calls at all hours of the day and evening. These calls fall into three types: live marketing calls; recorded marketing calls; and abandoned, silent calls. They ask: do you want a conservatory? Would you like to save money on your gas, electricity, broadband, credit card and so on? Have you had an accident in the past X years? Have you claimed payment protection insurance money to which you are entitled? Would you like to take out a convenient loan? The list goes on and on.

We know that such calls are not just a nuisance—they are much more than that. They cause real distress, anxiety and upset, particularly to the elderly and the vulnerable, who simply cannot ignore their ringing phone because it is often the single most important means of friends and family keeping in touch with them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This subject clearly transcends issues of party or region. In my constituency, there have been a number of these phone calls in the past few months to the vulnerable, the elderly, the young and the educationally disadvantaged—those four categories of people have been taken advantage of. Not only are they receiving nuisance calls, but they are losing money. Does the hon. Lady feel that legislation needs to be put in place to ensure that they are not losing money to these scams, which are occurring across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was going to discuss the fact that we know that the way in which our data are used and passed on leaves the consumer without any real control. Studies have shown that there is evidence to suggest that certain groups in society are deliberately targeted.

Research undertaken by Which? tells us that eight out of 10 people said that cold calls were an annoying feature of their daily lives, with a worrying one third admitting that they found such calls intimidating and 56%—more than half—saying that they were discouraged from answering their phones. Make no mistake, the scale of this problem is huge and the effect on the lives of many of our constituents demands our attention.