UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Patricia Gibson

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Removing VAT from Sunscreen Products

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Removing VAT from Sunscreen Products

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 9 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am delighted to participate in the debate and I pay tribute to my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), for her pursuit of this important matter and for her excellent, comprehensive and very powerful opening speech.

    My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), came to Westminster Hall today to speak as a survivor. That gives what they say power and authenticity. When survivors speak, it is incumbent on us all to listen to the lessons they are trying to teach us. Whether we are in government or not, what they say matters and must be listened to in that way.

    It seems odd to most people that suncream is not already classified as an essential healthcare item in the UK and, as such, is not exempt from VAT. After all, we know and have heard today in some detail that suncream plays a vital role in preventing serious health conditions such as skin cancer. In all honesty, I am not aware of anybody who wears suncream for cosmetic purposes; they wear it because the consequences of exposing themselves to the sun without sunscreen are extremely serious and potentially fatal. That is because it provides protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Importantly, it is strictly regulated to ensure that it provides sufficient ultraviolet protection for consumers, so there is no sense or logic in classifying it as a cosmetic product.

    As we have heard, that is recognised in the US, where sunscreen is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, and in Canada, where it is classified as a non-prescription drug, so there is international precedent for reclassifying the product as a healthcare item. The hon. Member for Strangford reminded us of those international examples and precedents for the change that everybody in the Chamber seeks.

    The debate matters, and it is even more important when we consider that skin cancer is now much more common across the UK, where around 16,000 new cases of melanoma are diagnosed each year. Of the 16,000 people who are diagnosed, about 2,300 will die. Cancer Research UK concludes that being sunburnt just once every two years can triple the risk of melanoma, and statistics show that more than one in four skin cancer cases are diagnosed in people under 50. When we consider the cost of treating the growing numbers of people diagnosed with skin cancer, removing VAT from suncream should be considered as important preventive spend. I suspect that the Minister will tell us about the pressure on the public finances and the significant contribution that VAT makes to the public finances, but, like others in the debate, I find it unbelievable that simply removing VAT from sunscreen—that one act on its own—would create insurmountable fiscal challenges for the Treasury. It would make sunscreen more affordable, and that can only be positive when we think about the quest to reduce skin cancer cases and pressure on our NHS.

    Some retailers, such as Tesco, have decided to absorb the cost of VAT on sunscreen, so that at the point of sale the consumer is spared that cost. It is worth noting that when Tesco made that announcement, in May 2021, consumers were outraged to discover that sunscreen was subject to VAT. There is a lesson in that outrage for all of us and for the Government: we are working in a situation in which the public believe one thing when the reality is entirely different. Of course, the public are using logic, which we all want the Government to use. The work that Tesco and other retailers have done is to be applauded, but it is a pity that the Government will not and have not taken the lead on the issue and shown that they understand the importance of making that important health product VAT-free.

    Tesco made the decision to absorb the cost of VAT on its sunscreen products because, after it did some research, it discovered that 57% of adults think sunscreen is too expensive, 29% say that they would wear it daily if it was a little bit cheaper and 31% of parents—this is important in terms of the stats for melanoma—state that they cannot always afford to apply sunscreen to the whole family. That means that this is not really a debate about sunscreen; it is a debate about public health. It is hugely disappointing that the Government are content to leave this important public health concern to the discretion of retailers, who have taken a lead on the issue. It is important that retailers have done so when the Government have not acted, because we know how financially challenged households are at this time.

    I do not want to second-guess what the Minister will say, but I suspect that she will say that high factor sunscreen is available on the NHS on prescription for certain conditions, and therefore is provided VAT-free when dispensed by a pharmacist. That point has been made to me in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire said, that does not really help someone in Scotland; to be honest, it does not really help all the people who do not get it on prescription but who would benefit enormously from using it.

    Removing VAT from sunscreen for everybody will help make the product just a little cheaper during these difficult times. More people would be able to stretch to affording it and would get the protection they need, and it would thereby help to prevent some of the 16,000 diagnoses a year of melanoma. We all urge the Minister to rethink. This is not a debate about the wider principle of VAT—we understand that VAT is levied on certain products. It is about VAT on sunscreen. When I have asked about the issue in the past, I have been told, in great detail, why VAT matters. VAT does matter, but the Treasury is well able to forgo VAT on this particular product, for the sake of public health.

    The levy on this particular product has to end. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire said, that would logically go alongside a public health campaign on the importance of wearing sunscreen. Such measures would ultimately take pressure off our NHS. I urge the Minister to ensure that sunscreen is no longer categorised as a cosmetic item—that is just daft; it is ludicrous. We need to call it what it is. Sunscreen is an important weapon in our armoury for tackling melanoma.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    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.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I echo the appreciation of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for bringing the debate on the state pension age to the Floor of the House today. There is great concern that, according to reports, the UK Government plan to accelerate their current timeline for increasing the state pension age again, raising it to 68 by 2034. That means that those born in the 1970s or later could soon be told that a review of the increase in state pension age will further delay their retirement. If the Minister can tell us that that simply will not happen, we can all just go home and not worry about it, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said. We would all be delighted.

    It is bad enough that the state pension age is due to rise again from 66 to 67 by 2028. It is even worse that the women born in the 1950s had their state pension age increased with little or no notice, a move that has robbed them of tens of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned and expected state pension, throwing many of them into deep poverty and unnecessary hardship. That is all bad enough, but now we face the prospect of the Government planning to bring forward the increase in retirement age from 67 to 68 from 2046 to affect anyone now aged 54 or younger.

    The Minister may say that no final decision has been taken, but how can anyone, having witnessed how women born in the 1950s have been treated, have any real faith that the Government understand how the increase in retirement age would have a disproportionate impact on those who have worked all their lives for poor pay? The UK already has one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and these plans will have an impact on millions of people, many of whom are already struggling financially. Age UK has said that

    “any Government decision to accelerate the rise in Pension Age will condemn millions to a miserable and impoverished run up to retirement—and often beyond too”.

    So many people are already in poor health by the time they reach their state pension and they are already suffering financial hardship.

    As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, probably every one of us has spoken to women born in the 1950s, and when we do they tell us that the biggest UK Government swindle in recent memory was robbing their generation of their rightful state pensions at the age of 60. Many discovered, often by sheer accident, that their anticipated pension would not arrive until years later, as there was equalisation with men. The anger, sense of betrayal and disappointment was only inflamed when UK Government Ministers bizarrely and insensitively insisted that this provided an opportunity for the women affected to train for new careers. Some of them then formed the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which continues to campaign for the injustice against them to be recognised and remedied. They must be given the compensation that is their right and I applaud the work they have done, because those women faced delays of up to six years to access their state pension, one in four of them now struggle to make payments on crucial bills and one third are in debt, with single women the worst affected. So that we can avoid this happening again, will the Minister tell us what impact assessment the UK Government have carried out, or will carry out, on any further proposals to accelerate the rise in the state pension age to 68 by 2034 or, indeed, to accelerate it at all?

    It seems to the people outside this Chamber who are worried about this or who have experienced this, as the WASPI women have, that this Government have developed a taste for robbing people of their hard-earned state pension. The website Interactive Investor calculates that bringing forward to 2034 the increase in someone’s pension age to 68 could mean a lost year of full state pension of almost £17,000 for workers aged 46. Royal London insurance found that more than half of those aged 55 and over are likely to have the state pension as their main income, with 1.5 million of those in pre-state-pension years, and 31 % with no savings at all to fall back on. Many of them are also struggling with caring responsibilities as well as financial ones.

    Pensioners relying on state pension as their main source of income are more likely to have already undergone a working life of low pay, and they are more likely to have health challenges in retirement and a shorter life expectancy. They are also the pensioners who simply cannot afford to retire early, even when health problems occur. Raising the retirement age even further will therefore have a disproportionate effect on poorer older people who will enjoy fewer retirement years.

    A review of the state pension age in 2017 established that people should expect to spend one third of their adult life in retirement. As we know and as has been said, life expectancy in the UK is, at best, stagnating, which seriously undermines the case for raising the state pension age. I am afraid that those considerations will not have an impact on Government thinking and that the very logic they have used in the past for increasing state pension age—rising life expectancy—will not apply. If that is the case, I would remind the Minister that not only have life expectancy rates stalled across the UK, but they have actually fallen for the second year in a row in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that in when determining the state pension age. According to the UK Government’s own argument and the logic they have used so far, the state pension age should perhaps even be falling.

    The UK Government must abandon any further acceleration of the state pension age across the UK. I hope that all parties will oppose that and commit to continuing that opposition beyond the next election. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, if you keep tinkering with, accelerating and rising the state pension age, you create uncertainty and undermine the whole concept of a state pension, perhaps fatally undermining it for future generations.

    Even talk of accelerating the state pension age feels like a grubby smash and grab of people’s hard-earned pensions to try to fill the black hole in the UK’s finances, which is a consequence of 13 years of austerity. That austerity started under Labour’s Gordon Brown and has continued ever since, compounded by the damage of Brexit to which Labour is fully signed up, cynically and disingenuously pretending that there is such a thing as a good Brexit after all. Labour knows that, but it is so desperate to win seats in England, it will say anything. But the public are watching.

    To raise the state pension age further is bad enough. To raise it even faster than originally planned as a cost-cutting measure is unforgivable. People in Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to protect the state pension was to vote no to independence. Here we are nine years later, and the state pension does not support the minimum standard of living. Pensioners have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average, due to the state pension underpayments to around 237,000 older people, and a further 100,000 potential underpayments that have been identified, which will take a year to correct. Let us not forget how easily the Government discarded their manifesto commitment to retain the triple lock, the abandonment of which means that current state pension payments are £520 less than they otherwise would have been.

    We must all learn from the huge injustice perpetrated on WASPI women—I applaud their campaign for justice—but we cannot permit even more people to be robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful state pension as life expectancy stalls or even falls in Scotland. Meanwhile, our Government desperately seek to fill their financial black hole because of their own incompetence, and therefore have decided to pick a fight over pensions. That is an outrage. In the dying days of this Government, as they thrash around seeking to pick the pockets of others to pay for their own economic mismanagement, we must say that enough is enough.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on the International Day of Education

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on the International Day of Education

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 26 January 2023.

    I am very happy to participate in this debate, as an English teacher of 23 years before I was elected to this House. The International Day of Education is an important date in our calendar, and the theme this year is:

    “To invest in people, prioritise education”.

    I pay tribute to the hard work of the teachers in my constituency. I am currently undertaking my annual visit to my local schools, and I am always impressed by our young people’s political engagement, which is both impressive and refreshing. I pay tribute to them and the staff, who work hard to deliver education in my constituency.

    The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 24 January as the International Day of Education in celebration of the role of education in peace and development. I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for securing the debate. Education is a human right, a public good and a public responsibility. The right hon. Lady reminded us that illiteracy across the globe disproportionately affects women and girls, and that educating women and girls provides huge and lasting benefits to their communities and children, and helps to avert child marriage, which is important for the future and prosperity of developing countries.

    I agree with the point the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) made about the FCDO doing international development work of such importance in this and many other fields. We really should be looking to restore the Department for International Development; everybody in this Chamber agrees that the FCDO does important international development work, but that merits a Department for itself.

    The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) reminded us of the huge benefits of educating women and girls and of the vast scale—some might say the daunting scale—of the challenge. It is important that the international community works together to address it, if for no other reason—although there are many reasons—than the risk of violence to women and girls, which goes alongside being deprived of and facing barriers to education.

    It is indisputable that inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong opportunities for all are inextricably linked to a country’s success in achieving gender equality and breaking the cycle of poverty that leaves millions of children, youth and adults behind. Today, 244 million children and youth are out of school, and 771 million adults are illiterate. Their rights to education and so much more are being violated. That is unacceptable.

    UNESCO is dedicating this year’s International Day of Education to girls and women in Afghanistan who have been deprived of their right to education, and is calling for the immediate lifting of the ban restricting access to education. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said that global education commands agreement and support across the House—it is one of the rare occasions when we see that happening. I note her comments that children are being deprived of their education in far too many circumstances, both refugees and in a more general, global sense. The international community must continue to work to change that.

    I want to focus on the situation in Afghanistan, which is alarming and bewildering to many of us looking on in the west. The Taliban regime is denying its daughters, wives and sisters access to any form of schooling whatever. Today marks 493 days since the Taliban banned teenage girls from school, and 32 days since it banned women from going to university and working in national and international non-governmental organisations.

    Currently, there are 2.5 million Afghan girls and young women out of school, 1.2 million of whom were denied access to secondary schools and university places following the regime’s diktat about women in education. Despite international condemnation, the Taliban regime justified that step on the basis that some women had not adhered to its interpretation of Islamic dress code, and that conservative traditions must be protected. It is an interesting conundrum that repressing, diminishing and controlling women in that way is such a priority for the Taliban regime, despite the fact that 28 million Afghans require aid, with some 6 million on the brink of famine—some 93% of Afghans do not have enough food, according to the UN. Winter temperatures are plunging as low as -17°C, and even lower in mountainous areas, so making it a priority to deprive women of their education seems bizarre to anybody looking on.

    Amid all that, Save the Children had no choice but to pause its aid efforts in areas where it could not operate without its female staff, because women are essential to the safe and effective delivery of its services. Can it really be true—I cannot believe that I am asking this question—that the Taliban would rather its people died of starvation than women be seen to undertake useful work to assist Afghan civilians?

    Being a girl or woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban must surely be a frightening, marginalising and desperate experience. In essence, Afghan women are back to being invisible in public life, imprisoned in their home and, where applicable, ordered to cover their ground and first-floor windows so that women inside cannot be seen from the street. Women can have the end of their thumbs cut off for wearing nail varnish. In such a regime, where women are viewed as chattels and the possession of male relatives, of no value as human beings, robbed of their dignity and their identity reduced to the clothes that they must wear, how can we be surprised that such a regime explicitly forbids the education of its women?

    It is heartbreaking to consider that in the 20th century, until the conflicts of the 1970s, Afghanistan was seen as a progressive country. Afghan women were first eligible for the right to vote in 1919, only a year after women in the UK enjoyed that right and a year before women in the US were allowed to vote. As part of that, how women’s rights to education in Afghanistan have been rolled back is remarkable and frightening.

    No society can truly prosper socially, economically or culturally unless there is access to education for all on an equal basis. Until the Taliban in Afghanistan understands that, the international community must continue to stress it and to engage on the issue when possible. I hope that the UK Government will play a leading global role in that international effort. Access to education is such a basic universal human right that denying it to women in Afghanistan or anywhere based on gender is incompatible with all that is right and decent.

    As we commemorate the International Day of Education, it is right and fitting that we dedicate this day in 2023 to girls and women in Afghanistan who have been deprived of their right to education. Only a regime that seeks to control and tyrannise would fail to recognise that access to education for all its people has no downside for that society. We see that depriving Afghan women and girls of education goes hand in hand with the loss of so many other rights.

    I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will seek to show solidarity with Afghan women and seek to restore their access to education. That should be a fundamental red line in all international engagement with the Taliban regime. Without access to education, the lives of Afghan women will be poorer, their children will be poorer, their communities will be poorer, the once great country of Afghanistan will be poorer, the climate will be poorer and the world will be poorer—poorer in ways that are beyond measure. We must stand up for Afghan women and girls and for the access to education that they need and deserve, with all the opportunities and fulfilment that go alongside securing that education. That applies to women and girls not just in Afghanistan, but across the world.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Commercial Breeding for Laboratories

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Commercial Breeding for Laboratories

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 16 January 2023.

    Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Efford, and I am delighted once again to lead for my party in this debate on calls to ban commercial breeding for laboratories and to implement reform to approve non-animal methodologies. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening it so comprehensively.

    Like many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, I am one of the majority of people who believe that we need to act on what is widely accepted as the unethical, cruel, immoral, counter-productive and damaging use of animals in experiments, as has been explained by Members from across the Chamber. We have, of course, debated the subject before, most recently, I think, in October 2021. We have debated it many times, but it keeps coming back to us via the Petitions Committee, because it simply will not go away. The huge number of people who repeatedly sign petitions about the matter ensures that it will keep coming back for debate unless and until common sense prevails—until science prevails, as inevitably it must. However, we need that to happen as soon as possible for a whole range of reasons, many of which we have heard about today.

    Before I go any further, I must thank all the organisations that have provided such excellent briefings for today’s debate, such as the Betsy, Beagle Ambassador For Life On Earth campaign; the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or FRAME; the RSPCA; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA; and a whole range of other organisations that have campaigned on this issue for decades.

    Animal experiments fail in the search for human treatment and cures. Penicillin stayed on the shelf for over a decade because the tests done on rabbits by that great Scot, Alexander Fleming, led him to believe that it would be ineffective in humans. There is a mountain of evidence to show that failure and that is why we need a rigorous public scientific hearing to demonstrate it. Anyone who wishes to argue the opposite, without any confidence or credibility, should relish the opportunity to demonstrate their views in the forum of a public scientific hearing.

    We know that some Members of this House and some on the Government Benches would argue in support of the status quo, yet in the repeated debates that we have on the issue they never seem to turn out to defend that position, except for the Minister, of course, who has little choice in the matter. We have MPs in this House who believe that the current situation is the correct one. If that is genuinely a held view, it should be able to be defended. If it cannot be defended, these things ought not to be happening.

    While we wait and push for change, the opportunities for the treatment of and search for cures of terrible diseases such as cancer are, according to the USA’s National Cancer Institute, being lost, because studies in rodents have been believed. Far from assisting and advancing the treatment of and cures for terrible human diseases, which is what we all want to see, the use of animals in experiments is actively frustrating that end.

    The problem with the petition calling for the NAMs specialist committee is that the fear is that it would be able to act in only an advisory capacity, whereas a public scientific hearing would require animal researchers to prove their claims about the efficacy of the use of animals in animal testing. A rigorous scientific hearing would show that the arguments being made for animal testing simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

    Reducing licences and the range of animals on which tests can be carried out is all very well and good, and they are important steps, but we need to be much more stringent. The best way forward—the only way forward—is a robust public scientific hearing to secure the overhaul of the industry that so many of us want to see. Of course, such an overhaul is challenging, because we know that interests have grown up around it that, which defend it even in the face of evidence that it is not really the best way forward. It is certainly not the best way forward for treating diseases or, indeed, for animals.

    It is widely reported by experts that 90% of new medicines fail to pass human trials because animals cannot predict human responses. The former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal has indicated that it is almost impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk in human subjects and, if that continues to be the case, endorsement and funding of pre-clinical animal research seems, at the very least, misplaced. That chimes with the conclusions of Dr Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), that we have cured mice of cancer for decades, but it simply does not work in humans. In the world of science and in the pharmaceutical industry it is openly acknowledged that animal models on drug development simply do not work.

    We should have cause for optimism, however, because on 4 January the Prime Minister delivered a speech. In that speech, he set out his priorities for 2023 and declared that he wants to

    “make this country a beacon of science”.

    The UK of course comprises four nations, so I will generously assume that he meant to say “the UK” and not “this country”. Putting that aside, I look forward to his Government making good on that commitment, following the science on the issue, taking note of and acting on the significant body of science that tells us that animal experiments are not helpful and, worse, can even be obstructive as we seek to treat and cure a whole range of human diseases.

    It is worth recalling the remarks of Dr Lindsay Marshall, the UK’s biomedical science adviser for the Humane Society International, who said:

    “The UK cannot expect to have world-leading science innovation whilst we rely on failing animal-based research methods that are rooted in the past.”

    She said that,

    “animal models are really bad at telling us what will happen in a human body”

    and are sometimes “dangerously misleading”. That is despite the UK Government response to the petition indicating:

    “The UK’s strengths in research and innovation put it at the forefront of global science. The Government is committed to supporting this science base”.

    If we are following the science, there should not be a problem after we have a robust scientific public hearing.

    There was much excitement among campaigners recently when President Biden signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the mandatory requirement that US-based animal tests are used in human drug development. That is a hugely significant step forwards, but animal data can still be used if those who are developing drugs choose to use them. There is no way round the fact that a public scientific hearing would be enormously helpful and useful as a global reference point for drug development.

    The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act’s three Rs— replacement, reduction and refinement—established in 1959 for humane experimental techniques on animals, are a concept developed decades ago to benefit individual experimental design, not to address the need to understand and develop treatments for many human diseases. The three Rs policy, as we have heard from hon. Members, is not fit for the purpose of advancing scientific progress through a shift to innovation without using animals.

    A significant body of scientific thought believes there is urgent and pressing need to modernise UK research to keep pace with advancements. Far from the Prime Minister talking about being a world leader, we need to modernise for that to be the case. That requires redirecting resources from unreliable experiments on animals and shifting to a focus more fully on superior, non-animal methods that will benefit humans, animals and the world of science. Otherwise, both animals and patients who are waiting for treatments for terrible diseases will continue to be failed by outdated methods. Could anybody argue that this picture is compatible with the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming a “beacon of science”?

    This Government have accepted that animals are sentient beings, and that principle is enshrined in law. However, it is a source of deep frustration, disappointment, concern and even anger that that recognition of sentience does not appear to extend to animals in laboratories, which are subject to painful, cruel and distressing procedures that are not necessary, and following which the vast majority are killed. The recognition of sentience must be extended to all animals through the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, so they can be protected by the unnecessary suffering clause.

    We are often told that the experiments to which animals are subjected are not crucial to the development of any new human medicines. On the contrary, those experiments are failing the search for human treatments and cures, as is shown by unequivocal evidence and is widely reported in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We have heard today that the regulatory requirement that animals be used in tests before proceeding to human trials was first established in 1946 in the Nuremberg code. Since then, science has advanced by 77 years, so why are we still using outdated laws to govern human medical research practice? Where else has that happened—that there has been no change in 77 years? It is nonsensical and indefensible.

    Our EU partners are moving away from animal experiments. We need a rigorous, public, scientific and transparent hearing, so that we can have a full scientific debate on the reasons for banning animal experiments, where those who disagree can present their evidence for doing so in a transparent and public forum. As I keep asking, why would those who defend the current position shy away from that level of transparency? If those of us who wish to see an end to animal experiments are correct in our views and beliefs and in the evidence that is presented, that will accelerate the arrival of human treatments and cures, while also freeing animals from the cruel and unnecessary fate that awaits them in laboratories.

    I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet, she will have taken full cognisance of the very powerful and reasoned arguments made across the Chamber today, and will respond by telling us how her Government have every intention of moving away from the use of animal experiments, as our EU neighbours are doing. I hope that she and her Government will mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing on this matter, which will show transparently and beyond doubt that lab animal models are not capable of predicting the response of human patients, as well as the need to ensure that all creatures are recognised as sentient beings in the Animal Welfare and Animal Welfare (Sentience) Acts. That is what the vast majority of the population across the UK wants to happen, and it is long past time that this Government acted.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Snares

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Snares

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall on 9 January 2023.

    I am pleased to participate in this e-petition debate requesting that the UK Government prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, putting them in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his excellent opening speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

    I applaud the League Against Cruel Sports, Animal Aid and Cats Protection for all the work they do to promote the welfare of animals. They provided such excellent briefings for this debate, as did the House of Commons Library. As we have heard, the matters raised are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I understand the concerns and the depth of feeling. As we saw in the previous debate on cats, animal welfare is very close to the hearts of all our constituents across the UK. Again, it is no surprise that such a petition attracted over 102,000 signatures.

    Snares are used to catch foxes or rabbits. However, as we have heard, they cannot distinguish between different species of animals, so the consequences of their use are indiscriminate. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has reported that almost 30% of rabbit snare operators have caught a cat, causing horrible injuries. Cats often die long and painful deaths if they are not rescued or able to escape.

    We have heard much about so-called humane snares today, but they still cause terrible problems, injuries and suffering for animals that become trapped or entangled. They make frantic attempts to escape, which is the natural reaction of any living creature. Of course it is going to make frantic attempts to escape when it feels trapped, and it suffers real mental and behavioural stress. The trapped creature fears predation and capture due to its restraint, and it ends up suffering from thirst, hunger, exposure and even infections arising from painful injuries caused by this so-called humane snare—something that I do not think many of us will put much weight on.

    In rural settings, sadly, sometimes it is considered necessary to enable land managers to control certain species to protect livestock, crops and wild birds. However, it is also true that the lawful use of traps can sometimes result in unintended harm to wildlife, and there are undoubtedly occasions when traps are not deployed or used in a way that complies with current regulations. That was made clear in the independent grouse moor management group report, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government and published towards the end of 2019.

    Following the SnareWatch annual report in 2021, the Scottish Government commissioned an additional review that will look beyond the terms of the Wildlife and the Countryside Act 1981 to consider a potential ban on snaring. Both land management and animal welfare aspects will be under consideration because that is important, as the hon. Member for Don Valley outlined. Many people have been calling for that position for some time. In the meantime, Scotland has the most robust laws on snaring in the UK, including requirements for registration and training. However, there is no denying that creatures continue to suffer terribly and unnecessarily, despite any well-intended measures to mitigate this cruel and barbaric practice.

    The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, as well as recommending a ban on the sale and use of glue traps, concluded that any traps that do not “instantly kill” or render a creature “irreversibly unconscious” are likely to inflict unnecessary suffering. Therefore, the use of snares must give cause for significant concerns for animal welfare. That is why the Scottish Government are reviewing snare laws: the inflicting of unnecessary suffering on any creature is simply unacceptable. I believe it is possible to ban snaring while working constructively with land managers, which is what we all want to see.

    In testimony to the Scottish Parliament, Ranald Munro, professor of forensic veterinary pathology, said that

    “snares are primitive indiscriminate traps that are recognised as causing widespread suffering to a range of animals…being caught in a snare is extremely distressing for any creature and vigorous attempts to escape are natural.”

    That should not surprise anybody. He went on to detail the horrific injuries that a snare can cause, which I will not detail because they are truly harrowing, but suffice to say his conclusion was that:

    “These unfortunate animals suffer immensely.”

    We heard further examples of that from the hon. Member for Don Valley, who opened the debate. We cannot allow this to continue.

    It is my hope that both the Scottish and UK Governments will reflect on and consider the evidence and testimony. I have every faith in the Scottish Government’s robust and compassionate approach to animal welfare to date, and I am sure they will ban these appalling snares once and for all. In the meantime they have imposed more regulation around their use and operation, but nothing can truly mitigate the suffering and cruelty caused.

    We need to move away from the use of snares completely, as Ireland and many of our European neighbours have already. Where there is a need to control foxes, rabbits and so forth, there are alternative, more humane ways to do so. We have heard about some of them today, including electric fencing, wire-netting fences, motion sprinklers, ultrasonic devices, tree guards, and the use of radios or reflective discs. A whole range of genuinely humane alternatives is available, which is why so many countries have already banned snares completely. Should we not be looking at that and learning from them?

    I heard the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) talk about how we can deal with vast areas—for example, I think he mentioned the Yorkshire moors. I do not pretend to have an answer to that particular problem, but we must learn from our European partners, who will have grappled with the same kinds of issues. There is much to learn, and there are alternatives to be had. We cannot continue on the “there is no alternative” route when so much suffering is taking place, because that is what makes the barbaric use of snares all the more horrific. The fact is that we already have at our disposal, if we choose to use them, so many alternatives available. If so many other countries can use more humane and effective alternatives, why would we not consider using them in the UK?

    I hope and believe that the Scottish Government will move to a position of banning snares, and I know that the Welsh Government intend to do so. In that spirit, I urge the UK Government to do the same for England as well. It makes eminent sense for policy on this issue to be co-ordinated across the UK, so that all creatures in the UK, wherever they happen to be, have the same protection from this cruel and, importantly, unnecessary practice.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall on 9 January 2023.

    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.

    James Daly

    Why use best practice guidance rather than the legal requirement?

    Patricia Gibson

    I think we are speaking at cross purposes. As I said, there should be a legal requirement for microchipping, but we want to look at the best way that local authorities can manage that information and roll it out so that it can be completed as soon as possible. I believe that microchipping should be a legal requirement.

    I echo the eminently sensible concerns expressed by Blue Cross that if all this work is done in the way we wish, in the interests of cats and cat owners—picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly)—there must be well-administered and efficient communication between database companies to ensure that microchip details and information on lost, stolen or injured pets is properly shared and centrally available.

    The suggestion of a single point of access would considerably streamline and simplify the current database situation, incomplete though it is, and make it more user-friendly for the designated approved users. It would save time and resources, and provide the best outcomes for cats and their owners should the worst happen.

    It is no surprise that over 102,000 people signed this petition to appeal to the UK Government to amend legislation in a simple and straightforward way to make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report accidents involving cats as they are already required to do with dogs. Many of us engage in the debate about whether we prefer cats or dogs, but I think we would all agree that cats deserve parity under the law when it comes to road traffic accidents. Across the UK, we love our pets, and animal welfare is important to every one of us. We just need to look at our inboxes to see that; every single Member of this House receives more emails about various aspects of animal welfare than any other issue. I have to say, that took me a little by surprise when I was first elected in 2015.

    Animal welfare really matters to our constituents, and it matters to MPs across the House. Our pets keep us healthy and add to our happiness, and they are treasured family members. Cats do this just as much as dogs; some would say even more so, but that would start a whole UK-wide argument that would keep us here all day. It is clear that if we can give protection to dogs through compulsory microchipping and reporting of accidents when collisions happen, we can certainly do it for cats. There is no reason for us not to do so.

    I urge the Minister and the UK Government to make the required amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and give our cats and their owners the consideration they deserve. Alongside that we need to ensure that cat microchipping is an integral part of cat ownership so that they are given the protection currently accorded to dogs. Let us get on with it and stop any further delays. A promise was made in the Government’s 2019 manifesto. This is one of those rare measures that will have support from across the House—from every MP in every party—so there is no reason to delay. It will encounter no opposition, so I urge the Minister to speak to his colleagues and get it done.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patricia Gibson on 2016-01-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much accrued to the public purse from sales of arms to Saudi Arabia in 2015.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    Official UK defence export statistics are compiled each year by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the figures for 2015 are not yet available.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patricia Gibson on 2016-02-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what his plans are for the £3.5 million funding announced for tackling nuisance calls in paragraph 2.289 of the March 2015 Budget, HC 1093 of Session 2014-15; how much of this funding has been allocated to which local authorities; what information his Department holds on the number of call blockers that this funding has paid for the installation of in domestic properties; and what assessment his Department has made of the effect of that funding in the volumes of nuisance calls received and reports of such calls made.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Government is taking forward a range of measures to tackle the problem of nuisance calls, including strengthening the regulators’ ability to take enforcement action against organisations that break the law and increasing consumer choice by consulting on making it a requirement for direct marketing callers to display their calling line identification. As part of the £3.5m package announced in budget, Government launched a competition for innovative solutions to tackle the scourge of nuisance calls – and contracts have been awarded to successful applicants, to help develop their products to launch on the open market and benefit customers right across the country. In addition, £0.5 million funding is going to the National Trading Standards Scams Team – via East Sussex County Council – to provide call blocking devices to vulnerable people nationwide and report its effects.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Trade

    Patricia Gibson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Trade

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Patricia Gibson on 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, if he will estimate the potential cost to the economy of trade barriers between the UK and EU countries after the UK has left the EU.

    Greg Hands

    We are going to make a success of Brexit. As my Rt hon Friend the Prime Minister made clear ahead of the G20 summit, the UK will continue to be a powerful advocate for free and fair trade.