Cash Acceptance

Debate between Martyn Day and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 605030 and 622284, relating to the acceptance of cash.

It is genuinely a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. The petitions before us attracted more than 58,500 signatures between them, having closed on 5 July 2022 and 10 March this year respectively. I thank the creators and signatories of the two petitions. Their actions have meant we are here today to debate an issue that is clearly of interest and concern to many people across the UK.

The petitioners call on the Government to:

“Make it illegal for retailers and services to decline cash payments”,

and to:

“Require all businesses and public services to accept cash payments”,

with the exception of internet-based businesses. They argue:

“Not everyone wants a digital trail and others simply cannot pay by card.”

The petitioners expressed concern about cashless payments creating an “enforced dependency on banks” and a

“threat to privacy as people cannot make anonymous payments.”

They stated:

“If we wish to uphold freedom of choice and the right to privacy, it is imperative that we protect the use of cash.”

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

In response to the Petitions Committee’s online survey, 61% of respondents said that they use cash to help with budgeting and, in the light of the cost of living crisis, by way of tracking their spending. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government must recognise and protect cash as a tool that helps people to survive the cost of living crisis?

[Martyn Day]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, I emphasise that it is essential not only for many people who budget, but for those on lower incomes, the elderly and those with disabilities, who need that facility the most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Member makes a very good point on which I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, 6% of adults use cash payment for almost everything. That figure increases to 9% of those in the most vulnerable circumstances. I shall return later to the impact of cash refusal on the most vulnerable in our society.

Although the covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly affected payment habits, there has been both a sustained, albeit partial, recovery and a stabilisation in trends around the use of cash, as noted by the Bank of England in its third quarter bulletin in 2022. The Bank also noted that the value of bank notes in circulation remains close to an historic high, reflecting the fact that up to 60% of the population are holding more cash as a store of value.

Beyond freedom of choice, there are other clear benefits to using cash. One benefit for retailers is that unlike card schemes, for which they must pay set-up and transaction fees to providers, with cash every penny goes to them. Another benefit that should not be underestimated is the role that cash can play when other payment methods fail, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) illustrated. I am sure that many of our constituents have had the experience of being unable to use online services or cards in the face of card rejection, IT glitches or system outages.

I can give an example from my own life, when I visited a friend who was recovering from surgery in hospital. I stopped for fuel on the way, which was lucky for me because although I had no cash in my pocket, my card was accepted, and when I got to their house I had an email from my bank telling me that it thought there had been a suspicious card transaction so my card had been stopped; had I tried to buy fuel on the way home, I would have had no means of paying for it. Cash is essential.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Figures show that 70% of people prefer to use cash because they are concerned about the privacy of alternative forms of payments, and 49% said they used cash because of concerns about fraud. Does my hon. Friend understand the worries that a move to a cashless society could militate against consumer privacy and may leave sectors of society more vulnerable to fraud?

[Martyn Day]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s good points. It appears to be something that concerns very many people. Research from Which? has shown that 82% of Scottish consumers are likely to keep cash in case electronic payments are down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman makes a good point, for which I thank him. I am flabbergasted that a bank is not dealing with cash—it beggars belief.

The issues raised need to be addressed, but protecting access to cash is not the same as protecting the right to use cash—a right that, for many, amounts to an absolute necessity. For some of our constituents, not being able to use cash is a profound barrier in everyday life. Cash can be a vital means of budgeting. As noted in the 2019 access to cash review, that is especially true for those on lower incomes. The 2022 cash census identified that there are cash users who are highly dependent on cash for budgeting and would struggle to swich to digital payments. It concluded that 15 million people in the UK use cash to budget. That is backed up by the responses to the Petitions Committee survey: 61% of respondents stated that they use cash to budget.

Earlier, I touched on the impact of cash refusal on vulnerable groups, to which I now return. The access to cash review drew a stark conclusion. It identified that more than 8 million adults in the UK

“would struggle to cope in a cashless society. For many people in the UK, using cash is not a matter of choice, but of necessity.”

It highlighted that

“poverty is the biggest indicator of cash dependency”.

Dependence on cash is closely tied to barriers to digital connectivity—for example, for those living in rural areas and those with low or no digital engagement.

In its 2022 policy briefing on the subject, Age Scotland raised the importance of cash for older people. It highlighted that many on low or fixed incomes prefer to use cash to budget. It also noted that

“140,000 adults in Scotland do not have bank accounts”,

and that

“34%...of over 60s in Scotland do not use the internet”.

Furthermore, a 2020 survey by the Financial Conduct Authority explored the relationship between cash usage and factors including education, health and wealth. It noted that 26% of those in poor health use cash to a great extent, and that some people with physical or cognitive disabilities find payment methods other than cash difficult to use.

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend is generous to give way again. It has been reported that about 10% of people have been unable to pay for medical supplies with cash. We know that older people and those with some physical and mental health problems prefer using cash. Is my hon. Friend concerned that certain societal groups may be at risk of being unable to access the medical care they require if they cannot pay with cash?

[Martyn Day]

That is a valid concern that I hope the Minister will address when he responds to the debate.

Some 8% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey said that they had a physical or mental health issue that made using alternatives to cash difficult. The issues included bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, arthritis, visual impairment, cognitive disability and strokes. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the impact of cash refusal is felt acutely by those on lower incomes, those who experience barriers to digital payments, those who are disabled, and those with physical or mental health conditions. Indeed, the Government acknowledge that in their response, stating that they want to ensure that vulnerable people

“have appropriate access to banking”

and payment services.

However, to reiterate my earlier point, protecting access to banking and payment provisions, although important, does not address the issue of cash acceptance. There is growing evidence that cash refusal is becoming a very real issue. The covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly accelerated the cashless trend. As Which? research has shown, the pandemic led to an increase in the number of retailers that refuse to accept cash. The cash census similarly found that as the economy reopened in the summer of 2020, retailers were increasingly going cashless, with 42% of people reporting that they had visited a shop that did not accept cash in July 2020.

The results of the Petitions Committee’s survey also make for stark reading: 77% of respondents said that a business had refused to let them purchase something with cash, with the most common refusals of cash coming from restaurants, takeaways and transport; and 88% said that cash refusal had a large or moderate impact on them, describing feelings of embarrassment or anxiety as a result.

Our daily lives are filled with examples of the cashless trend as the consumer experience becomes increasingly dominated by technology, from bus companies encouraging people to use contactless payments to card-only self-checkout machines in supermarkets. However, the march towards cashless risks the exclusion of a great many people and a profound and negative impact on their lives.

The Government’s current position of focusing on infrastructure but ultimately leaving the decision in respect of cash acceptance to individual businesses simply does not go far enough. It is essential that gaps in the provision of banking facilities are addressed so that people can access cash easily in their community and small business owners do not have to travel many miles to access deposit facilities. However, that alone does not guarantee cash acceptance. It is a difficult issue for many businesses, especially where the ability to deposit cash might involve lengthy journeys away from their business.

The Association of Convenience Stores advises that 60% of transactions in independent convenience stores are paid in cash, and that 99% of shops in its sector continue to accept cash, with retailers striving to give customers access to their preferred payment options. While supporting access to cash to facilitate financial inclusion, the ACS would rather the decision on what payment methods to accept be left to individual businesses and not mandated by the Government, whereas an overwhelming 98% of respondents to the Petitions Committee survey agreed with the petitioners that shops and services should be required to accept cash. This is clearly an issue that affects and concerns many of our constituents, customers and businesses alike. The Government need a plan to ensure that those dependent on cash are not left behind, and part of that must be about protecting their right to use cash.

The UK Cash Supply Alliance has called for businesses to be required by law to accept cash payments for in-person services equivalent to the maximum value of contactless transactions. In their response, the Government talk a lot about what is reasonable—“reasonable access”, “reasonable provision” and so on. Ensuring that individuals and businesses have easy and convenient access to banking facilities is not only reasonable but essential, and a requirement to accept cash for lower-value transactions is also reasonable. To have the certainty that when we walk into a shop or restaurant our cash will be accepted is reasonable and, for many, vital. The Government can and must act to protect access to cash, the ability to use that cash, and the ability of businesses to easily deposit that cash. Those are very much connected issues, and they must be equally addressed.

This is a complex issue, and I am aware that I have touched on a lot of different factors in a short space of time. Indeed, I could have touched on many other factors, but I look forward to comments from other Members. I have covered some factors in more detail than others, and I look forward to the Government’s response at the end of the debate.

High Income Child Benefit Charge

Debate between Martyn Day and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the High Income Child Benefit Charge.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members who supported my application for this debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and the Minister for attending.

I invite the House to consider the unfairness of the high income child benefit charge, and the ineffectiveness of its administration. The high income child benefit charge, which for brevity I will forthwith refer to as “the charge”, has its origins in the 2010 Conservative party conference, when George Osborne—the Chancellor at the time—proposed withdrawing child benefit, a previously universal benefit, from higher-rate taxpayers. One might initially approach that as a reasonable proposal; however, the reality is that the charge has consequences for some who do not consider themselves to be on a high income, as it ignores family size, how many earners are in the household, and what disposable income is available after basic needs such as food, housing and energy costs are all met.

Mr Osborne modified his proposals in the 2012 Budget, and went on to announce that, from January 2013, child benefit would be clawed back from families when the highest earner had an adjusted net income of between £50,000 and £60,000. The detail of how the adjusted net income works after taking account of any gift aid or pension contributions, and how those with a £60,000 adjusted net income effectively lose all entitlement to child benefit, was well set out in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) during a debate that he secured on the charge in 2019.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The high income child benefit charge is too complicated, which leads to many households that are entitled to child benefit not claiming it. What they may not realise is that not claiming means that they do not accrue the national insurance credits that claimants are given until a child turns 12, impacting on state pension and other benefits if one parent is not working. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about that knock-on effect?

[Martyn Day]

I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I will come on to them in my speech, although she has summed them up more succinctly than I have in the verbiage I am about to read.

In the previous debate, the hon. Member for South Thanet said that he had

“not found figures for how much the clawback and the lack of take-up of child benefit have saved the Treasury”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 60WH.]

but estimated it to be £2 billion to £3 billion a year. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether the hon. Member’s estimate was accurate; I will return to the financial implications of the charge later. The hon. Member went on to say that its administration was

“a salutary lesson in how not to withdraw a universal benefit through the tax system. What we have on the statute book, which runs to many tens of pages of tax law, is the truly mad basis of trying to claw back a benefit. It is not related to overall family income, which many people describe as one of the real drawbacks of the system.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 63WH.]

I have several constituents who agree with the hon. Member—indeed, this goes to the heart of why the charge is seen as unfair. One of my constituents, Andrew Malloy, summed it up when he asked why a family with one parent earning £50,100 could be hit with a tax payback, while a family with two parents earning over £49,000 each was not affected. He has a valid point: a household with a total income of over £99,000 can still receive its full entitlement to child benefit. Shaun Boyle also struggles to understand why that is the rule, as households earning much more than his are entitled to benefits that his household is not. After deliberations, he concludes that

“this cannot be a fair system.”

From my questioning and research, I am inclined to agree with him entirely.

David Stuart is another constituent who stopped his child benefit payments in 2018 after only becoming aware of the high income tax threshold when his second child was born in November 2017. However, that did not stop His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pursuing him for an overpayment of £6,000 with interest and five years of penalties covering the years from 2016 to 2020 for his two children. I raised David’s case directly with HMRC. It agreed it had made an error both in its assessment and in asking him to contact the child benefit office to get proof of the cessation. The HMRC respondent added:

“I will be providing feedback to the business in order to learn from our mistakes and avoid the same from happening again in the future.”

So far, so good. But David had to contact me again just last month as he had once again been asked to provide proof of how much child benefit had been paid. It therefore appears no action was taken to rectify the failings highlighted in his initial complaint, which HMRC said it was going to address.

David also raised the Wilkes case with me, on which the Court of Appeal ruled on 7 December last year. For those not familiar with the case, it addressed whether HMRC could impose the charge by means of “discovery assessments”, which allow HMRC to demand tax outside of the normal four-year assessment limit. The Court of Appeal conclusively determined that HMRC was wrong to impose the charge by discovery assessments—not just in the Wilkes case but on hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the UK.

Yet a retrospective change in tax law that was announced by the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), in his 2021 Budget, which was then enacted in sections 97 to 99 of the Finance Act 2022, meant that HMRC ensured in advance of the Wilkes judgment that the hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers who were similarly subjected to the charge discovery assessments could not benefit from the Wilkes case.

As David’s case was delayed awaiting the Court of Appeal judgment, he has now received a further discovery assessment for the charge between the 2016 and 2018 tax years. Understandably, he is “totally miffed” that one person’s case was upheld against HMRC, yet HMRC can continue to pursue others in exactly the same circumstances. In light of the Wilkes case, David hopes that today’s debate will shine a light on the poor handling and unfairness of the discovery assessments.

Another constituent, Stephen Waldron, calls the charge “wholly unfair” because child benefit is a payment to support people with the additional cost of raising a family. Stephen also says the charge is “unjust” because it is not based on a household’s total income. He has questioned why, when people decide to pool their resources and live and raise a family together, does the charge not reflect that? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question for Stephen today.

It was 2006 when Stephen first claimed child benefit. In 2013 he received a letter to advise he was not entitled to it, but it continued to be paid over the next seven years by HMRC, who then reclaimed it and blamed Stephen for not telling it. What really upset Stephen was that the demand for over £8,200 included interest and a 20% penalty for “failure to notify” the tax office to file a self-assessment for all those years, despite HMRC being fully aware of his household’s finances.

The circumstances of Stephen’s experience with HMRC over the charge was robustly argued in the 2019 debate, yet nearly two years later HMRC has not dealt with the previous criticisms of its practices. Things worsened for Stephen and many others as the clawback came in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic at a time when job stability was under one of its greatest threats, and he had to use his “safety net savings” to pay the demand.

I fully appreciate that the abbreviated examples of my constituents that I have highlighted today do not reflect the sense of injustice and stress that they have felt. None the less, it is important that the empirical impact of such an unfair policy is illustrated by individual experiences.

I have been tabling parliamentary questions on the charge since April 2019, after it was first brought to my attention. The answers I received at that time stated:

“If total household income was taken into account, information on the incomes of everyone in each of the eight million households receiving Child Benefit would need to be collected and would effectively introduce a new means test. The Government’s approach withdraws Child Benefit from those on high incomes, whilst having no impact on the majority of claimants.”

That implies that the charge affects only a minority. On means testing, the answering Minister in the 2019 debate stated that this would create

“a substantial administrative burden on both the state and families.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 73WH.]

However, we should not forget that the increase in the number of self-assessments that the charge creates brings its own administrative burden.

Another written answer, which referred to the £50,000 and £60,000 thresholds, said:

“The Government believes these are currently the correct level for the HICBC thresholds, but as with all elements of tax policy this remains under review as part of its annual Budget process.”

Those answers are in keeping with the response to a petition I presented in October 2021, which urged the UK Government to re-examine the charge policy to address the disparities it creates and ensure that any revised threshold was aligned with the basic-rate tax threshold. The basic rate of tax breached the £50,000 threshold on 6 April 2022 and thereby brought basic rate taxpayers within the scope of the charge. It is therefore operating beyond its original policy objective to affect higher rate taxpayers.

After presenting the petition and receiving the Government’s response, I was contacted by a non-constituent who works in financial services, thanking me for presenting the petition as it was

“of national interest to any tax payer who earns over £50,000 GROSS per annum”.

They went on to refer to the Government’s response as seeming to say that it was

“too hard to calculate for little benefit”,

and suggested that indexing the base threshold of £50,000

“would be a simple but effective solution to hundreds of thousands of households.”

I am aware of a letter from the Treasury, dated 26 January 2023, that dismisses the suggestion to index the threshold of the charge as it

“only affects a minority of Child Benefit claimants whilst helping to ensure the fiscal position remains sustainable.”

It appears that the Treasury’s position is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, it thinks the threshold that was set for the charge 10 years ago is regarded as “high income”, and on the other it thinks it is acceptable for the basic rate tax band to breach this threshold.

Another tax-related conflict arising from the charge is that, although ignoring total household income and focusing on the single or only highest earner, at the same time it breaches the principle of independent taxation. It just does not add up to me.

That brings me back to the financial implications of the charge. When claiming child benefit, an affected individual can receive child benefit payments and pay the charge at the end of each tax year by means of self-assessment, and that is the case even if they are employed and normally pay their tax through pay as you earn. Alternatively, they can claim child benefit, but choose not to receive the payments and hence not pay the charge. That is known as “opting out”, and that is what my constituents David and Stephen, whom I mentioned earlier, have chosen to do. However, opting out impacts tax revenue going into the Treasury, with the most recent available figures showing a £15 million drop between the tax years 2013-14 and 2019-20. If the Minister is able to give figures for how much the clawback and the lack of take-up of child benefit have saved the Treasury, it would be helpful to know that the drop in tax revenue has also been accounted for in any figures that might have been found.

The drop in revenue is surprising when we consider that 7,000 more individuals have declared a liability for the charge over the same period. I would be interested to hear any explanation for that anomaly. The most recent available figures also show that the number of people who opted out of receiving child benefit increased by 252,000 between 31 August 2013 and the same date in 2021. That is 252,000 more families being impacted by the charge over an eight-year period. By my reckoning that is a rapidly growing minority, but a minority is what the Treasury’s response from 26 January still insists it is.

Of course, those figures do not account for those who do not make a claim for child benefit. Not everyone with a gross adjusted net income of £50,000 will go through the process of claiming child benefit, which effectively signs them up to completing a yearly self-assessment for the charge.

The latest data on child benefit from August 2021 shows a decrease of 122,000 families claiming child benefit when compared with the previous year, which equates to 215,000 children. Many people will see claiming child benefit as a complete waste of time and effort for little or no gain, or they will simply not make the claim to avoid finding themselves in a position similar to my constituent David, who was pursued for a period that he had opted out of. Therein lies a danger, because those who do not make a claim to child benefit due to the thresholds of the charge, will lose out on vital national insurance credits that protect their entitlement to contributory benefits, not least the state pension. That situation invariably affects many women.

There is also the scenario that, for various reasons, not everyone is aware of what their partner earns, respecting the principle of independent taxation. That further deters those people from making a claim for child benefit and, again, it is mainly women who lose out. Will the Minister advise me today if there is any way for women, or indeed affected men, caught in those circumstances to make a retrospective claim for national insurance credits? If not, can that be rectified at the earliest opportunity?

Another unintended consequence of not claiming child benefit is that the child is not then automatically allocated a national insurance number when they reach the age of 16. The scale of that future impact can only be imagined if we use the latest data on child benefit that shows that that will affect 215,000 children in just one year.

Referring to the number of families who claim child benefit, the latest child benefit statistics state

“following the introduction of the HICBC in January 2013, these figures decreased sharply…Following the sharp decrease in August 2013, there has been a downward trend in the number of families and children for whom Child Benefit payment is received. In August 2021, the number of children for whom Child Benefit payment is received is at its lowest level since HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) began producing these statistics in 2003.”

Given the passage of time since its introduction and the constraints of the current economic climate, does the Minister not agree that it is time to address the many failings of the unfair high income child benefit charge? Is it not time to finally review this flawed policy, make it fit for purpose and thereby truly support households with children?

Ultimately, the best solution to meet the needs of families in my constituency is for the full powers of social security and taxation to be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. Meanwhile, I hope the Minister will join me, my constituents and organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group in calling for making child benefit a universal benefit again, restoring the value of child benefit and increasing the take-up of child benefit. At the very least, will the Minister commit to reviewing the current policy?

Public Ownership of Energy Companies

Debate between Martyn Day and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 31st October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 608056, relating to public ownership of energy companies. 

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this important and prevailing issue—so prevailing that, within one week of the petition closing, another one, with the same title, was opened. I encourage anyone who supports the call for the Government to take back ownership of strategic energy assets to consider signing the new petition, because the issue is clearly not going away any time soon, and Parliament will undoubtedly be asked to revisit it. The new petition will remain open until 1 March next year.

The petition before us closed on 9 August and attracted over 109,000 signatures, including over 200 from my constituency. Before moving on to the essence of the debate, I thank the signatories to the petition and I particularly thank David Abrahams-Edley for starting it. It is David’s action that brought us here today for what I am sure will be an enlightening discussion. It is worth mentioning that David’s petition was started in February this year, just after Ofcom—Great Britain’s energy regulator—announced there would be a substantial, 54% price cap increase from 1 April. The fact that the petition was started before the announcement of an additional, eye-watering rise of 80% from 1 October shows a foresightedness that appears to have largely escaped the Government. I will say more about that later.

The petitioners call for the Government to

“take back ownership of strategic energy assets”

and

“accept that the Free Market has failed the energy sector”.

They believe that

“it is in the national interest to renationalise our energy assets”

because, even back in February, people were

“having to choose whether to heat or eat.”

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

In August, the Financial Times estimated that if a buyer was not found for Bulb the cost to the public purse could have reached £4 billion by spring next year, although transfer of ownership has now been agreed. Does the hon. Member share my concern that bailing out privately owned companies in this way could have a catastrophic impact on the public finances, whereas nationalising them could be much cheaper?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is reasonable to say that UK Governments of all stripes have overseen the deeply dysfunctional system of privatised energy companies, and we are where we are today. We need to get out of the hole that we are in.

It goes without saying that the situation that people are now facing has worsened considerably. In September, inflation exceeded 10%—its highest rate in 40 years.

It would be helpful if we quickly reminded ourselves what a free market is or is meant to be. Voluntary exchanges take place, accounting for supply and demand, and that is the basis of an economic system without Government intervention, with a key feature being the absence of coerced transactions or conditions on transactions. However, we all know that free market economies do not exist in the real world, because all markets are constrained in one way or another, with Ofgem and the introduction of the price cap being the obvious interventions in the market we are debating, and that is before the current energy crisis triggered even more interventions. So when the opening paragraph of the Government’s response to the petition states:

“Properly regulated markets provide the best outcome for consumers as a driver of efficiency and innovation”,

it raises various questions. Clearly, consumers are not benefiting from the best outcome. Does that therefore signal that the free market has indeed failed the energy sector, as the petitioners believe, or that the energy market is not being properly regulated? Either way, something is not working. Will the Minister tell us what the Government can do to fix it, if he does not agree that nationalisation is the right approach?

It is reported that economists who measure the degree of freedom in markets have found a generally positive relationship between free markets and measures of economic wellbeing. Unfortunately, most people in the UK are not enjoying economic wellbeing—we only have to look at the end of the Government response, which details what is described as the “unprecedented scale” of financial support that the UK Government are providing, to see that. Consequently, although Government intervention in this regard is welcome—indeed, necessary—it also serves as evidence that

“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,

as the petitioners say.

At this point, a bit of background about the Government action in relation to the current energy crisis would be helpful. We likely all remember that the proposed solution of the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to situation at the time was to reduce every domestic electricity bill by £200 and then recover it over a five-year period. That initial intervention was the

“token gestures of mandatory loans”

mentioned in the petition. In case anyone is confused by the revolving doors at the top of this Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) was the Chancellor when David’s petition was started, not the third Prime Minister we have seen this year, as he is today.

Thankfully, that part of the petition was addressed by the then Chancellor, and his so-called loan-not-loan was ditched and replaced by the energy bills support scheme, under which domestic electricity consumers were to receive £400 of support with their energy bills, paid as a grant over six months, starting from the beginning of this month.

Then our second Prime Minister this year, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), announced the two-year energy price guarantee—an intervention in an intervention—which superseded the proposed energy price cap increase of 80% and limited the price that suppliers can charge customers for units of gas from 1 October. That move was of course widely welcomed, not least as the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to be acting

“so people and businesses are supported over the next two years”,

but it was simultaneously criticised for being misleading. A UK Government press release on 8 September stated:

“a typical UK household will pay no more than £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years from 1st October”.

However, the MoneySavingExpert Martin Lewis, who is arguably the most trusted man in Britain, commented:

“I’ve seen a lot of confusion, so let me start by saying there’s NO MAXIMUM ENERGY BILL.”

Not surprisingly, that confusion continues.

Exactly two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), our fourth Chancellor this year—so far—announced that, instead of lasting two years, the energy price guarantee would last only until April next year. In just over five months, many could be placed back on the energy regulator Ofgem’s price cap. According to energy analysts Cornwall Insight, that means another massive hike in bills for millions of people. The current prediction under Ofgem’s existing cap methodology is an increase of 74% more than the energy price guarantee.

I hope everyone here is keeping up with the Government actions taken so far to manage the UK’s energy crisis. Recapping on these recent events demonstrates that the energy crisis could have been handled in a more straightforward way if strategic energy assets were not open to the free market economy but owned by the Government, as the petitioners call for.

In the previously mentioned UK Government press release of 8 September, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to say:

“Decades of short-term thinking on energy has failed to focus enough on securing supply”.

I am sure that that is a sentiment the petitioners wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, they call for a 25-year strategic plan. However, like me, I do not think they would agree that launching

“a new oil and gas licensing round”

and lifting

“the moratorium on UK shale gas production”

is the way forward. That is regressive and builds on a nonsensical investment allowance that, unbelievably, incentivises investment in fossil fuel extraction instead of a just transition. Investment in energy security should be targeted at renewables, carbon capture and storage, and our net zero future. Have the Government forgotten the commitments they made to the world at COP26 last November? Additionally, the press release was entitled,

“Government announces Energy Price Guarantee for families and businesses while urgently taking action to reform broken energy market.”

If that reference to a broken energy market does not align with the petitioner’s claim that

“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,

I fail to see what would.

Returning to a question I posed earlier about whether the energy market is being properly regulated, will the Minister explain why the Government’s response states that they continue to believe

“that properly regulated markets…provide the best outcome for consumers and promote market competition as the best driver of efficiency, innovation and value”?

Aside from the fact that market competition has all but disappeared, with the removal of lower-price tariffs from the market, and with around 24 million households out of 28 million on standard variable tariffs at the end of August, I do not think people across the UK believe they are getting value from the energy market, not least because of the punishing standing charges that are levied before even a kilowatt of power is used. Perhaps the Minister can come up with something to change my mind on that.

The Government response also mentions that

“properly regulated markets…incentivise private capital to invest in the energy system”.

My basic understanding of investment is that private capital is invested to make money for the people who have money to invest in the first place. Would it not therefore make more sense if those energy assets were in public ownership, so that the return on investment came back to the public purse, not the coffers of the energy companies? Of course, the temporary energy profits levy gains 25% of profits from oil and gas firms, and it is reported that it will raise £5 billion in its first year. That will help, but does the Minister agree that 100% of profits would help more?

The Government response stated that

“if the Government renationalised energy companies, the British taxpayer would have to compensate directors, shareholders, and creditors to the tune of tens of billions of pounds—money that would be better spent supporting families.”

This is where I return to the Government’s lack of foresightedness. Have they considered that the taxpayer has already been saddled with the burden of paying for the Government’s cost of living support for years to come? Has any assessment been done comparing a one-off payment to directors, shareholders and creditors with the repeated, ongoing costs that have been forced on the taxpayer? Why should the public be paying for energy costs while companies rake in significant increases in profits earned from UK oil and gas extraction?

Earlier this month, the chief executive of Shell said:

“The solution should not be government intervention but protection of those who need protection.”

That was before Shell’s third-quarter profits of $9.5 billion were reported just last week—eye-watering profits for the super-rich, compared with eye-watering bills for those who can least afford them. The Government are making the rich richer at the expense of low-income and middle-income households. Can they take immediate and prudent action to protect those most impacted by this energy crisis, now and in the future?

I am reminded of a famous George Bernard Shaw quote:

“Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time.”

Can the Minister convince me, as well as David and the other petitioners, that the Government’s refusal to nationalise the country’s strategic energy assets is not, in fact, an ideological blind spot? A nationalised energy sector would have the potential to deliver an integrated approach, guiding the country away from its dependency on unstable fossil fuels, thereby tackling climate change while, at the same time, protecting consumers. Are this Government capable of using some foresight?

I feel I have barely scratched the surface of the issues surrounding today’s petition, but I look forward to hearing the contributions of the other speakers. I particularly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Debate between Martyn Day and Margaret Ferrier

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 591775, relating to laboratory animals and the Animal Welfare Act.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. This petition closed on 20 January and attracted more than 110,000 signatures, including 139 from my constituency. Leading this debate today fills me with a sense of déjà vu. Just over three months ago, I led a debate in which this House considered two petitions relating to animal testing. One called for all animal testing in the UK to be banned and the other for a phasing out of animal experiments. In that debate, I quoted an early scholar of jurisprudence, Jeremy Bentham, who said,

“Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”

Here I stand again, repeating the very same question that has been brought to the fore by this petition, which calls for legislation to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

To give some background, I must point out that the Animal Welfare Act is 16 years old. Within it is an unnecessary suffering clause, which sets out the criteria for an offence to be committed. It includes the principle that any action—or indeed failure to take action—that results in animal suffering must be against a protected animal. The petition highlights that laboratory animals are not protected by the 2006 Act and are therefore victims of unnecessary suffering.

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

While I acknowledge that there remains a need for animal testing in some areas of medicine, current legislation negates any need to urgently move away from unnecessary procedures or experiments. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to apply greater pressure for alternative methods to be used?

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. The fact that we know that 90% of animal experiments do not bring any real benefit tells us that we need to move very quickly in the opposite direction. I would favour a full ban on animal experimentation, because we could be better using the alternatives.

It strikes me as unbelievable that, in this nation of professed animal lovers, laboratory animals are categorically excluded from the 2006 Act. We must not forget that that includes dogs and cats, who many of us take into our homes to love and care for and who enrich our lives. Therefore, by default, the 2006 Act endorses laboratory animals undergoing what can only be deemed as necessary suffering.

The Government response to the petition confirms that. It states:

“There is an explicit exclusion under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), to provide for the legitimate conduct of procedures on ‘protected animals’ for scientific or educational purposes that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.”

In other words, the 2006 Act legalises, for example, the daily force feeding of chemicals directly into the stomachs of factory farmed puppies without pain relief or anaesthetic. Will the Minister enlighten us about the scientific or educational purpose fulfilled by that particular procedure?

[Martyn Day]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments. I will come on to that shortly. It is an absolutely abhorrent practice.

More importantly, perhaps the Minister can give reasons to assist us all in understanding why this procedure, which is classified as mild suffering under Home Office licensing, cannot be replaced with human-based research.

At this point, I will say a few words about the man who started the petition, Peter Egan, who hoped to be here with us but had to tend to an animal care event at home; I am sure we all extend our best wishes for a positive outcome. Many will be familiar with Peter as an excellent actor who is well known for bringing characters to life on our television screens. What may be less well known is that Peter is also the patron of the science-based campaign, For Life On Earth.

I met Peter and the For Life On Earth founder and director, Louise Owen, ahead of the debate, and Peter informed me of the abject horror he and others experienced while visiting a foie gras farm in France. For the sake of clarity, foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck or goose, fattened by force-feeding. I certainly do not want to stand accused of speciesism, but I can only imagine the compounding horror that force-feeding puppies would generate. That is why we all need to know what reasons can justify such acts. How can such acts be acceptable to a Government who rightly acknowledge that animals can experience feelings and sensations, and are in fact currently legislating to recognise that in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill?

This is an appropriate juncture to raise early-day motion 175, on a public scientific hearing on animal experiments, tabled last June by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and supported by 104 cross-party Members. It is relevant to note that the EDM was remarked on by myself and others during the October debate. It commends the introduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which will enshrine in law that animals can experience feelings and sensations. It also highlights that legislation’s connection with For Life On Earth’s revelation that intensive breeding of laboratory dogs was taking place in the UK, and noted

“that scientists in the wider scientific community, outside the animal-based research sector, openly acknowledge the failure of animal testing in the search for human treatments and cures”.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Member for being so generous in giving way a second time. Gene-based medicine is a rapidly developing science that allows treatment to be completely personalised based on a patient’s DNA. That could not be replicated through animal experimentation. Does the hon. Member agree that this kind of medical science must be prioritised when it comes to research, to avoid unnecessary harm to animals?

[Martyn Day]

I agree entirely. That form of medicine is better not only for animals but for humans as well.

Consequently, early-day motion 175 called on the Government to urgently

“mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing, judged by independent experts from the relevant science fields, to stop the funding of the now proven failed practice of animal experimentation and increase funding for state-of-the-art human-based research, such as human-on-a-chip and gene-based medicine, to prioritise treatments and cures for human patients and stop the suffering of laboratory dogs and other animals.”

I hope this is not viewed as a separate matter, because it is undoubtedly related. After all, the UK remains the top user of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe. The petition reminds us that a recent exposé showed harrowing footage of the factory farming of laboratory dogs in the UK. Statistics for 2020 reveal that 4,320 procedures were carried out on dogs, and of these, 4,270 procedures were carried out on beagles, the preferred breed for experiments due to their size, docility and submissive nature, meaning that they take less effort and expense to house and are easy to experiment on. In other words, they are easy prey.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martyn Day and Margaret Ferrier

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

18. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the appointment of a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

23. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the appointment of a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission.