Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 18th May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

Again we are debating the huge and growing threat of plastic pollution in our oceans. According to Recycle Track Systems:

“There is an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste currently in our oceans, with a further 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the marine environment every single year. This constant flow of plastic production is simply too much for existing waste management and recycling infrastructure.”

Plastic makes up 85% of all marine pollution, and unless we reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce, it is simply impossible to meaningfully tackle this shocking and dangerous situation.

Fishing equipment makes up a huge quantity of marine plastic waste—currently 20%—and, at current rates, will be enough to coat the entire planet in just 65 years. Plastic pollution harms animal health disproportionately and impacts on the ecosystems of developing countries. It is estimated that across the UK, 5 million tonnes of plastic are used every year, around half of which is packaging and half of which is not successfully recycled, with only around 9% of global plastics recycled each year. Plastic waste often does not decompose and can last for centuries in landfill or end up as litter in the natural environment, which in turn pollutes soils, rivers and oceans, and harms the creatures that inhabit them.

We know that the scale of this problem is huge. It is a daunting and global challenge, but we can mitigate our throwaway culture, and the best way to reduce the amount of plastic entering our oceans is to reduce plastic waste.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The plastic polluting our oceans can largely be attributed to single-use takeaway items. However, such products are often relied on for food hygiene purposes. Does the hon. Member agree that we must work to establish a valid alternative to single-use takeaway items that meets food hygiene standards?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes. The hon. Lady tempts me, because I will say more about that in a moment.

Recycle Track Systems says:

“There are numerous initiatives to curb ocean plastic pollution at any one time, including everything from grassroots beach clean-ups to international agreements. One of the recent changes is the United Nations Environment Assembly’s agreement in March 2022 to develop a legally binding treaty to bring plastic pollution to an end. It will still be years in the making but is a considerable step forward according to many. What’s more, many organizations, such as Ocean Conservancy, are now calling for more dramatic changes to stop ocean plastic pollution, such as the reduction in production and consumption as well as outright bans on single-use plastics”—

as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned— “Many are calling for a shift to a zero-waste circular economy as the only solution to a plastic problem that we can’t recycle away.”

The Scottish Government aim to make Scotland a zero-waste society with a circular economy. They have a target of recycling 70% of waste by 2025, exceeding even EU targets, and they are matching the EU target for plastic packaging to be economically recyclable or reusable by 2030. The Scottish Government are also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s new plastics economy global commitment, which will ban specified items of single-use plastics in EU member states. They have signed up to the agreement, even though there is no compulsion for Scotland to do so, as it is no longer a member of the EU, sadly. I hope the UK Government will follow the example of Scotland and the EU in that regard.

Scotland’s deposit return scheme works on the basis of the polluter pays, a principle that incentivises recycling, reduces litter and tackles climate change by reducing the amount of plastic going to landfill or ending up in our oceans. The scheme has been delayed because the First Minister is very keen to work with business to get this right. It is in all our interests, even if it is sometimes tempting to make cheap political points about this issue. The reality is that it is a fine and noble principle, and we should all work to make sure that it can do what it says on the tin. We all need to think about how we use, reuse and dispose of our plastic, because that is the problem that oceans face today.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but the point is that we cannot all move at the speed of the slowest caravan. We have to be bold and ambitious in what we seek our deposit returns scheme to achieve. What she proposes would be a better way forward, but the UK Government are slower and less ambitious. That is a pity, but we cannot be held back by that.

The scale of the plastic pollution in our oceans is catastrophic, and it is deeply damaging and deadly to marine life and habitats. It is difficult to know how many marine animals are killed each year due to plastic pollution. Many will go completely unrecorded. That said, some estimate that over 1 million animals, including many sea turtles, die each year due to plastic pollution in the ocean. The majority of animals that die are seabirds. Mammals are often more visible in the media and the public imagination, but they actually count for only around 100,000 deaths. That is still a huge number, but it does not tell the whole story. Those are just the marine animals that die as a result of plastic debris in the ocean. The toll would be much higher if other polluting factors, such as emissions from plastic production, were taken into account.

On a different tack, animals carry microplastics in their bodies, so when those animals are eaten those microplastics are also ingested. The process is called trophic transfer of microplastics. Since one animal eats another, microplastics can move through the food chain, ultimately reaching the human food chain. Some scientists have estimated that the average person might eat 5 grams of microplastics in a week, which is about the weight of a credit card. Another study breaks that down to being up to 52,000 particles annually from various food sources. According to the UN, there are over 50 trillion microplastics in the ocean, more than the number of stars in the Milky Way—that is astonishing. Due to the sheer quantity of microplastics in the ocean, it is difficult to find any marine animal without plastic particles in its gut or tissue. It is poisoning their food supply.

Whether or not microplastics impact human health is a relatively new field of study, but what we know so far is troubling, according to experts. Plastics and microplastics contain many harmful additives and tend to collect additional contaminants from their surroundings. Microplastic ingestion has been correlated with irritable bowel syndrome, while plastic-associated chemicals, such as bisphenol A, show correlations with chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. We are talking about serious contamination. Action on plastic waste in our oceans requires us to reflect very carefully on the price we pay for plastic pollution—and the price our oceans pay.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Traces of microplastics have even been found in the placentas of pregnant women and in human blood. The risks of microplastics for human health cannot be ignored any longer. Does the hon. Member agree that we must end the plastic pollution of our water for our own health, as well as for the environment?

[Patricia Gibson]

It is the case that we are polluting our oceans, poisoning our marine life and, ultimately, poisoning ourselves. I do not think that is too stark a way of putting it. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct.

I am pleased we have had this debate, but the international community needs to take co-ordinated and serious action for marine and human health. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what the UK Government will do, and what international efforts she believes can be made, led by the UK, in this regard. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate, because it is important that we keep a spotlight on the issue.

Support for Women in Poverty

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this debate forward; he is something of a legendary season ticket holder for Westminster Hall.

The ongoing cost of living crisis has no end in sight and is wreaking terrible damage on household incomes, families and even relationships across the United Kingdom. Particularly shameful is in-work poverty, when people are going out to work day in, day out and still cannot meet all the financial demands that they face.

We know that women are more likely to be living in poverty. They are more likely to be in lower-paid jobs, more likely than their male counterparts to be single parents, more likely to have caring responsibilities and even more likely to rely on social security. We also know that women are much more impacted by austerity measures, as they are more likely to rely to a greater degree on public services, which themselves are already under great pressure.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that families with younger children and lone-parent families, which are predominantly headed by women, face a disproportionate risk of poverty. Having younger children impacts on a parent’s ability to undertake paid work, the hours they can work and their pay, although it is important to say at this juncture that raising a child or children is work—something that often goes unrecognised.

Of course, women being able to undertake paid work when they have young children must be an option open to everyone who chooses to take it. Childcare has an important role to play here. Scotland is leading the way in childcare provision across the UK, although there is still more to do: there is no room for complacency. Scotland provides up to 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare a year—about 30 hours a week for three or four-year-olds, with some two-year-olds also eligible. In England, three and four-year-olds can access only around 570 free hours a year, which is about 15 hours a week.

We had a lot of fanfare around childcare in the recent Budget, but it does not really amount to much because it will be at least 18 months before it can happen and it was not accompanied by any detailed plan about increasing staff levels or infrastructure. Some people have said, quite cynically, that the reason for the announcement was less about substance than about what can be put on an election leaflet, which would be really sad if it were true.

The gender pay gap is another aspect that we need to think about when we are talking about women in poverty. It stands at around 15%, which widens dramatically when women have children. One way to close the gender pay gap—I know the Minister will be listening to this—is to mandate employers to report on the issue. It is, if you like Mr Sharma, effectively naming and shaming, putting the onus on employers to explain the gender pay gap in their organisations.

I am once again going to make a plea to the Minister to deliver a real living wage for workers, instead of the wee pretendy national living wage. It is both misnamed and misleading, since it is not based on the cost of living.

In addition to helping to support women in poverty, the UK Government must recognise that the policy of making single payments of universal credit to households can increase inequality in the welfare system and act as an enabler of domestic abuse or financial coercion. The Scottish Government continue to work with the UK Government to deliver split payments. I know that split payments are available in certain cases, but we really must ensure that we keep pushing so that it becomes the norm, so that we can protect more women financially.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Economic abuse is a term that has only begun to creep into our vocabulary in recent years, and it is different from financial abuse because it is a restriction of access to resources alongside money, and disproportionately impacts women. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a great deal of work to be done to raise awareness of that problem, particularly for women who may be victims but do not realise?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. Abuse becomes the norm for too many women if they have suffered it over many years, regardless of what form that abuse may take. So, yes, we really need to raise awareness. I think that automatic split payments for universal credit, unless otherwise specifically requested, is one of the ways that we could help to protect women from financial control.

I also ask the Minister to study closely the Scottish Government’s Scottish child payment, which is now delivering £25 per week, per child, for those on the lowest incomes. It is projected that it will lift 50,000 children out of poverty in 2023-24. It has been hailed as “a game changer” by anti-poverty charities, backed up, as it is, with £442 million of funding from the Scottish Government in the next financial year. While the Scottish Government are doing all they can to support household incomes—despite an increase in the block grant of a miserly 0.6%—they do so with one hand tied behind their backs, shackled, as they are, to this broken system.

Of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there is also the gender pension gap. In old age, women are likely to be poorer than their male counterparts. Of course, that is easy to understand, because women are more likely to have had breaks in their working lives to raise children or undertake caring responsibilities, more likely to have been on low pay in their working lives, and more likely to have undertaken part-time work. As a result, women will suffer greater poverty in old age, living longer and suffering more years of poor health.

Age UK has shown that one in five women pensioners were living in poverty. Indeed, research shows that women, on average, would have to work an additional 16 years to retire with the same pension as men. Many of us have campaigned on the issue of the gender pension gap and are still waiting for the UK Government to expand auto-enrolment by removing the earnings threshold, a fairly simple step that would have an impact on women’s pensions.

We cannot talk about women in poverty without acknowledging the great injustice inflicted on women born in the 1950s, who were robbed of their pensions and had their retirement plans thrown into chaos when the retirement age was raised with little or no notice, depriving them of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful pensions. I pay tribute to the dogged determination of the WASPI women to campaign against the injustice they have suffered. As a result of that injustice, many have been thrown into poverty after a lifetime of low pay. Many have faced financial ruin, and, worse, many have died due to ill health without ever receiving their rightful pension.

While we are debating women in poverty, it has to be said that there is a widespread view that the way in which those women have been cruelly treated would never have happened to men. The truth is that those women were seen as an easy target for a Government wishing to cut spending, which is shameful. The fact that a whole generation of women had their retirement age increased with little or no notice is beyond shocking. Alongside that came poverty, indignity and hardship, which those women will not easily forgive. It would never have happened to a whole generation of men.

There are a number of things that this Government could do, and I urge the Minister to work with the WASPI women to work out how they can be compensated when the ruling on the matter is made. There are a number of things that the Government could do to support women in poverty. They could do more, but they are not. The UK Government control 85% of welfare spending, so I urge the Minister to use her office to ensure that the powers that lie with the UK Government are used judiciously to support women living in poverty. I have set out some of the ways the Minister might consider doing that; I hope that she takes note.

Cash Acceptance

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his excellent exposition of the challenges that we face. This e-petition debate calling for the legal right to use cash payments in shops and requiring all businesses and public services to accept cash payments is very important. Since I was first elected, repeated concerns have been expressed about the decline of our cash infrastructure and the need to preserve it. I have spoken in every single debate on this matter, along with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), yet here we are again. It feels like we are banging our heads against a wall as we face, with increasing urgency, the existential crisis facing our cash infrastructure.

The arguments are well rehearsed, and have been again today. There is no denying that, as a result of changes wrought by the covid pandemic, the future of cash is even more uncertain. Many of us in this Chamber and beyond fear that its demise has been accelerated. Ultimately, this is a debate about inclusion—financial inclusion—and consumer choice. The situation becomes ever more urgent with every debate that we have on this issue and with each passing day. I wish to pay tribute to and commend the Scottish Affairs Committee for its report, which is a most informative and constructive contribution to the wider debate.

From the outset, it is important to underline the fact that the right to use cash, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys said, cannot be separated from free access to cash. There is no point in legally ensuring the right to use cash if there is no reasonable access to cash. It is important to remember that, in Scotland, this debate takes place in the context of bank closures. This matters, because without access to cash it is simply not possible to use cash. That cannot be said too often. Fifty three per cent of Scotland’s bank branches have closed. In my constituency, the situation is nothing less than appalling. Kilbirnie has no bank. Beith has no bank. Dalry has no bank. West Kilbride has no bank. Kilwinning has no bank. Stevenston has no bank. Ardrossan has no bank. Indeed, in the whole of my constituency only Saltcoats, Largs and Isle of Arran have a bank branch. If we are to protect the cash infrastructure, we need a two-pronged approach: protecting access to cash and protecting the legal right to use cash.

Overall, Scotland has suffered the highest percentage loss of bank branches among all the nations in the UK. It is against that backdrop that any debate about access to cash and the use of cash must take place. Alongside this, we see our post offices under threat, as postmasters struggle to make even the minimum wage. In all the towns in my constituency, the post offices—those towns have no banks—play a vital role in supporting our cash infrastructure, because the banks have washed their hands of the matter. Yet, as an example, the town centre in Kilwinning has now lost its post office. Although Post Office Ltd is working hard to find a sub-postmaster to take on the franchise, it is proving very challenging because it is so hard to turn a profit or even make minimum wage for the franchisee. Of course, it is true to say that the last Labour Government closed down a whole slew of post offices, including many in my constituency, and stripped others of the services that they were able to deliver. All this has been exacerbated by the winding down of the energy support on which post offices currently rely.

Of course, it would help if the banks paid postmasters properly for the work they do on the banks’ behalf as they abandon our towns. Banks must value postmasters, who are picking up the pieces left behind by doing the banks’ work for them and for insufficient remuneration. The situation is simply unacceptable and has placed an unsustainable burden on postmasters, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that specific matter.

As if all this was not enough, we see a worrying decline in cash machines, especially free-to-use cash machines, in communities across Scotland. This is especially so in rural areas, as we have heard. The Centre for Social Justice recently found that 38% of people on low incomes report having faced cash machine charges, compared with 17% of all consumers. That is what you call a poverty premium: the exploitative practice of placing a disproportionate number of pay-to-use cash machines in our most socioeconomically challenged communities.

Access to cash is vital if we are to demand, as we should and do, that there be a legal right to use cash, and there must be a requirement that all businesses and public services should accept cash. As we have heard, the vast majority of us use cash often and when it is convenient to do so. Indeed, for many rural dwellers, there may be little choice due to digital challenges, which may be exacerbated by the weather, as we have seen in recent weeks, as well as by technical glitches, which can strike without warning at any time. For the most vulnerable customers, there must be the option to access and use cash if that is what they require and is most convenient for them.

The Financial Conduct Authority has found that over 1 million adults in the UK do not have a bank account. There are also many who struggle to manage budgets electronically, and others who simply prefer to manage their daily transactions in cash, such as older people and those on a budget. They would face financial exclusion if our cash infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate further. We know that many consumers were unable to buy what they needed during covid, and that 38% were turned away when trying to buy food from shops using cash. What happens to those who have no alternative to cash payments? Are they to be abandoned? What happened to the customer being king?

Anyone who has ever faced any level of financial difficulty knows that, when this is the case, banks cancel credit cards and advice centres giving debt advice advise clients to cut their cards in half. They do that to help people control their spending and manage their budget better, because we know that using plastic can often lead to losing track and overspending.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Research has shown that carrying cash can help people with gambling issues to budget, avoid debt and better control their habits. By contrast, it is harder for people to retain control and keep track of their spending while using debit cards. Does the hon. Lady agree that the UK Government must ensure that cash remains a viable payment method to safeguard against the risks of gambling harm?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes, and we expect gambling companies to step up and take greater responsibility for the harm that gambling outlets can cause. Of course, we know that there are more ways to gamble on high streets in socioeconomically deprived communities than in better-off communities, which is another scandal that we really should debate another day.

People actually handling cash and seeing in real time what money they are spending is critical to helping them budget—even more so when budgets are under so much pressure and are so much more precarious during this cost of living crisis, when everything costs more each time we go to the supermarket.

There is, of course, another side to this. Electronic payments incur a cost for firms, especially those making many small transactions. The UK Government should seek to address that to help to support our overall cash infrastructure. It is not right that businesses should have to pay those fees. While the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which grants new powers to the Financial Conduct Authority over the UK’s largest banks and building societies to ensure that cash withdrawal and deposit facilities are available in communities across the country, were welcome, as many people have said in this debate, we need more detail. We need to know how that will work in practice. Again, I am hoping that the Minister will tell us more about that when he responds.

However, it is and has been clear for a long, long time—it was made even clearer as we tried to get back to normal after the pandemic—for a range of reasons that have been well rehearsed today and previously that consumers want and need the choice to pay for goods and services in cash. Consumers must not be forced down a cashless road which they do not want or are simply unable to go down. The Government should uphold that right and protect our cash infrastructure for all the sound reasons debated today. They should enshrine that right in legislation, which is becoming increasingly necessary.

Fundamental to all this is protecting free access to cash in all our communities. Financial inclusion matters, and the Government have a moral duty to uphold that in principle as well as in practice.

Bee-killing Pesticides

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to participate in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for comprehensively setting out the issue before us—the use of bee-killing pesticides in our agriculture.

The issue matters very much to my constituents, and I know it matters to constituents across the UK, because we all receive large amounts of correspondence about it. The reason for that concern is that bees play a crucial part in our ecosystem; we must do all we can to protect them from the detrimental impacts of environmental alterations and climate change.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature list shows that as many as 24% of Europe’s bumble bee species are now threatened with extinction, despite being worth a staggering £690 million per year to the UK economy. Bees are vital to our agriculture. One out of every three mouthfuls of food we eat exists because of pollination. Bees pollinate an array of crops, including apples, peas, courgettes, pumpkins, tomatoes, strawberries and raspberries. If we lose bees and other pollinators, growing many types of food would be extremely challenging. Our diets would suffer tremendously. The variety of food available would diminish and the cost of certain products would surge. Many argue that pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our very survival.

Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 species of bee, and a further 35 are considered to be under threat of extinction, not least because of toxic pesticides, which we are talking about today, and climate change. No species of bee is protected by law. The contribution of honey bees to nature and food products is significant. As we have heard from a number of Members, up to three quarters of crop species are pollinated by bees and other pollinators, so bees are the ultimate symbol of a healthy environment in terms of our climate, our food security and our natural world. Bees could not be a more important factor in those areas.

When we look at what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England, this is again a tale of two Governments. The Scottish Government launched its “Pollinator Strategy for Scotland 2017-2027” to make Scotland a more pollinator-friendly and sustainable place by protecting indigenous bee and butterfly populations. The strategy sets out how to make Scotland a place where pollinators can thrive and how those objectives can be achieved. Importantly, it raises public awareness about the value of Scotland’s pollinating insects and the regulation of non-native species.

While that is going on, we have a UK Government who, as we have heard today, have no real sense of urgency about this important matter. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out that the UK Government have retained the pesticide, along with other neonicotinoids, banned in the EU in 2013, using the EU temporary emergency exemption. Measures in the EU to protect pollinators, including bees, are in place, but the UK opted out of them. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is no longer in his place, about the impact of glyphosate and the need to address that issue.

For the third year in a row, the Government have authorised the continued use of thiamethoxam—I hope I pronounced that properly. The European Court has ruled against its emergency use, because it is known to be lethal to bees, wasps and other pollinators. It poses a danger not just to wild bee colonies, but to humans, as it is linked to a wide range of health challenges.

It was not so long ago that the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), declared:

“We cannot afford to put our pollinator populations at risk”—

yet here we are. Members have reminded us that one teaspoon of pesticide is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. The sensible way forward, in the face of the facts that we have heard today, is surely a total ban on bee-killing pesticides.

Many people, including SNP Members, encouraged the UK Government to make the Environment Act 2021 stronger by following Scotland’s example in areas such as air pollution, outlawing harmful pesticides and independent oversight of environmental protection, but sadly, that was to no avail. The reality is that legal requirements set out in the Act to halt species decline by 2030 will be as written on water if the UK Government do not step up and protect England’s natural environment and preserve its biodiversity. This matters very much in Scotland, even though it is a matter for the UK Government, because bees do not recognise borders, so bees across the rest of the UK are potentially harmed by what is going on.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will just finish this point. It is important that the Government prioritise the environment and protect farmers in international deals, because improving trade is one thing, but our natural environment must not be jeopardised by poisonous chemicals that result in the death of invaluable pollinators. There must be no regression on environmental standards and protections. I urge the Minister to follow the direction and example of both the Scottish Government and the EU in banning pesticides and protecting pollinators. During the Brexit debate, many of us warned of a divergence in standards between the UK and the EU over time, leading to—as everybody feared—the lowering of standards in the UK over a range of areas. We were told that that would not happen, that it was nonsense and that the UK would be liberated to make even greater progress, but today we see our fears about protecting bees coming true.

[Margaret Ferrier]

As the hon. Member mentioned, we have some good initiatives in Scotland for bee protection, such as the Cambuslang apiary project in my constituency. Does she agree that the project does incredible conservation work for bee pollination and populations?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. Local initiatives like that must be applauded and supported, but we need a lead from the UK Government on the level of pesticides and pesticide use, so that we can support the very important work that bees do on our behalf, which many of us probably take for granted.

That brings me beautifully to my next point because, although many of us might take the work that bees do for granted, we have to remember the impact that they have on our crop production. We do not want to find ourselves in future in the same position as some fruit farmers in China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and the lack of natural habitats. That has forced farmers to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots and paintbrushes to individually pollinate every flower. It is simply not possible to hand-pollinate every crop that we want, but it shows the kind of nightmare scenario that we could end up in, and the impact that that would have on the food that we eat and on our survival.

This issue becomes more pressing with every passing day, as our bee numbers continue to diminish. I hope, when the Minister gets to his feet, that he will agree that it is indeed time for his Government to get busy and start saving bees, and to ban noenicitinoid pesticides before it is too late. As he has heard today, his Government need to follow the signs and remember bees and the Government’s environment improvement plan. Let me end by saying: the Government need to get themselves into a hive of activity and save our bees.

Skills and Labour Shortages

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

[Patricia Gibson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome you to your place, Ms Harris. I am delighted to participate in this important debate, which arises from the e-petition relating to requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving cats. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate with a comprehensive overview of the situation. I also pay tribute to charities such as Cats Protection, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which do so much to promote the wellbeing of animals and have provided us with some important briefings for the debate. I should declare that today I am using my Cats Protection pen, which I received at the charity’s event just before Christmas.

Everyone appreciates the importance of family pets, and we can all appreciate the distress and trauma when a family pet goes missing. Thankfully, many cats who wander off on their adventures soon return home safely when they are hungry enough. However, there are cat owners whose cats wander off and never see them again; sadly, on occasion, that is due to the cat being knocked down by a car and left on a roadside, or staggering away from the scene of an accident only to die before it can reach home. Owners are left distressed, often with no information, and, sadly, as those who have pets will understand, they feel as though a beloved family member has simply vanished. Those who own pets—as I once did; I owned the much-missed Kitty sand Misty, and hope to own cats again at some point—benefit from them in so many ways. That is why they are loved as members of our families. They provide huge comfort and health benefits, and also go a long way to combating loneliness; I speak as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

This petition is not party political, as has been shown by the consensus in this Chamber. It is about doing the right thing—a simple thing that will do so much for cat owners. It calls for cats to be accorded the same legal recognition as dogs, and for the same obligations to apply to collisions involving cats as to those involving dogs, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires drivers to stop and report accidents involving a cat. It is not in any way a controversial request for our feline friends to be accorded parity in law with dogs when it comes to road collisions. We last debated the issue in 2019, and I honestly cannot understand why we are still debating it.

We all understand that for such a change in the law to really work, we would need joined-up thinking. We need to get to the compulsory microchipping of cats, so that their owners can be informed if they are involved in an accident. Compulsory microchipping of cats has not yet happened, but I remind the Minister—I am sure that I do not need to, but I will—that the Tory manifesto in 2019 committed to

“bring forward cat microchipping, giving cat owners peace of mind”.

That is a Tory policy that I and everybody else in this Chamber can support—and it is not often that the Minister will hear that! However, there has been no movement on that commitment, and that needs to change.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Government’s stance has been that there is no need to legislate and create a requirement for local authorities to scan cats for microchips, because the majority already do so as best practice. Does she share my concern that that leaves policies at local authority level too open to change, for example where budgetary restrictions mean there are fewer staff available to perform the task?

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes. Many local authorities currently work very hard to screen cats for microchips, where possible; I will talk about that in more detail later. Local councils are under pressure, but it is important that there is leadership and support from a central Government level in both Scotland and across the UK. I will talk a wee bit later about how Cats Protection provides very important support in that regard.

The Scottish Government recommend that all cat owners should microchip their pets, so that they can be reunited with their owners if they are lost or injured, but they have not yet moved towards compulsory microchipping, which is a move I want to see. However, the Scottish Government are willing to examine and reflect on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs call for evidence and the recent public consultation on the matter. I am confident that we will get to a place where cat microchipping will be a compulsory element of cat ownership, just as it is with dog ownership. Like many others, I am keen to reach that point as soon as possible, because the responsibility of owning a cat and the responsibility towards cat owners ought not to be different from the rights and benefits currently accorded to dogs and their owners.

In the UK Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was published in May 2021, the commitment to cat microchipping was repeated. The plan said:

“We will introduce compulsory cat microchipping to ensure lost or stolen cats can be reunited with their owners as quickly as possible.”

But we are still in the dark as to what is happening with the implementation of that plan, just as we are—incidentally—with the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which ought to legislate on very important aspects of animal welfare; undoubtedly, we will debate that Bill again soon. It matters, because it is all part of the same conversation about the small amendment required to the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The vast majority of cats in Scotland—around 70%—are microchipped, which demonstrates that most cat owners understand the benefits of doing so. About 29% are still not microchipped, which amounts to about 227,000 cats with no permanent form of identification; that is a problem.

We have heard from around the Chamber of the heartbreak of cat owners who either do not know what has happened to their cat, or who have to deal with their cat being struck by a car and finding that out—sometimes by accident. The sad reality is that we do not know how many cats are involved in road traffic accidents, because it is a not a legal requirement for a driver to report a collision with a cat, but Petplan believes that about 630 cats are run over every day. That is a huge amount. Some 35% of drivers admit to having hit a cat, and it is believed that between 7 million and 9 million cats are at risk every day of being involved in a road traffic accident, given the free-roaming nature of our feline friends.

If we are seeing an increasing number of cats being microchipped, and seeking to move to a point where all cats are microchipped as soon as possible, it is important that measures are in place so that those microchips can be scanned. I applaud the work of Cats Protection, which has worked with some local authorities to provide scanners to ensure that cats found on roads can be identified. Local authorities are also working hard to ensure that they are able to do this, as revealed by the Cats Protection freedom of information request, but there is still some way to go.

The call for the creation of best practice guidance for local councils will be supported by all responsible cat owners, because it will ensure that all cats found on our roads are scanned for a microchip and have their details logged, and that owners are informed so that—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) said—as heartbreaking as that news can be, they can find out what has become of their beloved pet.

Access to Cash

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for bringing this debate forward. I share her sincere and passionately held views on the issue; I and many other Members have participated in access to cash debates on umpteen occasions. Despite the huge consensus on what we need to do and what the problems are, I do not see much change, but we all agree that we need direct Government intervention to halt the decline of cash and to protect access to cash for our communities. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard): we need to just “get on with it”.

The access to cash Bill will be an important piece of legislation, but we need to see it. Covid has placed our cash infrastructure in an even more precarious situation. We need clear protections for the future of cash payments which, as we have heard, are so important to so many people, including those who simply do not have the option to pay by card and those who simply want to pay by cash for budgeting or other reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) reminded us, more than 5 million people still rely on cash, and that must not be forgotten. Cash transactions are very important for many people, and will remain so for considerable time to come. We have heard as much from every single Member who has spoken today.

Alongside that is the loss of free-to-use ATM cash withdrawals. We know that withdrawals from cash machines dropped significantly at the height of the covid pandemic. My fear, which I know is shared by Members around the Chamber, is that that will feed further closures of free cash machines across our communities. Increasingly, ATMs are charging for access to cash, and I am afraid that the situation is becoming normalised.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I just want to make this point. To help address the situation, we need to make sure that banks pay their fair share so that their customers can get free access to cash. By cutting the interchange fee, banks have saved £120 million, but the financial brunt is being borne by those who live in less affluent communities. That is a disgrace. The more affluent the area in which someone lives, the less likely that they will be required to access their own cash through an ATM. That is unjustifiable by whatever measure we care to use. It is another example of banks expecting others to pay for the so-called service that they want to provide. They do not properly renumerate post offices for taking over basic banking, which they have abandoned in so many of our communities, nor do they properly renumerate the ATM providers.

A pattern is emerging and the banks need to explain themselves. It seems to me that they are simply not fulfilling any social obligation or any duty of care either to those to whom they expect to provide a service or to those that provide that service on their behalf. If the access to cash Bill is to make any real difference, it must hold them to account for their responsibilities.

Of course, it is welcome that the Financial Conduct Authority is to oversee access to cash and provide analysis of what needs to be done where in order to support it. The issue has become more critical because banks have left gaps in our provision. As a result, our sub-postmasters need more financial support. Banks need to stop taking them for granted, given the essential role that they play in our communities, doing the job that banks are no longer interested in doing. It is worth remembering that throughout the pandemic, post offices continued to serve our communities and we relied on them then, as we do now. Many banks closed their doors during the pandemic. So much is expected of our post offices, but sub-postmasters are leaving the service because they are under so much financial pressure. Many are simply shutting up shop, as it is much more challenging to make a living now.

Sadly, post offices have been systematically run down over the years by successive Governments. I remember the 2000s, when the previous Labour Government stripped post offices of many of their functions. Then, in 2008 it was announced that 2,500 small and rural post offices would have to close, with Scotland disproportionately hit with 600 closures, six of which were in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. Since then there have been so many bank closures that seven towns in my constituency—Kilbirnie, Kilwinning, West Kilbride, Stevenston, Ardrossan, Dalry and Beith—have no bank at all.

Now we have an access to cash crisis, with sub-postmasters expected to do so much of the heavy lifting without being properly paid to do so. The threats to our cash infrastructure, with the banks abandoning our towns, with sub-postmasters under intolerable financial pressure, with free access to cash being increasingly difficult to find and with many being increasingly locked out of paying by cash, mean that urgent action is needed if we are to protect our financial infrastructure and ensure that we have a society where financial inclusion matters.

The situation is critical, and the contents of the access to cash Bill will be the crossroads where the Government have a real opportunity to step in to do something to stop the decline. I think we can all agree on what needs to be done, but we need to start with the banks and their responsibility to communities and consumers. I look forward to the Minister’s telling us more today about the meaningful actions he expects the access to cash Bill to provide and when we can get sight of it. The future of our financial infrastructure depends on that Bill, so its content will determine the future of cash.

Real Fur Sales

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Margaret Ferrier

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing it. I recall participating in a debate on this very issue on 4 June 2018—that date is important because it was the same day that Scotland became the first country in the United Kingdom to enact legislation banning the use of wild animals in circuses. The same week, a similar ban was imposed in Slovakia, and yet the UK Government insisted that we could not impose such a ban unilaterally as a member of the EU. Another day, another EU membership myth busted.

The fact is that the farming of animals for fur is not permitted in the UK. As we have heard, the next logical step is to ban the sale of animal fur products. Anything else is sheer hypocrisy—outsourcing our poor fashion choices. The contradiction suggests that although our law recognises the cruelty and barbarism of farming animals for their fur, as long as these animals are not farmed here, we are content for their fur to be imported into the UK. That position is illogical and hypocritical, and we must take the next step of banning the importation of animal fur products. It is quite a simple choice.

The demand for fur products in the UK has been in steady decline for decades, as consumers increasingly find them unethical and unacceptable. The inboxes of the people in this room are testament that our constituents continue to be concerned about this matter. Where consumers lead, businesses will follow.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Many large retailers such as Marks & Spencer and John Lewis are already proactively moving away from fur sales and, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said, public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of a ban on the importation and sale of fur. Would the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) agree that there is no need for a regulated industry and that, instead, an outright ban is the only viable way forward?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is true that shops such as Marks & Spencer, Adidas and H&M have now rejected the fur industry, and designers such as Stella McCartney and Vivienne Westwood have supported calls for Britain to become the first European nation to ban fur sales. Of course, businesses are in the business of making money, and they are following where customers are taking them. It is about time that instead of continually playing catch-up, the UK Government responded to consumers and constituents in the UK. Israel is leading on the issue, and its ban on the sale of fur will come into force by the end of this year. For the UK to do the same would be a very logical next step given that the sale of cat, dog and seal fur is already banned. What are we waiting for?

I hope that the Minister is listening, and that we do not have to come back in another couple of years to repeat the same calls for something so humane, which has both widespread public support and firm cross-party support. Let us just get on and do it. There is no reason to hang about and not get it done.