Whistleblowing

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on helping to secure it in time generously allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who—along with so many other colleagues present—has worked so hard to ensure that the issue gets the attention that it deserves.

I have spoken in this House before about my constituent, Ms Julia Davey, who ran two successful businesses, Angelic Interiors Ltd and Angel Group Ltd. Despite fixed assets and shareholder funds worth multi-millions across the two businesses, they both ended up being placed into administration, which has lost Ms Davey more than £6 million. She followed advice from Lloyds bank during her time running the two businesses, and she believes that responsibility for the liquidation of her assets lies with it.

In 2009, unbeknown to Ms Davey, her account was transferred by Lloyds to its business support unit. Two years later, she was told that she had to pay for the services of a so-called turnaround company, Baronsmead Consultancy, which went on to charge her extortionately for its work. In good faith, she paid it more than £6 million in costs and fees, only to discover from a well-placed whistleblower inside Baronsmead that, far from working in her interests, it was taking her money while colluding with Lloyds to put her out of business and into administration.

Sadly, in the 18 months in which I have been trying to help Ms Davey since our last debate on the topic, nothing has progressed. Ms Davey is still being pushed through bankruptcy processes that she should not have to face. Like the constituents of other hon. Members, and like others who have been mentioned in this debate, she has found her life left in ruins. Her mental and physical health have both been hit, and she tells me that her wellbeing has been further disregarded by Deloitte, which took her to court at a time when it knew that she was the sole carer for her mother, who was dying from cancer. Just a few weeks ago, Ms Davey’s office was broken into; two laptops were stolen and the server was tampered with. The campaign against her has been relentless, but there has been no such rigour from the Financial Conduct Authority or the police to bring to justice those whom she believes to be the real perpetrators.

Ms Davey might not have known the true course of events that led to the demise of her businesses if it had not been for a whistleblower who alerted her in 2013 to what was being done to her companies. Clearly, whistleblowers are invaluable in calling out immoral and frankly criminal acts such as those that have been detailed in our debate. As other colleagues have outlined, we urgently need legislation to protect whistleblowers and the public by deterring and preventing these situations. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 has failed to protect whistleblowers or address the concerns that they raise. It is high time that an independent structure was put in place to vigorously regulate the banking industry and protect whistleblowers, to prevent further cases like Julia’s.

It is greatly worrying that banks and their advisers can operate so unethically, employing turnaround companies to act on their wishes to liquidate a company while posing as a supportive business and facing no accountability whatsoever. In my constituent’s case, the turnaround company, Baronsmead, is not covered by regulation because it does not fall within the remit of the FCA. Similarly, not all the activities of Lloyds Banking Group come under the FCA’s watch.

I would be grateful if the Minister commented on how and when new regulations might be introduced to provide oversight of all the operations of banking groups and the companies that they employ. I would also like to know why the FCA is not investigating the case as a genuine whistleblower complaint, eight months after receiving the information. The whistleblower has provided extensive evidence of the wrongdoing involved, but my constituent feels that the FCA has blocked her questions about an investigation and allowed the bank’s cover-up to continue.

As I mentioned, the whistleblower first came forward in 2013 to raise concerns about the manipulation of Ms Davey’s companies by Lloyds Bank and its agents, but those concerns were not acted on. It was only after WhistleblowersUK entered the picture in November 2018 that a meeting was arranged between the FCA and the whistleblower. Ms Davey’s case was then referred from the FCA to the National Crime Agency, but since then the FCA has not answered questions about what investigations might be going on with the NCA, using the Federal Information Security Management Act as a shield.

I ask the Minister why no information is being provided to my constituent, her advocates or the whistleblower. Furthermore, what can be done to ensure that the FCA acts on this serious matter? I understand from WhistleblowersUK and its chief executive, Georgina Halford-Hall, that there is concern that when the FCA gets involved in such cases, it is seen to be an ally of the financial services, rather than an independent regulator, and that the complaints processes are designed to stifle information that could lead to prosecution.

Staff at the FCA have told WhistleblowersUK that the FCA has a responsibility to ensure that there is not a run on a bank that might impact the UK economy. That would not be a problem if whistleblower intelligence were acted on. This is a public interest issue of extreme importance; members of the public, especially owners of small and medium-sized enterprises, must be aware of the malpractice that can happen in the banking industry and, most importantly, be protected from it. I look forward to the report that WhistleblowersUK is due to release later this month, which I am sure will be very helpful.

I am grateful for the opportunity to present Ms Davey’s case to the Chamber, but I am disappointed that I have had to do so. This case has dragged on for years, and in that time, Ms Davey has endured repeated attempts to smother her case, as well as attacks on her health, her private information and her personal property. She has gone from being a successful small business owner, who trusted her bank to uphold its professional and moral obligations, to being forced through bankruptcy procedures, and desperately fighting court case after court case. The serious injustice of having lost millions must be addressed, and stringent regulation should be brought in, so that no more hard-working business owners fall victim to this, as she has done. I look forward to the responses of the Minister and the shadow Minister.

Recall of Tumble Dryers

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that point. One of the issues that we considered in last year’s review was the outreach programme. There are many ways in which Whirlpool should be able to contact the people who have bought its products. This is very much the responsibility of the manufacturer, and it is one of the reasons we are taking so much care with this review, and why we are asking so many questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure that it has a programme that is sufficient to reach its customers. We are dissatisfied with what it has done. That is why we issued the intention to issue a recall. She is absolutely correct: Whirlpool should be using everything at its disposal to make sure that it contacts anyone who has purchased its product by any means necessary.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Whirlpool situation has highlighted a problem exposed by the Electrical Safety Council about the difficulty of identifying the owners of the defective appliances it recalls. Can the Minister say a little more about what progress has been made on requiring the registration of purchase of electrical goods at point of sale by the retailer, rather than by consumers registering afterwards? Consumer registration patently does not work, and the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) is not a new one; it has been knocking around for years and the retail industry needs to own up to its responsibility.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has a particular interest in this matter. He will know that, when I last sat in front of him at the meeting of the all-party group on fire safety, I was very clear that if action needed to be taken I was not fearful of taking it. As I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), it is a valid suggestion, and I do agree that we need to look at it. That is why I have said here today that I am prepared to bring that to the Consumer Protection Partnership to see whether we can progress it further. He is absolutely right: we need to do all we can to ensure that consumers are protected, but fundamentally I am here today to talk about holding Whirlpool to account, and I am proud to be standing here and doing that. This Government want to ensure that, no matter how big manufacturers are, we will still make them comply with the law.

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The Attorney General was making a statement of fact that the provisions in that agreement are not covered by that arbitration mechanism. That is a statement that accurately reflects the reality, which is one of the reasons why availing ourselves of the opportunity to have a parliamentary mechanism to act on and see implemented that non-regression commitment—putting it in the hands of this House—is especially valuable.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will accept that there is a lot of scepticism among Opposition Members about the Government’s integrity on this issue, and the fact that the trade unions were invited in so late in the Brexit process only fuels that. As he says, we have never solely relied on the EU for workers’ rights and legislation in this country, and when we leave the EU we will need a framework within which to work, so his statement is welcome. Other issues such as electronic balloting are important to the unions. Have they featured in his recent meetings with the unions? How would that demand, and others, fit into his attitude to discussions and communications with the unions in the context of his statement?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. Of course, I meet the unions—both the TUC and individual unions—very regularly. My responsibilities there go beyond the matters we are discussing today, which are expressly about the European Union. The issue of balloting is outside of discussions on the European Union. It is important to have a good relationship with trade unions. When good ideas are put forward, whether they come from his side of the House or from the trade union movement should not prejudice their ability to be considered fairly and taken forward.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you chairing our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Evans. The final comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter were the perfect introduction to my remarks, given that I am one of those prepared to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, although not a blank cheque. Like many colleagues—every Opposition Member, I suspect—I signed amendments to the 15 January resolution, requesting greater clarity and assurances on workers’ rights as part of the Government’s deal, which they are trying to conclude and persuade Parliament to accept.

I heard what the Minister said about workers’ rights. We have heard that from the Prime Minister before. I do accept that in this country we enjoy rights above EU norms and that we are not entirely dependent on the EU for bringing forward workers’ rights. However, as every Opposition Member who spoke has clearly articulated, we need to see real evidence that the Government mean what they say on workers’ rights. Until we see that, there will continue to be a great degree of cynicism and scepticism that the Government actually mean it.

The discussions now taking place with trade unions are very welcome, but they are two years too late. Engagement with Labour Front Benchers is two years too late. Having said that, we are running out of time and the Government have the opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP for giving way. Does he agree that many of those enhanced rights were enacted by the last Labour Government, of which he was a part? Some changes, such as articles 13 and 14, enhancing rights against religious discrimination in the workplace, were incorporated by that Labour Government from EU legislation. This Government have shown much less willingness to enhance rights, and the risks remain that they will continue to run down our rights, as has been evidenced in this debate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend demonstrates the degree of concern that the Opposition have about workers’ rights. I was not going to mention it but I am proud to say that, when I was employment Minister, I had the privilege of signing into legislation a number of rights that were not dependent on the EU. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey were also in positions that enabled them to take legislation through the House that improved standards in this country.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, the Minister is highly regarded in this place, so I say this with no disrespect. Our vote against these SIs demonstrates that the Government need to do more before they get support from as many Labour MPs as they need to get their deal through. Some of us on the Opposition Benches want that commitment and those assurances, so that we can vote without the fears outlined by my right hon. Friend.

Draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have to notify the Committee that the credit that I might have had for speaking briefly should be applied to my speech on the SI that we debated earlier. I will not be brief on this legislation, because there are really serious issues with it.

I appreciate the purpose of the legislation. Unlike with other SIs that we have debated, the purpose is not simply to transpose what was already in legislation to a circumstance in which we are no longer in the EU. Indeed, the SI that we talked about earlier was a straightforward transposition of material that had already been in legislation. It was simply a case of noting that we would no longer be a member state and therefore the regulations should apply in exactly the same way, but with those provisions.

This SI places certain elements arising from Euratom directives into UK legislation. In so doing, it makes a number of provisions that I think we ought to look at very carefully. Before we do that, I have to raise two particular concerns, one of which I think is probably fatal to the legislation as it stands. The first issue that I would like the Committee to at least note is that this is actually the second time that this instrument has been laid. An instrument was laid on 13 December and was withdrawn, and a second instrument, with precisely the same title, was relaid on, I think, 20 December. This is a very minor point, but there may be some confusion as to which version we are talking about today, because version 1 is still up on the internet. I hope that we have version 2 before us this afternoon.

If we compare version 1 with version 2, which is in front of us—the version that was relaid just before Christmas—we see that although there are minor changes, such as to a date in a piece of earlier legislation, there is also a major change. The first version stated that an impact assessment would be available, but in the second version there is no mention of an impact assessment. That has disappeared between 13 and 20 December. Was there ever an impact assessment? If there was, why was the second version of the SI amended to indicate that there was none, and if there was not, why was it referred to in the first version of the SI? There is a bit of a mystery there, and it is quite important: if there is an impact assessment, it ought to be before us today.

The second issue, which is far more procedurally serious, is that the SI makes an amendment to the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008. The part of the SI that that amendment appears in is not a particularly crucial one, but it is nevertheless important: it places within the 2008 regulations an annex from Euratom regulations, which contains a variety of values that are important to our current proceedings. Members might ask, “What is the problem with that?” The central problem is that when we met last week to discuss the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, we agreed to a change in those regulations—we all agreed to it; there was no opposition. That change, among other things, revoked the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008, so we are discussing amending regulations that we have revoked. The transposition of that annex into the new regulation will have no force at all, because the 2008 regulations no longer exist.

There are provisions about the amount of time over which revocation takes place, but I have consulted on this issue, and it appears the objective position is that we are trying to amend something that has been revoked, although it is not clear whether that affects the whole of the SI or only one part of it. In any event, we are seeking to put through on an unamendable basis a piece of legislation that is manifestly defective in its drafting. Mr Bailey, I seek your guidance as to what the procedure might be under these circumstances: whether we should go through with this statutory instrument—pass it through and out the other end, then think about it subsequently, knowing that we have passed into legislation something that is defective—or whether there are remedies available at an earlier stage in the process.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is raising a fundamental point about what we are doing this evening. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Minister to clarify on a point of order whether we are trying to amend something that does not exist, or whether the guidance that we have received from my hon. Friend—who is highly regarded in these matters, and who will have done his research—is in some way, shape or form in error?

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I rise to make two brief points. The first is in respect of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about dosage levels and exposure. The mention of measurements takes me back to the drills we carried out and the advice we were given during my time in the fire service. My hon. Friend, who has done his research about this measure, raised concerns about dosage levels, and that makes me concerned, too.

Secondly, I accept the Minister’s generous offer to accept responsibility should there be a problem with the basic nature of this measure, in the light of the discussion we had about whether it is valid. His integrity is well known. However, as silence is assent, we would have some responsibility were we to say nothing about it.

Therefore, on both those counts, were my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent—as our Whip, he is the other half of our leadership team—to recommend that we should vote against the measure, the Minister having failed to persuade them otherwise in his winding-up speech, I would feel obliged to follow their recommendation.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, for two reasons. One is that you are a fellow West Ham supporter. They have survived in the premiership for another year, so you will obviously be in a good mood. Secondly, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety rescue, you take a keen interest in these matters yourself, so it is good to see you here and following the debate as closely as you are.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He made another of his trademark thoughtful speeches, which he is becoming known for. I am delighted to welcome the Minister to his position. He arrives with a fair wind. He is held in regard across the House and much is expected of him, so we are all looking forward to his response to this debate, which will be my first experience of his winding up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and on not taking undue time in opening the debate, as some colleagues in these debates do. She has left lots of time for the rest of us to contribute. I also congratulate her on so ably chairing the all-party parliamentary home electrical safety group and leading us on this issue so effectively. She has been so well supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on these issues. I will try to keep to your time constraints, Sir David.

I thank Electrical Safety First, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Which? and the London fire brigade for all their efforts in this area and for their briefings. Like the previous two speakers, I look forward to the Minister’s response, as well as the Opposition speeches. The tone of the briefings that I have received is best described as positive and welcoming but with a sceptical edge, and I think that the simplest thing I can do is to quote from the material with which I have been supplied.

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute asked two main questions. How would the OPSS add to the current market surveillance and enforcement functions to improve the system and, if there was a repeat of the recent white goods scandal, how would the office support local authority trading standards to ensure that the system was robust in protecting consumers? I am sure that the Minister has all these briefings and will be well prepared to respond to them.

The first two points made by Electrical Safety First in its briefing are that the charity welcomes the debate and the newly established Office for Product Safety and Standards, as it represents a key opportunity. It says that,

“the OPSS is fundamental to creating better cross-government co-ordination”.

Then it asks a number of questions. On product recall, it states:

“Through collaboration with stakeholders there must also be significant effort to improve product registration”.

With regard to online retail, it says that,

“consideration should be given to bringing forward additional legislation”.

On counterfeit electrical goods, it says:

“This issue must be looked at closely”.

On data collection, it says that,

“product safety in the UK is fragmented and incomplete.”

And it says that an injury database is

“Key to an effective intelligence system”.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement, but Electrical Safety First is more upbeat than Which? is.

Which? is probably the most sceptical. It states:

“Which? welcomed the Government’s recognition that the product safety system needs to be fixed. However, the announcement of the OPSS falls short of the full overhaul the product safety system so desperately needs…Which? is calling for fundamental reform that stops unsafe products from reaching UK households.”

It reminds us of the history, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). I am talking about the Peterborough trading standards challenge, which was brought about only because of the London fire brigade report and because Which? basically took legal action to make Peterborough trading standards challenge Whirlpool.

The London fire brigade, in its briefing, is also welcoming, but asks questions. On progress and powers of the new office, it asks:

“Could the Minister give further detail on what measures will be in place to ensure the Office has technical expertise and the resources to support…Trading Standards…will the OPSS also consider criminal prosecution if a manufacturer of white goods lets consumers continue to use a known dangerous product?...will the new Office encourage and facilitate information sharing by manufacturers and insurers following fires so that fire and rescue services and trading standards are in possession of key data”.

It asks:

“Could the Minister give an update on what progress has been made on the recall register?...Could the Minister confirm that there will be an obligation on manufacturers to inform government of all recalls…what will be done to communicate the new register to consumers”.

Much is expected of the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, and certainly the fanfare from Government is that this is a positive step forward. It should be and very well could be. I look forward to the winding-up speeches from the Opposition spokespersons, but this is, more importantly, an opportunity for the Minister to explain how the new office will help and what he expects it to achieve. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have contributed.

Fireworks

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues, 12 of you want to speak. I have worked out that, if you each speak for eight and a half minutes, we should get everyone in and leave 10 minutes each for the three Front Benchers to make their winding-up speeches. I call Jim Fitzpatrick.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Sorry, I got that wrong. I call Bill Grant. I do apologise, Jim; you will be next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing the debate forward and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for her comprehensive introduction to it. I am grateful to the Firework Abatement campaign, the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for their briefings on the debate. I will keep my contribution brief.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman. It demonstrates the privilege of rank that the senior officer from the fire brigade gets priority over a humble firefighter, but hey, that is life and how it has always been in the fire service. He made some telling points, and I will not disagree with him much.

When I was in the fire service in London, for 364 days of the year people—especially kids—would knock on the door, wanting to come into the fire station to see the appliances and fire engines. The one day of the year they did not want to see us was Guy Fawkes day, when the bonfires were up and there were fireworks. This might be a romantic view of the past, but then it was only one day a year—fireworks are now 365 days a year. I do not know when the extension took place, and I guess we saw them at other times, but there is no way that the prolific use of fireworks was as prevalent then as it is now. At one point in my career I might have been worried about being called a member of the nanny state or a killjoy, but I am now pleased to claim membership of the grumpy old person’s club because my constituents are not happy about how fireworks are used in east London. Many will be happy that I am making this contribution.

Illegal fireworks are imported, especially from China, and their power and the noise they generate are different from anything we have had before. Fireworks are also used as weapons against passers-by and members of the public, and especially against the emergency services. I have seen YouTube videos of my constituency where the police turn out to a 999 call and find kids with rocket launchers, firing rockets at police cars. It is totally unacceptable.

The Firework Abatement campaign gives an excellent briefing, covering hospital admissions and the increasing number of A&E attendances. Statistics in its brief include 47 serious eye injuries, with 53% requiring surgery, and eight patients having to have their eyes removed. It also mentions antisocial behaviour right across the piece, such as that I mentioned in my constituency.

I have the highest regard for the Minister, so this is not an attack on him. However, we must question Government policy. We look to him to be our champion in Government and to make the case that the regulations on fireworks are not as strong as they ought to be.

The Government’s response is that we need to “strike a balance”. I understand that, but, at the moment, I do not think we are. Not a day of the year might be firework-free, because, as colleagues have said, they can turn up at any time, and the stress they cause to people and animals is well documented. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of data collection, and it would be useful to identify the nature of the problem.

The Government say that sales are highly regulated and restricted. The campaign says that there are restrictions on supply, storage, possession and misuse, but there are no regulations to prevent use 365 days a year between 7 am and 11 pm. Trading standards is also limited in its ability to keep track. There is an expectation that the curfew can be enforced by police, but I think most of us across the House will say, “Good luck with that,” especially in London, where we see 2,000 fewer police officers and 2,500 fewer police community support officers. The pressure on the police service, and last week’s statistics on the increase in violent and knife crime, mean that it has far higher priorities to attend to.

Communities have rights, and there should be a requirement to get a licence for fireworks, according to particular specifications, and especially with reference to noise and certain days of the year. There should be stronger control over sales, time restrictions and inspections, and the ability to audit-trail those who breach the regulations. I, like the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, am totally in favour of public displays; but we have seen that even they can go wrong, with people being injured. However, the more opportunities are available for people to go to a public display, the more chance there is that the events will be safe and therefore attract the public. There should be stronger penalties for misuse; if there were stronger controls the opportunity to abuse the privilege could be restricted.

People are worried about fireworks. We are not giving the subject enough attention and it deserves more attention from the Government, even if that is only in the form of stronger messages to retailers and users. The situation is already out of control in many places and will not improve; it will only get worse. We need Government action.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. This is my first opportunity to respond to a Westminster Hall debate, so I trust that you will be gentle with me.

I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), not only for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but for her interesting and well-rounded perspective. I commend her for her thoughtful and at times humorous speech. I also pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—I think I counted 25 in the Chamber. We have heard a huge number of interesting and well-informed speeches. That is not a rarity, but it shows the great level of interest in the issues, and the work that hon. Members have put into understanding them on behalf of their constituents. As Minister responsible for consumer protection, I understand the effort that has gone in, and I put great weight on the speeches that have been made.

We have heard today not only from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—a former firefighter who has been decorated with the Fire Brigade Long Service and Good Conduct Medal and who now serves as secretary of the all-party fire safety rescue group—but from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), a firefighter with some 31 years’ service who ended his career as deputy commander of Strathclyde fire and rescue service. As my dad would have said, you can’t teach your granny to suck eggs. It is not the first time that I have sat in a debate thinking, “There are people here who know a lot more about this than I do,” but that is guaranteed to be true today.

I thank the huge number of people who have signed the petition and made the debate possible, particularly the Firework Abatement campaign. A lot of people get petitions together and try to raise issues, but it is clear that Firework Abatement has done a lot of groundwork to understand the issue. It speaks not only for the more than 111,000 signatories of the petition, but for many of our constituents. With my three weeks’ experience as a Minister, I can tell the House that a huge number of my letters have been about fireworks, so it is clearly an issue that concerns constituents. This is our second petitions debate on it in recent years; the first, in June 2016, focused more specifically on the impact on pets and animals, which I shall address later.

Hon. Members have made some compelling speeches. No one could fail to be moved by the tragic stories we have heard. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) described somebody seeing their house destroyed as a result of fireworks. We have heard some really distressing and disturbing anecdotes about animals, including pets, horses, cows and other livestock, suffering not just distress but death from the misuse of fireworks. Of course, we also heard about Flo from my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend, but it is just a matter of time—the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). He made the case for pets in his constituency with his usual passion and aplomb, and I am sure that many pet lovers will be pleased that he is raising their concerns in this place.

I recognise the effects that fireworks can have—the pleasure that they give to many of our constituents, but also their negative impact on many people, including those who are vulnerable or have pets or livestock. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said a number of times that many fireworks are used responsibly. That is true: there are many examples of law-abiding people who use their fireworks safely, responsibly and in a caring and considerate manner towards their neighbours. However, as we have heard, there are others who do not use them in that way, and they are the people with whom we are concerned.

It is for the Government to ensure that we have a system that allows for the enjoyment of fireworks but protects those who might be harmed or inconvenienced, including the young, the elderly and those with mental health issues. As a former trustee of a service charity for veterans in the criminal justice system, I understand the impact that post-traumatic stress can have on veterans. Fireworks also have an effect on wildlife and livestock, as we have heard.

The Government’s aim is to ensure that people who enjoy fireworks can do so safely, but that we minimise the risks, noise and distress that can be an unwelcome by-product of their use. Even in this debate, in which the same concerns have been raised consistently in almost every speech, there has been a difference of opinion about how we should tackle the issue. Some advocate an outright ban, some want a consultation and some want tighter legislation. It is for the Government to consider all those arguments in the round, form an opinion and ensure that the legislation meets those challenges.

I will not go into great detail on the laws that govern the sale and regulation of fireworks, because other hon. Members have already outlined them. The controls on supply, sale and use reflect the level of risk posed by the four different categories of firework. Those controls include a curfew on their use; restrictions on when they can go on general sale; restrictions on their sale to minors; and noise limits and penalties for their misuse. The controls restrict the general availability of fireworks for public sale to certain times of the year, such as bonfire night, new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year. Outside those traditional periods, retailers who wish to sell fireworks must obtain a licence from their local licensing authority. It is worth noting that local authorities have the power to restrict such licences if they so wish. A local authority can refuse to issue a licence for the sale of fireworks outside seasonal celebrations, so hon. Members who have concerns about such sales may wish to raise them with their local authority.

Another way in which the current system seeks to lessen the distressing impact on vulnerable groups is by controlling the times at which fireworks can be used. As we have heard, there is a strict curfew of 11 pm, with exceptions for bonfire night, new year and Diwali.

My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) raised Collecchio, the Italian town that has banned noisy fireworks. In the UK, there is already a limit on the noise levels of fireworks that can be bought for general sale. That is, as has been said, 120 dB. However, I think there is a disagreement in this House about whether 120 dB is a jumbo jet, a chainsaw, a rock band starting up or a number of other very noisy things. Also, quieter fireworks are increasingly being developed by manufacturers, and they are increasingly available from retailers, so that consumers can have more choice and a better chance of acquiring lower-noise fireworks, to help them to avoid disturbing their neighbours.

Earlier, we touched on the issue of education, which is important, both for fireworks users and for pet or livestock owners. They are not the outright solution but there are things that pet owners can do to reduce the very real distress their pets can experience. There is excellent advice provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, intended to help owners to reduce their pets’ stress, and it can be found on those organisations’ websites.

There are a number of controls on the use and misuse of fireworks. Antisocial behaviour, such as the throwing of fireworks, is covered by the Explosives Act 1875, which prohibits fireworks from being thrown in or on to public places. Some hon. Members asked whether the powers that I am drawing attention to actually work. Earlier this year, a man in Kirkwall was sentenced to six months in prison after admitting setting off fireworks in a culpable and reckless manner in the town centre. So these powers are available and they are used.

There are a number of agencies that have responsibility for enforcing those rules, including the police, trading standards, and the Health and Safety Executive. Of course, any injury caused by fireworks can be a tragedy, but thankfully the number of people admitted to hospital because of fireworks is quite stable. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said that fireworks accidents are on the rise, but my statistics show that the number of people admitted to hospital with firework injuries remains at a stable and relatively low level. NHS statistics show that the total number of people admitted to hospital because of firework injuries remained below 200 a year from 2007-08 to 2016-17. Of course, that is still too many injuries, and we want to do more to bring that number down, but the figures are relatively stable. The number of accident and emergency attendances in England in 2016-17 due to “firework injury” was 5,340. Again, that has remained pretty stable as a proportion of all A&E attendances between 2013-14 and 2016-17.

The safety of UK consumers is our highest priority, and we recognise the particular impact that fireworks can have. We believe that, at the moment, we have a balance between people’s concerns about fireworks, and the legitimate interests of those who wish to enjoy celebrating with fireworks and of those employed in the firework industry. However, we recognise that more can and must be done.

I will share with hon. Members here today the news that one of the first things I did when I became the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection was to announce on 21 January the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards. This is a new body that will receive some £12 million a year in central Government funding to ensure that we have access to information nationally and to support local authorities in their work. The new office will work with key stakeholders and enforcing authorities to review the guidance materials available on the safe and responsible use of fireworks. It will also provide an intelligence-handling function to improve the information we have. It will also examine the individual safety of particular fireworks and of other products on sale.

There was some suggestion about cuts in relation to trading standards bodies. I will just draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy gives some £15 million a year to local authorities to support the work they do through trading standards, but in addition we will have this new £12 million-a-year body to provide extra resource to local authorities.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that he will forgive me if I was perhaps a little disappointed when, after 13 minutes of his speech, I thought that he was announcing no change, but then he came out with the reminder that he has set up this new body. Will he facilitate a meeting between interested parliamentary colleagues and the senior officials now staffing this new body, so that we can have a face-to-face discussion with them about the concerns that exist across the country about fireworks?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely commit to doing that. As I said, the new body was announced just a few days ago. We have to recruit people to staff it properly and move it forward, but I would be very happy to make that commitment and to attend that meeting as well.

A number of colleagues raised the issue of collecting data on the misuse of fireworks. Clearly, this new body will look at evidence-based policy making, so it will look at the evidence, chase down and identify where the risks are, and—where necessary—come forward with suggestions and advice to Government.

University Tuition Fees

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I completely accept that there is a societal good, and that is exactly why we should have debates such as this one. The reality is still that a proportion of the cost per student, on average, in our university sector is being paid for by society. An increasing portion is being paid for by the individual, but a portion is still being paid by society. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to make that statement. The system already makes provision for that, and the question is where we draw the line.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

From the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), does he accept that there needs to be a balance and that £9,000 tuition fees for the majority are wrong? That should be scaled depending on what institution someone goes to and what course they attend, for example, and there should be factors determining how much people pay in tuition fees or not.

[Lee Rowley]

I accept in principle that there should be a societal contribution and an individual contribution, which I think the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was querying. My argument—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was absolutely correct about this—is that when an individual gains the most, they should be expected to contribute the most. We can have a party political debate about where to draw those lines, and I would probably take a different view from the Labour Members in the Chamber and from the Leader of the Opposition. In principle, somebody pays, and the question is whether that comes from general taxation or, at least, a contribution from the individual. My view is that it should be a contribution from the individual, and I understand, accept and support the direction of travel on tuition fees in recent years.

The motion that we are debating is about reducing fees to £3,000. In preparing for the debate, I looked at some economic bases on which the current system works. In my understanding, if we reduced fees to that amount, it would blow a significant multi-billion-pound hole in the national finances. I would not support that, but if it happened, the proponents of the measure would need to explain where the additional money would come from. It would be likely to reopen the debate about whether we should cap student numbers, which raises a question about supporting aspiration. It would probably also reopen the debate about the amount of money spent on supporting students through waivers, outreach programmes, measures to increase retention, combination discounts and hardship funds, with which nearly £0.4 billion is associated for the coming year. I would be interested to hear from those proponents where the alternatives would come from or what would be stopped if the proposed tuition fee reduction went through.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, but I am not au fait with the specific subject and area that she outlined. However, if we accept the principle, which started in the late ’90s and was extended in subsequent periods, of trying to engender choice in this area and accept some element of market-based principles—I know that is controversial with some in the Chamber—then when there are demand, challenge or supply problems, the market mechanisms should have the opportunity to work.

I do not want to be totally critical of today’s debate, because I recognise that there is a genuine issue and that the petitioner began the petition because of genuine concern about where we had ended up as a country. I accept that the system as a whole has some issues, which is why I welcome the Government’s full review of tuition fees and the education system in general. I recognise that there has been inflation in the system in recent years and discussions about vice-chancellor pay in the past few months. I accept that initially, when the larger fee came in, not all institutions were expected to go to the top amount, so the review is timely and important. The argument is not about whether the system works perfectly now, because it does not—no system ever works perfectly, but this one obviously has challenges—and it is not about whether areas can be improved. Specific, obvious issues with the system have been highlighted in recent months, and I accept all that.

Ultimately, we come back to the principle that somebody pays: the taxpayer or the individual, or the individual makes a contribution. I think it is entirely legitimate that the individual makes a contribution. I support the system as it stands, pending the fuller review of the detail. For me, this is ultimately a question of a quasi-hypothecation or no hypothecation. Somehow the money will be spent and it will be paid back. The question is: who pays it back? Is the money associated with the people who get the greatest benefit? In my view, the people who benefit the greatest should contribute the most.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that the same rules apply in Westminster Hall as in the Chamber. If Back Benchers wish to speak, they will need to stand up to indicate that. As only Jim Fitzpatrick stood up, I will call him first.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir David. Thank you for calling me earlier than I had anticipated. You have explained why and, fortunately, colleagues will not have to wait too long for their turn, as I will not detain them for long.

I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for the opportunity to participate briefly in the debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who made a thoughtful contribution, outlining the pressures on the further and higher education system and the pros and cons of different elements. It was a fair presentation and I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to his comments, and to everybody else’s, including those of the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden). I suspect that my hon. Friend and I were the only two people in the Chamber today who were in the Commons when tuition fees were introduced in 1998, so I look forward to his wisdom prevailing in the debate from the Labour Front Bench.

I confess that I only realised the debate was taking place when the communications hub alerted me that my constituents had contributed the 10th-highest number of signatures to the petition—12,089. I tried to work out why that might be the case, but I have not arrived at a conclusion. I have not seen email traffic from my constituents to support the level of concern that the numbers suggest, but the petition has obviously attracted them and I am pleased to make a contribution.

I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for its background paper. Reading it brought back memories of our debates in 1998 on introducing tuition fees at £1,000 and then, in 2004, on raising them to £3,000. Our discussions were along the lines that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire indicated—about the cap on student numbers and releasing it to allow more young people to go into further and higher education, which would require some assistance and contribution through tuition fees. That argument clearly won the day.

In 1998, I was ambivalent about the £1,000 level, mainly because the conditions attached meant that most young people and families in my constituency would not be expected to pay since the majority of my young constituents came from below the household income threshold at which it would be required. Tuition fees would not have added to the pressures that they experienced simply because of the size of household incomes in Poplar and Canning Town, as it was in those days. I assume that I supported the proposal—I have no recollection of not doing so.

However, the sister policy of abolishing maintenance grants, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned and which the Library briefing paper focused on, concerned me. Whereas fees and their introduction would have had minimal effect, the proposed abolition of maintenance grants would have had—and did have—a profound impact. I voted against it, and that was my first—and probably only—vote against a three-line Whip in our 11 years in government. I knew that many families locally would not have been able to support their children into further or higher education without the grants. The briefing paper makes just that point by quoting the National Union of Students president, who said in her evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that simply abolishing fees would not help students, and that

“just scrapping tuition fees will not solve the problem. It is about maintenance support. Scotland is a prime example. It has no tuition fees, and students are still struggling. It is important to reinstate maintenance grants.”

Sir David, I am sorry I did not include you in our little gang of survivors from 1998, because you are non-political when in the Chair, but you were there, and you will remember, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, that, interestingly, the Labour Government restored maintenance grants four years later, recognising that they were an important policy. That was welcome.

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on his rebel past and what fees were like before they turned into the monster that they have become. In those days, did he foresee cases like that of Siobhan Hallett of Acton? She makes £27,000 and her repayments are £58 a month, but if she works any overtime, her repayments rise to £115. She says:

“I feel like I am being robbed every time I try to better myself in society.”

She wants to get on the housing ladder, but she is being penalised by rising loan repayments. The Student Loans Company is taking what she earns.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about repayments—when they start, how much is repaid and at what interest rate. To be fair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire raised those points as well. I am sure that the Government are trying to weigh up all the different elements, because they all affect each other and the system is clearly unfair. I am sure that when my hon. Friend gets a chance to make her own contribution, she will focus on that; I might intervene to support her points, because they are emphatic and critical to young people’s quality of life during their time at university.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in Scotland. Is he aware not only that students in Scotland are not saddled with £27,000 in debt in the way that students in other parts of the UK are, but that last year, additionally, almost 3,000 students qualified for a non-repayable bursary or had their funding increased? Will he comment on that particular situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning Scotland. I will come back to that. The position is also referred to on page 13 of the House of Commons Library briefing; I note that the Scottish Government are currently conducting a review of Scottish funding. That is welcome, because there are questions about how the policies on tuition fees, loans and repayments are applied in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government are carrying out a review. I will return in a moment to what the Library briefing says about that.

As I was saying, I supported the introduction of tuition fees to help raise the cap on the numbers of young people going into further and higher education at college and university, because it was clearly recognised that the ceiling had been there for too long—30% was not right for our 21st-century country—and a change had to be made.

The Library briefing makes the point that each £1,000 cut in tuition fees would cause universities to lose £1 billion in income, or else the taxpayer would have to make up the difference, as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire said. I do not support the abolition of tuition fees, but neither do I support £9,000 across the board. They should be variable, with the highest fees for the Russell group alone; £3,000 certainly seems too low for those universities. The petition, which is welcome, indicates that this debate is very much still alive.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

There is general agreement that for good-quality university education to be sustainable, it must be paid for. There are many aspects to that, including the public purse and the individual. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that maybe we should consider looking to employers, who are also beneficiaries of graduates and postgraduates in their businesses? Could they be greater players in funding the education system that we need and desire?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said in her intervention that all of society benefits when a highly skilled cadre of young people come through the system. They make us more productive, more energetic and more able to compete in the world market. These are difficult questions for the Minister. I am sure that he has all the answers for us, and we look forward to hearing them in due course. Yes, a contribution across the board is entirely appropriate.

The Library briefing has some interesting paragraphs on fees, as I mentioned in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Page 13 says:

“The free fees policy in Scotland has been discussed by many commentators, most noticeably by academic Lucy Blackman Hunter, who has suggested that free fees benefit middle-class students the most. It has also been suggested that the free fees policy is unsustainable and has led to the underfunding of Scottish universities and rising debt among poorer students.”

As I mentioned, the Scottish Government have indicated that they will be holding a review. I certainly wish them every success in that. My son went to Glasgow University, although as a London-born resident he paid full tuition fees.

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate the point, but that does not address the fact that many students now in university in Scotland will leave with significantly smaller debt than students in England who are currently paying £27,000, as has been mentioned, and those paying slightly less elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The point has also been made that many students are leaving university with debts so high that they will never pay them back. The loss to the Exchequer is transparent. It suggests that the balance is wrong and needs adjusting. I do not detract from what she said, but the Library briefing says that the Scottish Government are reviewing the situation. Maybe they will make some adjustments to indicate how they would make the balance more equitable.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the petitioners for the opportunity to make these brief comments. Debts, interest rates, unpaid loans and fee levels have been key manifesto issues in every election at least since 2001. From this debate, it is clear that that will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read some figures but not fully understood them. We have college places aplenty in Scotland; we have college places that cannot be filled. There are now 116,000 full-time college places in Scotland, which is more than ever before.

In a Times Higher Education article last year, Professor Danny Dorling of Oxford University wrote:

“In contrast to England, Scotland shows what a real narrowing of inequalities would look like. There, the most dramatic change has been in the proportion of children from the most disadvantaged quintile of areas going to the highest tariff universities. Home student applications continue to rise in Scotland even as they begin to stall in England.”

To talk down the interactions between FE and HE in getting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into tertiary education does a great disservice to the institutions and the young people served by them.

Our free tuition policy benefits 120,000 undergraduate students every year, saving them from the massive debt seen in other parts of the UK. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) stated that he was probably one of only two Members who were here when tuition fees were first introduced in 1998. In 1998, my son was born. He is now in his second year of university in Scotland and he has no tuition fees. At the moment, he is still debt-free, because like many students in Scotland, particularly in the west of Scotland, he lives at home and he has a job to supplement his life, especially his social life, if that is required. However, he is debt-free and hopefully will remain so.

Even taking into consideration my previous comments about UCAS statistics, the number of students from Scotland’s most deprived areas who are entering university has increased by 19% in just two years. We are clearly ahead of others in supporting such young people to ensure that they remain in education. Alastair Sim from Universities Scotland says that the entry rate for 18-year-olds from the most deprived areas of Scotland is 51% higher than 10 years ago.

Despite the attempts of this Tory Government to use statistics to spin the story, the facts in Scotland are different. In Scotland, we place a value on our young people; from baby boxes to free tuition, we tell them that they are important and we need them. We are told that our free tuition prevents Scottish students from accessing the available places. Again, that would help the Tory spin, but once again I have to disappoint. Since the SNP came to office in 2007, the number of Scottish-domiciled full-time degree entrants has risen by 12%, and since 2013 the total number of funded places available at Scottish universities, including additional places to widen access to students from Scotland’s most deprived areas, has also increased.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Government’s investment in additional places for access students and for those progressing from college has had a positive impact. We are investing £51 million a year to support 7,000 places, including those for access and articulation from FE to HE.

We are reaping the benefits. UCAS statistics for this academic year show that more than 34,500 applicants living in Scotland accepted a place at university this year, which is an increase of 2% and a record number at this stage in the cycle. Contrary to what the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire said, all other UK nations saw a fall in the number of people accepted to university compared with last year.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

In my speech, and in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), I referred to a comment in the House of Commons Library briefing paper that the Scottish Government are carrying out a review of this whole area of policy. Is that the case, or is it not? The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) is painting a very positive picture, but if the picture is so positive why would the Scottish Government have to carry out a review?

[Carol Monaghan]

Of course the review is taking place. Despite the positive picture, and it is a positive picture, we do not stop there. We will keep going and keep going, until we can ensure that every young person, regardless of background, can go to university or can see university as something they would like to do.

The Scottish Government are doing other things, too. In Glasgow, they run a project called the advanced higher hub. I have mentioned it before in this place. In Scotland, advanced highers are the highest school qualification. The advanced higher hub is funded by the Scottish Government and supported by Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Caledonian University. It takes young people from disadvantaged schools all over Glasgow and brings them together to do their advanced highers. The idea was that if only one or two pupils were doing advanced highers in a particular school, it was not economically viable to run those courses, whereas bringing pupils from different schools together made it economically viable.

One of the side effects of the project arises from those students having their lessons on a university campus, as they start seeing university as something they can all do. University seems normal; the process is normalised. The number of young people who have attended the hub and who are now going to university is just overwhelming. It is a huge success story. We will continue to do all we can to widen access and ensure that our young people are given the best opportunity to succeed.

I want to say something about Labour’s position. I welcome Labour’s stance on tuition fees and I support any attempts to reduce or abolish those charges, but I struggle to understand Labour’s position. I want to have faith in it and I want to believe the Labour party, but we also see the Labour Government in Wales increasing tuition fees. I appeal to Labour colleagues in this place to follow the SNP, talk to their Labour colleagues in Wales and consider what can be done so that the public can be assured of their intent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing the debate, with crispness but with insight. The truth of the matter is that a lot of water has run under the bridge since the e-petition was initiated. Members will have seen in the Library briefing that it was put together before the general election was called. Debate on it was therefore postponed. As I say, a lot of water has run under the bridge—under our bridge, and the Minister’s also perhaps—since then, but the reality that prompted 166,000 people to add their names to the petition remains the same. The current system of fees at record highs, and potentially rising in the years ahead, is unsustainable.

This has been a good-natured, thoughtful debate, with some excellent contributions from both sides of the House. This is the first time I have heard the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), and I pay tribute to his speech. There are always different ways of looking at how things have gone. He cited the figures on participation in education that are handed out by Tory Whips at every Education questions, and they are true, in certain areas and in certain cohorts of young people. However, we have to think not simply about young people but about people of all ages, because that is a key issue we will face in the next 10 years. Indeed, among young people themselves, there are disturbing signs regarding completion, which I will mention later, making the picture perhaps not quite as rosy as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

We have had some excellent contributions from Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) not only reminded himself and me of our mortality in this place, but also the Chair, which may or may not be a good thing to do. The truth of the matter is exactly as he said. People forget, of course, that the decisions taken in 1998 were the result of the Dearing report. The report had a consensus in this House, because of the issues it needed to address, but even then, there were many concerns about maintenance grants, as my hon. Friend rightly said.

Maynard Keynes famously said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

That is one reason why the Labour party is now committed to what we said we would do in our manifesto. The loss to the Exchequer, in my view and, I think, that of many, of the funding processes is becoming unsustainable.

The huge amount of erudition and reference with which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke did not affect the fact that he stressed, absolutely rightly, that the current Government in particular—the previous Government under David Cameron were also guilty of this—have an obsession with an ideological viewpoint which, as I have said before, could have come from the pages of Ayn Rand, in the sense that they regard higher education principally as a private consumable, although from time to time they throw bits of food off the table to the public good. That is one issue with which Opposition Members and progressive Government Members take strong issue. It must be remembered that Bahram Bekhradnia, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West mentioned—the Chilean example he gave was a fascinating one—was not only a distinguished director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, which the Minister and I frequently use to bounce ideas off, but a director for 10 years, so he knew what he was talking about.

I was pleased with and interested in the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). He made points about the negative—if I can put it this way—nudge impact on groups of people, and he talked particularly about the south-east. From a northern perspective, one reason we were not happy with the freezing of the threshold was that it brought more and more graduates in the north and the midlands into the repayment trap too early. We should see in this whole process the problems of repayment.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), whom I was pleased to work with on the Higher Education and Research Bill, made a number of interesting points, some of which I agreed with, some of which I did not. She talked about the impact of fees on English students, but the Government’s fee policies affect, and the tuition fees e-petition concerns, not just English students but tens of thousands of students enrolled in higher education in further education colleges, like mine in Blackpool. The issue also affects thousands of Scottish students in England and thousands of students from Northern Ireland. The Minister might want to pause for thought, because the Democratic Unionist party has been less than keen on tuition fees. That was why the DUP absented itself from our tuition fees debate in the main Chamber on 13 September and why the Government had to flee the field on that occasion and were forced to allow our Opposition motion to pass unopposed. The Minister should have a care not to rub his DUP colleagues up the wrong way, otherwise there might be an addition to that £1 billion down payment for their support.

The tuition fee changes that the Government put through before the general election saw the basic rate for tuition fees rise from £6,000 to £6,250 a year. The higher rate moved from £9,000 to £9,250. According to the Sutton Trust’s recent report, “Fairer Fees”, the average debt for students is £46,000. Student fees in the UK are 10 times higher than the European average and twice as high as in the US. In June this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies sounded further alarms about the Government’s direction of travel. It said:

“Replacing maintenance grants with loans…results in students from low-income families graduating with the highest debt levels, in excess of £57,000.”

It also said that

“changes since 2012 have increased the repayments of almost all graduates, increasing the burden of student loans the most for low and middle earners”.

I have made reference to this elsewhere in the House, but the University and College Union commissioned a report from London Economics that was published on 20 July. It suggested that thousands of graduates will suffer a midlife tax crisis from the repayment of accrued interest on student loans. With a ninefold increase in inflation from 0.3% in April 2016—before the Brexit referendum—that will now get radically worse. None of these things exactly hangs out a welcome sign to young people who have got a place or hope to go to university, and that is significant.

The Sutton Trust has issued Members with a factsheet on student debt, but it has also done research that shows that in 2017, financial worries about HE were particularly pronounced, and they increased in families with low levels of affluence. Some 66% of those families were worried, as compared with 46% in high-affluence households. It is no wonder that the results of the survey of student experience by the Higher Education Policy Institute and the Higher Education Academy show that just 35% believe that their higher education experience represented good or very good value for money.

I have talked about the issues around the drop-out rate. Two recent reports from the Office for Fair Access and the Social Market Foundation point to growing drop-out rates, particularly among students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have already referred to the Sutton Trust survey. It showed the poorest statistics in eight years for school students wanting to plan for higher education.

I will raise a point that the Government seem to neglect. I have talked before about the fact that we can nudge people away from things as well as towards them. The issue is not just a question of the increasing pressure on those who have taken out loans and how that affects their social mobility; it is also a question of how that puts off people who might want to go to higher education in the first place. By its very nature, that is much less quantifiable, but it is a real factor that needs to be discussed.

What is clearly part of the equation is the impact on part-time and mature students. The main casualties of the increases in tuition fees since 2012 from £3,000 to £9,000 have been mature students and part-time learners. In England, there has been a 60% drop in the number of part-time students since 2010-11. The Minister has said on several occasions that he thinks the argument is far more complex than that, but many people, including me, think that the statistics tell their own story. We simply cannot afford to have that haemorrhaging in the involvement of those groups.

The skills figures are stark: only 13% of the 9.5 million people in the UK who are considering higher education in the next five years are school leavers. The majority are working adults. There is a social dimension to the issue. That is underlined by the fact that one in five undergraduate entrants in England from low-participation neighbourhoods choose—or for financial reasons perhaps have no other option—to study part time. Those are the sorts of people being affected. Even the Minister’s distinguished predecessor Lord Willetts has now admitted that the decisions the Government made in 2012 to treble tuition fees—at that time, the fees were buttressed by various safety mechanisms for social mobility, but those were then stripped away by subsequent Governments—weaken that argument about social mobility still further.

Those are not good bases on which this or any Government should defend the current system. Indeed, there is a palpable and growing realisation that the Government’s settlement for higher education is divisive and financially unstable, especially in regard to tuition fees. Keith Burnett, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield University, put it sharply in a Times Higher Education article in June:

“With total debt forecast to hit £200 billion in six years and to pass £1 trillion by 2045, it will dwarf credit card debt”.

On the basis of the Government’s disappointing general election results—it is important we recognise that it was not just students who turned against them in a big way; it was young people in general, because the student issue and how the Government were dealing with it was seen as emblematic of their attitude towards young people in general—it is not surprising that there has been lively discussion in government about what should be done. The First Secretary of State acknowledged that student debt was a huge issue. The Leader of the House spoke about it, although she did not come forward to discuss matters properly. One of the leading members of the Government—if one is to believe what one hears, he is very much a darling of Tory activists—the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), is on record as saying in 2010 that he opposed the plans to increase fees to as much as £9,000 a year. He said

“that is something I don’t believe we can allow to continue. I have always been against tuition fees. In 2005 our policy was abolition and I was one of the drivers behind that.”

That is the reality of where we stand today. The Government have conceded that the situation with fees is unsatisfactory. If they thought the current system was working well and would be sustainable in the long term, they would not have tinkered with it at the Conservative conference, where they capped the fee rise to £9,250 and increased the repayment threshold of student loans. As one of the central announcements in her conference speech, the Prime Minister committed to a review of HE funding and student finance, but the Minister has yet to reveal the details of that review. At the conference and subsequently, he seemed singularly unhappy about associating himself with the review. The Chancellor failed to mention it in the Budget, so will the Minister let us know the terms of reference for the review? Will it be a full consultation? When will it be brought back?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I know that the further education sector is very close to my hon. Friend’s heart. I just left the reception of the London region of the Association of Colleges where there was great dismay that the Government have been almost silent on the future arrangements for the further education sector. That is similar to the absence of any clarity on where the Government are generally going in this whole area that my hon. Friend is outlining.

[Gordon Marsden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the situation in further education colleges, because a number of FE colleges, including in my constituency, took the leap of faith in the late 2000s—very much encouraged by the then Labour Government—and set up higher education departments. Those higher education departments must be allowed to flourish, but it seems they are bearing not only the burdens that I am talking about generally, but particular burdens because of the nature of the young people they take in. It is a double whammy, because they take in young people from poorer backgrounds, who are precisely the sort of people most likely to be put off by rising fees. They also take in older people who wish to reskill and retrain, and they too are precisely the sort of people likely to be put off. We know that because we see what is happening with the advanced learning loans that the Government introduced progressively, largely but not entirely for further education, where 60% of the money put out in those advanced learning loans—the figure has barely changed—year by year has remained the same. That is a crisis for FE colleges, but it is also a particular crisis for HE in FE colleges.

Our plans would uprate the funding to universities in line with inflation, whereas the Government’s plans basically impose a real-terms cut in funding. Of course, rising fees might have been easier to swallow if they had been put back into the system, but, again, as MillionPlus has said, and as has been referred to today, there has been no increase in direct grant available from Government for university courses in the arts, humanities, social sciences, architecture and economics to name a few of the subjects affected since 2014-15. That means universities are now required to fund programmes that previously were supported by Government, and there has been a decline in capital investment and an 80% cut in the teaching grant. Will the Minister confirm how much funding in real terms universities will lose in each of the next five years as a result of their current position and their decision to freeze fees?

Now that the Government have increased the student loan repayment threshold, whatever else it might mean for the benefit or otherwise of the students concerned, it means that they are going to miss their own RAB target by around 15%, so will the Minister confirm whether they will revise the target?

The University and College Union got it right when it responded to the Chancellor’s Budget statement. It said:

“The glaring omission from today’s speech was any support for current higher education students, or further detail on the Prime Minister’s promised review of university funding in England.”

That is why we have persistently, in both the HE and FE Bills that came through before the general election, argued the case for much greater focus on some of the groups who will be affected by that. That should go to the heart of the way in which student loans are handed out at the moment. The Minister knows that the Student Loans Company has recently been the subject of controversy, but the issue, which I will not dwell on today, of overpayments and how that has affected many students brings us back to the point that the Government and the Student Loans Company are operating a system that is beginning quite significantly to fail. If the nature of the Student Loans Company board or the Office for Students board were perhaps slightly broader than they are at the moment, more light might be shed on this area.

We appreciate the fact that the Chancellor has listened to our call for proper information sharing between HMRC and the Student Loans Company. Even though it has been postponed until 2019, I hope that that will have a major impact on the current situation. A great deal of thought needs to be given to any major changes in student finance, but the direction of travel matters. We are clear about our direction of travel. We would build bridges for people and not put barriers in their way via a series of measures that stress private good as opposed to public good and which keep people in silos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Indeed they would, but it is also important that they make a direct contribution that relates to the benefit they have received, which has been provided for them by a public funding contribution.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). In response to the Minister’s challenge to me, he is right: I do not support full abolition, but neither do I support the £9,000 level. I think there is a balance to be struck. On his comment that the Treasury presses hard, I know it does. I have been in government; the Treasury always presses hard. The political choice that one makes, and that the Treasury and the Cabinet make, is how far it is allowed to press, and where the trade-offs are. The hon. Lady says that there should be contributions from elsewhere. The health service has suggested that we have golden handcuffs for those who want to qualify as doctors, and free them from their tuition fees to get them into the NHS and keep them there for the rest of their professional lives. Those choices and judgments have to be made.

[Joseph Johnson]

I would just note that higher education is a devolved policy responsibility in the United Kingdom. Those parts of the United Kingdom that have the present level of fees that we have in England have been able to lift student number controls. Other Administrations, which have made their own policy choices, have not been able to lift student number controls. As a result, under those Administrations we have seen far lower levels of widening participation than we currently see in England. We genuinely think that returning to a cap on student numbers would be absolutely disastrous for young people from lower income backgrounds.

Residential Premises: Product Safety and Fire Risk

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered product safety and fire risk in residential premises.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate; given how many colleagues have turned up to support it and speak in it, I will take no more time than I need. I have timed my speech at eight minutes.

I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has led a determined parliamentary campaign on these issues, supporting the attempts of the London fire brigade, Which? and Electrical Safety First to improve product safety. I am grateful to those organisations for the material that they have supplied for the debate; to the Library for the debate pack that it produced yesterday; and to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which weighed in this morning. All the safety organisations agree on what was and is needed.

I do not need to say very much about the scale of the problem. Three fires a day in the United Kingdom involve tumble dryers; more than 4,000 fires in 2016 were caused by faulty appliances and leads; and 2,000 fires in London between 2011 and 2016 involved white goods. The Grenfell fire was started by a fridge-freezer, and deaths have occurred elsewhere, too—one in 2010, five in 2011, two in 2014—as a result of similar sources of ignition.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She is well liked and respected across the House, and much is expected of her. The Library debate pack generously details her efforts: correspondence and meetings with Whirlpool and others in the sector, press notices, written statements, meetings with colleagues, parliamentary and other questions, steering groups, working parties, support for Register My Appliance Day, and more. Those are all commendable, but many of us want a conclusive, robust and ambitious Government response, and it will continue to reflect badly on this Administration if one does not come soon. As London fire brigade’s letter states:

“There has been over three years of reports and recommendations but as yet no action from Government…the review of the UK product recall system was first announced in November 2014. This was then launched in March 2015 with consumer champion Lynn Faulds Wood leading the review which reported in February 2016 with a series of recommendations. A steering group was then set up to take these forward. Following the Shepherds Court fire, a new working group to replace the steering group was set up in autumn 2016 which published its recommendations in July 2017.”

The Government are due to publish their response at any time; I would be grateful for an update from the Minister. Yesterday, in her latest letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, she repeated her expectation of an “autumn response”. When I was Minister for time at the Department of Trade and Industry—not many people know that there is a Minister for time, but it was me once—my office once promised an “autumn response” in an answer to a parliamentary question. When I inquired what that meant exactly, I was told it meant “by 21 December,” which was the date of the end of the Session that autumn. Will the Minister clarify whether the response to the working party will come in late December or early November?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has been a champion for product safety. Does he agree that the Whirlpool tumble dryer revelation is a warning that the electrical sector needs to heed before there is loss of life? The Government must play a part by enforcing codes of practice on an industry that is managing to fly under the radar.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes the central point to which I am sure all Front-Bench spokespeople will refer when they wind up the debate. I will come on to Whirlpool’s response and the central recommendations of the Faulds Wood report.

Page 7 of the Library debate pack includes an interesting detail that had previously escaped me: if people have used their credit cards to buy faulty equipment, credit card companies could be held liable. The credit card companies may therefore sue manufacturers for faulty goods. I have not heard that point mentioned in any of the debates so far, but if the credit card companies weighed in and threatened to sue Whirlpool, that might be a game-changer. That is not within the scope of this debate, but I mention it as an aside.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an officer of the all-party group on fire safety rescue; our erstwhile chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), is also present. We all know the terrible devastation that a white goods fire can cause, but can the hon. Gentleman put an economic figure on it? It is sure to be a costly figure for the country.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have to confess that I do not have a figure. Most of the evidence that I have seen from the organisations that have briefed us relates more to public safety and the risk to life, but other hon. Members may very well be able to provide a figure. Looking round the Chamber, I think I see all the officers of the all-party group on fire safety rescue, who are all hoping to contribute as the hon. Gentleman has done.

The recommendations of the Faulds Wood review state:

“There is a need for the creation of an official national product safety agency…There should be an official trusted website…There is an urgent need to improve funding, training, resources and procedures for…the enforcement authorities”.

Which? makes the point that trading standards officers have 260 pieces of legislation to enforce, and product safety is therefore not a priority. It further states:

“Local authority trading standards cannot be expected to hold to account multinational companies for product safety incidents of national concern”.

That is surely true. Indeed, it was under pressure from Which? that Peterborough trading standards officers took action against Whirlpool, following the Shepherd’s Bush fire in 2016. Whirlpool updated its safety advice to consumers, warning them to stop using their machines until they are repaired. However, the modification programme it initiated did not have the capacity to deliver. In April, the Minister reported to the House that Whirlpool had resolved 1.5 million of the 3.5 million affected machines, and in October the Government spokesperson in the House of Lords reported that the figure stood at 1.7 million. It would be interesting to hear an update from the Minister today.

There are clearly big issues to address, not only for consumers but for retailers, manufacturers and the Government. As consumers, we need to recognise that completing product warranty forms is in our own interest; I understand that anecdotal evidence suggests that people do not complete them for fear of receiving unwanted sales literature, although personally I think it has more to do with laziness. According to the Library,

“YouGov research showed that just over a third of us currently register our appliances.”

Retailers should be required to register customers’ purchases and personal details for safety recall purposes. Those details must not be used for promotions—although in this age of information sharing and data capture, it is almost impossible for any of us to avoid sales material and promotions.

London fire brigade has a number of simple requests to manufacturers, and these requests are supported generally. They include changing fridge-freezer construction to protect insulation materials from components that could catch fire; better permanent marking of model and serial numbers, so that appliances can be identified after a fire; and using capacitors in fridges and freezers in a way that prevents them from starting fires. Which? also mentions non-flame-retardant backings for fridge-freezers.

Finally, what should the Government do? That is obviously the biggest challenge, especially with a Government who—with respect—are set against any new regulation on business. I have already mentioned the key recommendations of the Faulds Wood report for a national safety agency, an official trusted website and better enforcement; all its other recommendations flow from those. As an aside, all the safety organisations have raised concerns about what will happen after Brexit, not only to our own safety standards and markings, but to information sharing with other countries on advice, failures and recalls. It would be helpful if the Minister could also address that issue in her wind-up.

In conclusion, I am told by the London fire brigade that there have been 14 such fires in my constituency in recent times. I have referred to some of the other regional and national statistics, including those on fatalities. I understand that this is the fifth debate on this subject since March 2015. We have also had two Government reviews and there is an ongoing working group. There have been three major incidents in tower blocks since 2009—Lakanal House, Shepherds Court and Grenfell—all of which had an electrical source of ignition. The Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had a hearing yesterday to explore these issues and I hope it will soon launch a major inquiry. Of course, we still await the Government’s conclusions on their latest review, as I have mentioned.

Meanwhile, the average success rate for an electrical product recall is apparently between 10% and 20%. We all know, including our major safety organisations and the Government, that that is just not good enough, because lives are at risk. What can the Minister do about it?

I look forward to hearing the contributions of fellow Back Benchers and the responses from the Front Benchers. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. He said some nice things about my expertise and the length of time that I have wrestled with this issue, but that is a fraction of what he has put in.

I am grateful that the chair of the all-party group on fire safety rescue, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who we have heard from, and the chair of the all-party group on home electrical safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who I hope we will hear from, are both here. I acknowledge the many organisations that have supported us in these campaigns, such as Electrical Safety First, Which?, the London fire brigade and other fire services, and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. I apologise if I have forgotten any. They are very different organisations but they have an interesting unity of view on what needs to be done. I hope the Minister is listening to that view as well as to the individual arguments. I wish to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse in his precision, but that is not my strong point.

Yesterday, I attended the evidence session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which is looking at this issue. I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on that revealing and interesting session. I hope the Minister and her civil servants will find time to look at it.

This debate is not about one company, one product or even one type of goods—white goods or any other. Product safety goes a lot further than fire risk, and fire risk goes a lot further than individual products. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned cabling. I was involved in a BBC investigation earlier this month that revealed the rather frightening figure of 4 million metres of unsafe cabling from a now defunct Turkish company installed in residential premises in the UK. That may partly be down to the Health and Safety Executive, which realised that 11 million metres of faulty cabling was out there and tried to ensure that it was not used, but did not go ahead with a compulsory recall. There are echoes here of what happened in the white goods cases. Clearly, the danger of cabling buried in walls as a potential fire risk is in some ways even greater than the danger of goods that are on display.

As I say, this issues goes a lot wider but I will concentrate on three events that concern white goods manufactured by the Whirlpool company. Whirlpool is not the whole story but I do not think that is coincidental. All three have already been mentioned, so I will not labour the points, but I will briefly go through them to draw some more general conclusions and put some questions to the Minister.

The first tragic event happened on 10 October 2014 when two men, Bernard Hender and Doug McTavish, died at their flat in Llanrwst. The preventing future deaths report has yet to be published, but we have the transcript of the coroner for north Wales’s narrative verdict from 1 September. That inquest concluded:

“On the balance of probabilities, the fire was caused by an electrical fault in the tumble dryer in the laundry room of the flat”.

That was a tumble dryer manufactured by the Whirlpool company. I have read the whole of that verdict. It took three years for that inquest to report, and it is incontestable that the delay was partly because of Whirlpool bringing forward often spurious points such as whether the fire was caused by spontaneous combustion. That attitude, which was also shown with regard to the next fire I will talk about, is extremely regrettable.

Although the precise electrical fault was not identified, there is strong evidence to suggest that it was not the known safety fault in Whirlpool tumble dryers—the collection and ignition of dust and lint—but an electrical fault in the door mechanism. In evidence yesterday to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Whirlpool said that about 20 such fires have been identified, but there has been no product safety notice, let alone a recall notice, in relation to that particular fault.

The second event, which particularly concerns me, is the very serious fire at Shepherd’s Court on 19 August 2016. Late on a Friday afternoon, that 19-storey block of flats was fully evacuated and 50 people were made homeless, some temporarily and some for a long time. According to the fire brigade and other experts, it was only through luck, the circumstance of its happening in the afternoon and the quick and professional response of the fire services that there were no serious injuries or deaths on that occasion. In the view of the residents and their lawyers, Whirlpool has dragged its feet, notwithstanding that from an early stage it was clear that the particular fault—the one that is subject to a product safety notice but not a recall—in the 5.5 million Whirlpool tumble dryers that were manufactured over 13 years and sold in the UK caused the fire. That is not in dispute. A year on, however, we are no nearer to an admission of liability or to any action taken by Whirlpool to deal with the people who, in many cases, lost their entire life: their belongings, their furniture and their flats, when they left because of that fire.

The third and most tragic event is the Grenfell Tower fire, which happened on 14 June. We knew quite soon after the event that it was caused by a Hotpoint fridge-freezer that was manufactured by Whirlpool. We still do not know much more about that. I am grateful to the Minister for answering my most recent correspondence on this subject before the debate. Her response goes some way towards dealing with some of the points that I would have raised, but it also raises further questions. I will try to be concise in saying what those are and if she can answer them today, that would be helpful.

In relation to the product safety notices for the Whirlpool tumble dryers, it is right to acknowledge that Whirlpool has gone to considerable lengths to modify those dryers—1.65 million of them, according to the Minister’s letter. There are other issues that I will not go into today about the speed at which that was done, how that was done, whether that is sufficient and whether further problems result. That is a substantial programme of modification, but 5.5 million dryers were manufactured. Whirlpool’s own estimate—it has to be an estimate because no one knows how many have worn out, been put out of use by other methods or possibly burnt out without causing a fire—is that at least 1 million are still in use in the UK. Which? and other organisations estimate that the figure is probably nearer 2 million. Certainly a substantial number of tumble dryers with a known fault that has caused hundreds of fires are still causing a problem, probably in every constituency in the United Kingdom.

Notwithstanding whatever efforts Whirlpool has gone to—the Minister will doubtless say that the success rate in identifying a faulty product is about 40% compared with the typical 20%—this fault is so serious because of its potential risk to life and property and the number of dryers that more has to be done. It is absolutely clear that Whirlpool is not in the mood to do more. I pray in aid for that the evidence that it gave to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee yesterday.

It was remarkable that Whirlpool turned up at all because in the two or three years of various all-party groups and Committees asking it to attend, it has studiously refused and sent out the same standard letter. The Minister may want to say more about its attitude, but in terms of its accountability to Parliament, it has been extraordinarily disrespectful and continued, in the view of Committee members, to show that disrespect yesterday. It sent not the managing director or anyone with the competence to talk about the technical side of its programme, but effectively its PR man, who was able to answer very few of the questions, even the quite basic questions that I could answer. I urge the Minister to look at that and to deal with Whirlpool in the light of the attitude it continues to show.

We cannot sustain the position whereby there are 1 or 2 million highly unsafe products probably in daily use. Let us not forget the background: this company, against all professional advice, refused even to tell its customers not to use the machines. There is a great suspicion that that was because it could not cope with several million people suddenly saying, “I can’t dry my clothes any more.”

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I heard only the evidence from Electrical Safety First, Which? and the London fire brigade at the BEIS Committee yesterday. From what my hon. Friend describes, the way in which Whirlpool answered the questions will surely feed the appetite of the Select Committee to have a full inquiry so that it can summon Whirlpool and interrogate it to get full answers rather than the dismissive ones that seem to have been given yesterday.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not sure the Committee has reached such a conclusion, but I sincerely hope it does. If anything will have encouraged it, it was the desultory way in which the manufacturers dealt with the matter yesterday.

Whirlpool’s view over months and years was that it was perfectly all right for customers to continue to use the machines, provided they were in the same building and awake—not even in the same room. It persisted with that view even against the evidence from the Shepherds Bush fire where the victim, my constituent, was in the same room when the fire started and took every possible correct action: pulling the plug out, calling the fire brigade, shutting the door, and doing everything they could to prevent the fire from spreading. It took another six months for Whirlpool to change its advice and only, as has already been said, under threat of legal action from Which?, which I applaud. It was disgraceful to see Whirlpool pretending yesterday that that was not the cause of its change of policy, but that it just suddenly lighted on the fact and, after a couple of years, decided to do that. I think all Members will be angry at the dismissive attitude that was shown.

What are we going to do about the Whirlpool situation, specifically in relation to Grenfell? I am grateful for the Minister’s clarity in saying that the broader issues to do with the cause and spread of fire are matters for the public inquiry. We accept that. As I understand it, the specific issue of a fault within the model of fridge-freezer identified is a matter for her Department. I will press her a little further and ask when we will know that. We knew quite quickly that it was a fridge-freezer, which model it was and which flat it was. We know the model number, so that indicates to me that it was not completely destroyed. I would hope that by now there was some indication, because there could be a variety of faults. It could be within the fridge-freezer, it could be to do with its use or the cabling or anything of that kind. If it is a fault in that model or similar models of fridge-freezer, that needs quick action in terms of product recall and product safety notices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to have a few seconds to finish off the debate. The Minister knows that it has been one-way traffic pretty much all the way through, with Back Benchers who are members or officers of the all-party parliamentary group, ably led by our friend, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess); there were also members from the all-party parliamentary group on electrical safety, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). We even had an audience from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who kindly gave her time to come and support the debate, which was very welcome. We equitably shared the time—with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). That was totally understandable because he has led the campaign from the start and had a lot more to say than the rest of us. We are grateful to him.

We look forward to the Minister’s conclusions being published in late November or early December. We should perhaps ask a parliamentary question to identify exactly what early December means, but that is only teasing. We hope it will be an oral statement, though there will certainly be a written statement. There will be pressure to submit an urgent question to get this on to the Floor of the House. I am grateful for all the contributions, including from the Front-Bench spokespeople.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Whirlpool: Product Safety System

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and for raising that issue. I will conclude my speech by putting that matter to the Minister. If, when the new Parliament is elected, we still do not have satisfactory answers, I hope that whoever then chairs the BEIS Committee will pursue the matter with the Government and Whirlpool.

Having mentioned many Members, I want briefly to pay tribute to the campaign organisations, without which we simply would not have got this far. It is invidious, because some always get left out, but they include Which?, Electrical Safety First, the London Fire Brigade, the LGA and the Chief Fire Officers Association. They have all been extremely helpful in keeping the issue on our agenda and ensuring we are properly briefed. In particular, Which? has led a campaign specifically on Whirlpool’s unwillingness to undertake a recall. That resulted in a change in Whirlpool’s safety advice in February. Last December, Which? sought a judicial review into what it regarded as failures by the trading standards team overseeing the case in Peterborough. As Members may be aware, Peterborough trading standards has been acting as Whirlpool’s advisers, and the review would have looked into whether Peterborough trading standards acted lawfully in this capacity. Which? said at the time:

“We believe that the way Whirlpool has handled the tumble dryer safety issue is absolutely appalling and to add insult to injury Peterborough Trading Standards has failed to do its duty to protect consumers. We have decided to step in and take legal action because we want Peterborough Trading Standards to properly protect Whirlpool customers and carry out its role as an enforcer of product safety laws.”

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Is it the case then that Which? forced Peterborough trading standards’ hand and moved the issue on as a result of the threat of judicial review?

[Andy Slaughter]

Absolutely. Trading standards and Whirlpool had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Peterborough trading standards said Which?’s action was premature, which is extraordinary given what happened in my constituency. In February, Peterborough changed its mind and finally issued an enforcement notice. After resistance and presumably after it took legal advice, Whirlpool changed its advice to consumers, at last telling them to stop using the faulty machines. The London Fire Brigade and many others had been advising that all along. It is clear that if it was not for Which?, the previous advice would still be given to consumers, putting them and their families at risk. While that change of advice was a step in the right direction, it is simply not enough. The organisations I have mentioned, along with my hon. Friends and I, want to see a full recall of these faulty machines, and we will not rest until that has been implemented.

Finally, in terms of acknowledging who is on the side of virtue, I would like to say—Members do not always do this—that we have had huge support for a full product recall not only from the public, but from the media. I must mention Alice Beer of ITV, as she is here and has done fantastic campaigning work, as has Lynn Faulds Wood. The Daily Mirror, The Sun, The Guardian, the BBC and ITV have all taken the time to provide ample coverage of this issue, and the petition I set up calling for a full product recall has now reached the magic 100,000 signature mark. If the matter is not resolved by the time the new Parliament comes in, I hope it will be considered for a fuller debate on the Floor of the House.

It is clear that the issue is not going away, and the public are incredibly dissatisfied with the response they have had. The Minister said in my previous debate that she was satisfied with Peterborough’s actions at that time, so will she please explain what discussions the Government have had privately with Trading Standards and Whirlpool since that debate? What is her assessment of Peterborough trading standards’ actions now? Does she recognise that Peterborough trading standards was wrong last year when it failed to take effective action against Whirlpool? Does she believe that it is now right to have done so, albeit only when threatened with legal action? Does she accept that the Government played no part in that and can take no credit, but that they have an opportunity to act now?

The Minister’s brief includes consumer protection, but for her to be able to claim that she really does protect consumer rights, we need substantive action. At the moment, we are leaving many people with dangerous tumble dryers in their homes. What discussions has she had with Whirlpool recently? When will she acknowledge the daily problems that people are having with their tumble dryers, which they are now told not to use because of the risks to life and property? How many more lives need to be lost before firm action is finally taken? Is this not just the tip of the iceberg of a wider problem with white goods and recalls that needs to be urgently addressed?

That brings me to the BEIS working group. We have already had one review—I mentioned Lynn Faulds Wood —which made very sensible recommendations, such as creating a single register for all product recalls, which the fire brigade has long been calling for. However, that was ignored by the Government and another review was set up. In the previous debate, the Minister said that the working group was

“primarily focusing on three work strands: establishing a centre of excellence, or official website…considering how to ensure that we have more reliable, detailed guidance on product recalls, which would, I hope, improve the rate of recall from its current one in four success rate; and establishing a mapping process whereby all organisations involved in product recalls can have access to better data and information sharing.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 875.]

She also mentioned that that work would take two years, and that was a year after Lynn Faulds Woods had reported. We were told to expect an interim report at Christmas. Four months later, there is no sign of that report. Where is it? Has it now been buried as a result of the general election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) suggested? When will the Government take action to protect consumers? Will they include any of Lynn Faulds Wood’s recommendations, such as the creation of a single register for product recalls?

Brexit also raises a number of issues for the Minister’s Department about important EU electrical safety regulations and consumer regulations that we need to ensure are maintained in UK law. Will the Minister confirm where the report is and whether it will include considerations on Brexit? What is her Department doing to ensure that we maintain important EU consumer laws when we leave the European Union? My concern is that her Government will seek to deregulate consumer protection, rather than increase it, as they are seeking to do with environmental regulations.

Returning to the faulty dryers, do the Government know how many unregistered machines are still out there posing a risk? We know that millions of affected Whirlpool machines are missing from any registration scheme. What are the Government telling Whirlpool to do to ensure that consumers do not use those machines in the meantime? We were told that there was press advertising; I cannot say that I saw it, and it was certainly not sustained over a period of time. Do the Government have any faith in Whirlpool’s modification programme, particularly given that some consumers have reported that their dryers continue to catch fire after modification?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. We have this pleasure very infrequently, but I am very pleased that you are presiding over business today. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) not only on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech, which comprehensively detailed all the issues he has been working on, but on leading the campaign to hold Whirlpool to account and to ensure that this matter is not forgotten in Parliament. He has done a sterling job and we all owe him a debt. He led a group of us to meet the Minister last year shortly after the fire. I have to say that the meeting was very reassuring. The Minister was very positive and made all the right noises and promises. It is therefore a trifle disappointing to say the least that, although we expected a report at the end of last year, we are still waiting for her conclusions. I hope that she will offer us some more assurances today. She clearly got it—she knew that there are deficiencies in the system, and she clearly wanted to do something about the issue—so I look forward to her comments.

I want to thank three organisations that sent us briefings: London Fire Brigade—not because I am a former employee, but because it provides a great research service on such issues, as my hon. Friend outlined—Which? and Electrical Safety First. Their briefings are essentially consistent on the major issues, but they emphasise different points. For example, they agree on the need for a single register for all UK product recalls, they are all unhappy with the present system, and they all criticise Whirlpool’s performance. The London Fire Brigade also states that organisations such as insurers should be under an obligation to have evidence that a fire has been caused by a faulty appliance to inform Trading Standards. Notwithstanding the weakness of Peterborough trading standards, many trading standards offices are excellent. At least if the information is in the public domain, matters can be taken forward.

The London Fire Brigade also requires that all appliances should be marked with the model and serial number, so that they can be identified in the case of a fire and matters can be taken forward as a result of working out what caused the blaze. The cause can be tracked down, traced and dealt with.

Electrical Safety First makes various key points—the gap between faults known to manufacturers and suppliers and the awareness of consumers is too great; there should be transparency and shared information. ESF says there should be a more efficient recall system, similar to the one in the United States. It requires a Government website—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—so that consumers can check whether their goods are at risk.

There should also be increased product registration—a matter we discussed with the Minister—but the evidence is clear that people do not fill out product registration forms when they buy goods because they are frightened they will be bombarded with sales literature and marketing information about future products from the companies from which they procured the goods. We are all sensitive to that. We do not like cold calls and trashy leaflets coming through our doors. People should be able to register at the point of sale and therefore be advised of recall. According to ESF, the recall success rate is 20% or below. It is very worrying that people do not understand that they own products that could jeopardise them, their families and their homes.

I will conclude shortly, because I know that a lot of colleagues want to speak and time is limited, but I want to mention two paragraphs that Which? has drawn attention to. Which? stated:

“Where a product could cause a risk to life or serious injury we expect it to be promptly recalled by the manufacturers. We do not believe this is happening in the case of Whirlpool’s fire risk tumble dryers given the known risks. Which? believes Whirlpool’s handling of the tumble dryer safety issue is unacceptable and exemplifies the weaknesses of the product safety system and the need for the system to be reformed. Which? wants Whirlpool to issue a full recall of their affected dryers and Government to reform the product safety system”—

a point that was so well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. Which? also states—this was the matter that I intervened on him about—that Peterborough trading standards was forced into taking action because of the legal action that was taken in the judicial review. In that instance, that is a very unsatisfactory situation. My last point, and the most worrying one, is that it should not need a judicial review or the threat of legal action to force a trading standards organisation to force an international, respected manufacturer to protect its customers against the risk of fire and the risk to life, limb and home.

I look forward to the three Front-Bench responses to this debate, particularly the Minister’s, because she has shown a clear interest in this matter. She gets all the issues and is the only one in the room who has the power to take this matter forward. I hope she can give us more reassurance today.