Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Gary. As per the explanatory memorandum, the instrument amends some provisions of an earlier no-deal instrument that was brought to the House in March ahead of the no-deal scenario that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), threatened us with—leaving the EU on 29 March, deal or no deal. Thankfully, we averted that crisis.

Called a “beast of an SI” by The Times on 12 February, that instrument was 636 pages long, weighed 2.5 kg and put together 11 issues that would usually be in separate documents to be sifted through. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was damning of the length and scope of that instrument and the Government’s approach to bringing it to Parliament. This instrument amends that legislation. In particular, it

“makes amendments to previous no deal legislation in light of the extension to exit day agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union”

and

“seeks to extend transitional provisions for imports from the EEA to imports from Switzerland and to ensure other provisions operate effectively and as intended. The instrument also amends certain EU-derived legislation, to expressly implement certain provisions of the mutual recognition agreement between the EU and Switzerland, related to importers and authorised representatives, and to make a small correction to legislation implementing the EU safety regime for pressure equipment.”

It also includes the amendments and the inconsistency that the Minister kindly referred to.

The instrument has been introduced through the made affirmative procedure under paragraph 5 of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which means that when matters are deemed urgent, an instrument can be made before it is laid for the House to approve or scrutinise. Why has the Minister introduced the instrument using that procedure?

In passing the Benn Act, the House of Commons has been explicitly against a no deal, which has in fact been legislated against. Why is the Minister proposing the new exit date when that has been explicitly rejected and legislated against by the House?

The product safety regulations made provision for the creation of an independent UK system for checking that products meet the requirements and of a framework for UK marking, so that a manufacturer can indicate if a product conforms with those requirements. Can the Minister enlighten us about the system’s progress and when it will come into place?

Consumer bodies such as Which? have been clear that a no-deal Brexit would be a catastrophe for consumer protections and would water down 40-plus years of progress in that respect. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

UK Steel Industry

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on having secured this debate. He is a champion for his community and the steel sector more widely, and I know he has been working hard on behalf of his constituents to press the Government for clarity during this time of crisis. I thank the steelworkers, the steel manufacturers, the trade unions—Unite, Community and GMB—and also UK Steel for their unwavering support for this fantastic industry. Such a coalition is rare, but it shows how important this issue is to our communities and our country.

On 22 May, British Steel collapsed, putting at risk 4,000 jobs directly and 20,000 jobs in the supply chain. That announcement came as a shock to thousands of steelworkers who worked against the odds to defend the company’s future, and I join the thousands waiting impatiently to hear some positive news about a new buyer. It is imperative that the Government prioritise a buyer for the whole steelworks, not parts, and I urge them to make every necessary support available so that we can secure the long-term future of the company.

For decades, the steel sector has been at the heart of communities, including mine in South Yorkshire. It has provided well-paid, well-skilled jobs, and over the years, through sheer determination and resilience, the sector has manoeuvred through some very choppy waters. When I joined the House in 2016, the steel sector was going through a severe crisis, which saw the collapse of the Redcar steelworks. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has spoken eloquently many times in this House championing the steel sector, and I believe she will continue to champion it till her last breath. We must never let such a collapse happen again. We have to collectively value and appreciate the importance of the steel sector, and although there are global and domestic challenges, including global overcapacity, there are also enormous opportunities.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point about opportunities, my hon. Friend’s constituency was the cradle of stainless steel, and it now has ITM Power, which makes hydrogen. Does she agree that hydrogen steel furnaces are part of our commitment to address climate change, and could create a whole new steel industry in the UK, leading the world?

[Gill Furniss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree, and I very much look forward to my home town of Sheffield taking up those opportunities, because it is well placed to lead a green industry.

As I was saying, we always need steel, which literally forms the fabric of everything we see. I sincerely worry that both contenders to be the next Prime Minister are advocating a no-deal Brexit. As UK Steel has clearly stated, that would be catastrophic for the sector. It could cost it £70 million and lead to further collapses.

The steel industry has many strengths and is able to thrive, but, for that to be achieved, we need the Government to commit to help. The future of UK steel can be bright, and the Government’s own analysis has identified a £3 billion opportunity by 2030, sustaining good jobs in the areas that need them the most. The news last week that Jaguar Land Rover will invest £1 billion in building electric cars in the UK was an enormous boost, with the company leading the way on electrifying the cars on our roads and signalling a commitment to a greener economy. The opportunities for end-to-end supply in that process—making the steel at home to support the building of those vehicles—could be enormous. That could support and encourage growth in the steel sector while spearheading a green revolution.

It is disappointing that the opportunity to secure a steel sector deal has never come to fruition. I am pleased to see the new Minister in his place, and I urge him to give that issue the greatest importance. The steel sector needs that deal for innovation, for user research and development, and to be there to take on exciting opportunities for the future. The steel industry is there and waiting to be helped with the challenges ahead and the opportunities to make it thrive.

UK steel companies pay 50% more in energy costs than their competitors in the EU. On procurement, we know that UK Government decisions are a hugely powerful policy tool to boost British steelmakers’ orders. The decision to use our steel for the royal fleet, mentioned, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), would be much welcomed. It would also make complete sense for our national defence. Please, Minister, look at that, because those are the opportunities that need to be put forward.

I commend the UK steel charter, which is aimed at enhancing and maximising procurement opportunities for UK steel producers. The Welsh Labour Government were the first to sign up to that commitment. They are leading the way, but Departments in Whitehall appear to be resistant to signing up. Will the Minister commit that all Departments will sign up to the charter?

On business rates, the perverse inclusion of investment in machinery, which increases a company’s business rates, is patently a barrier to investment. Some British steel companies have huge disparities in their business tax bills across their plants in Europe. For example, Tata pays a business tax bill in Wales that is 10 times that of its operation in the Netherlands. Will the Government join the Labour party in our pledge to remove machinery for steel companies from business rates to ease that burden and invite more investment back into the steelworks? I am not saying it will be easy, but what is a Government for if not to support our foundation industries and encourage their growth?

Our steel industry is fabulous, innovative, flexible and resilient, and it can thrive. Please help us to make sure it stays that way.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

In calling the Minister for steel, I think we should note the presence of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and encourage other Secretaries of State to attend debates here in Westminster Hall.

Rural Areas in Scotland: Additional Delivery Charges

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. I recall his excellent contribution in a debate on broadly similar themes that was secured by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) around 18 months ago.

However, it is disappointing to see that there has been so little progress in tackling this unfairness since that previous debate. The Minister responsible at the time, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), assured us that the consumer Green Paper would be the start of the process of finding an answer, but the Green Paper did not mention the issue at all. We are still awaiting the response to the Green Paper consultation, and by later this week we will have been waiting for one year. Can the Minister here today say when we can expect the response?

It has been valuable today to learn about not only the problems that consumers continue to face, but the actions that have been taken since the previous debate. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has already referred to the Scottish Parliament’s actions, and hopefully there will soon be some clarity on many of these issues, including misleading delivery charges. However, I take on board both his comments and those of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who also issued a plea to the UK Government to assist them in this matter, because it is Government action that is needed. I was interested to hear the hon. Lady talk about the people’s delivery guarantee, which I think is an excellent idea. I hope that the Minister will take that up and tell us more about it later. There should be more work with delivery companies, and more information and reporting, but those things are useful only up to a point. The evidence that we have heard today has shown that the core problem—the hugely inflated delivery prices that many people face—still exists.

The universal service obligation ensures that firms that use the Royal Mail for deliveries are able to charge precisely the same amount for the highlands as for any other UK address. Regrettably, however, many UK online retailers have moved away from using the Royal Mail. The Government must consider how, in the deregulated postal market, the universal service obligation protects consumers in rural Scotland. Will the Minister examine and assess the effectiveness of the universal service when it comes to protecting rural customers?

The Postal Services Act 2011 sets out the universal service obligation as a service that must simply be available, rather than guaranteeing a consumer the right to access a universal service when a third party, such as an online retailer, is contracting the delivery. The obligation means that for anyone sending post below 20 kg, there is a fixed price to any UK address. That is all well and good in protecting citizens’ rights when people send items themselves, but the majority of online deliveries are by retailers that operate across the UK.

A retailer’s commercial motive will lead it towards wanting to offer incredibly cheap or free delivery to the majority of its customers. In recent years we have seen nearly every online retailer splash an offer of free delivery on their homepage. In fact, led by Amazon, same-day delivery is being pushed as the new ultimate convenience. However, Members will know that not only is that promise rarely universally available, but the desire of online sites to offer delivery leads them to move away from the somewhat higher price of the universal service offered by Royal Mail and towards competitors who can offer cheaper services. Clearly, that is at the cost of consumers in the highlands and islands, who have to pay the exorbitant rates that we have heard about today.

In the previous debate, I said that Ofcom needs to be empowered to take action to ensure that this geographic discrimination is tackled. The then Minister disagreed, on the basis that some delivery firms do not charge additional rates in Scotland. That is true, and I encourage all retailers to choose one of these firms to deliver their goods, if they do not use Royal Mail. However, the Government’s position completely misses the point that consumer choice should naturally be about choosing the best quality and value products. Other than by using a few select retailers, consumers cannot choose to go with Royal Mail as an option, so in this environment a universal service does not really exist.

Ofcom continues to report a fall in the cost of parcel postage, due to increased competition. That is good news for the majority of UK consumers, but with margins becoming tighter it represents quite the opposite for consumers in rural locations, as it makes it increasingly unlikely that the highlands and islands will be included at equal rates. I fear that without genuine action the outlook for many Scottish families is bleak. The market is moving at pace towards a low-cost convenience model, and it is difficult to imagine that rural Scotland will be a beneficiary of the change.

It is clear that there is a market failure that must be corrected. I believe that Ofcom can make that correction, if it is correctly instructed. There are two approaches that the Government should consider. First, when there is an option to select Royal Mail delivery, there is a degree of protection available to consumers. The Government should consider how they can ensure that as large a part of the delivery market as possible has an option for Royal Mail delivery, either by a voluntary agreement or, if necessary, by regulation.

Secondly, Ofcom could add geographic delivery to its list of regulated prices. That could certainly curb the worst examples of overcharging faced by rural Scottish communities. Ofcom has used its regulatory powers to cap broadband and phone prices. Therefore, given the evidence of overcharging for delivery, it is logical to cap parcel delivery costs too.

In conclusion, will the Minister recognise that the Government must move beyond guidance and warm words, and instead take real action to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people do not continue to suffer this unfair penalty?

Recall of Tumble Dryers

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

In response to a query from Which?, Whirlpool said that 1.7 million cases had already been resolved. It estimates that another 500,000 machines are still in people’s homes.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on his relentless campaigning, and for securing this important question.

The Government stated their intention to initiate a recall notice to Whirlpool on 4 June, but that only became apparent in the House during topical questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Tuesday 11 June. Can the Minister explain why she did not make a statement about the decision, which she has described as “unprecedented”, but which she considered not to be “unprecedented” enough to inform the House about it?

The issue of Whirlpool and its faulty products has been one of the biggest consumer safety issues for many years. The relevant fault affected more than 5 million tumble dryers under brand names that are now owned by Whirlpool UK, which were manufactured between 2004 and 2015. I welcome the recall notice regarding the 500,000 unmodified products, but I am seriously concerned about the millions of modified Whirlpool products that are still in people’s homes, and whose owners have reported fires and faults despite the modifications. Which? spoke to more than 30 owners who have said that their “fixed” tumble dryers have caught fire, or have produced smoke or a smell of burning. There are millions of those modified machines out there in people’s homes. Consumer safety must be our utmost priority, so will the Minister demand a full investigation of those reports, and go further by demanding a recall of the modified products too?

In April, the Office for Product Safety and Standards published findings of its inquiry into Whirlpool’s handling of the risk of the machines. It found that the risk of fire was “low”, and therefore no recall notice action was taken. Which? considered that the “inquiry is fundamentally flawed”, and that

“it appears to favour business interests over people’s safety”.

The investigators failed to speak to any affected Whirlpool customers as part of the review, and further failed to verify the history of the 28 Whirlpool dryers that it tested, which meant that it was unable to draw conclusions about when the machines had been modified and by whom. The inquiry was published in April and the Minister’s subsequent contradictory decision to issue a recall notice obviously raises serious questions about the OPSS. Will the Minister clearly outline why she came to a different decision from the OPPS in April? Does she now believe that the OPSS investigation was fundamentally flawed and will she announce an investigation into that review to look at whether it was properly undertaken and whether there are lessons to learn for the future?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I must start by outlining that the protection of consumers, the safety of consumers and the safety of products placed on the market are of utmost importance to me and this Government. I did indeed update the House last week in response to a question about the action that we have taken in regards to Whirlpool; it is part of a legal process, as I have already outlined. All complaints about modified or unmodified tumble dryers that have been duly registered were included in the review. The review was significant: it looked at many areas, took all the data into account, and carried out the assessments, as the hon. Lady has outlined, and I am absolutely satisfied that the review undertaken by OPSS was appropriate and robust.

I have not taken a different decision from OPSS. We were very clear. OPSS wrote to Whirlpool after the review outlining areas where it wanted a guarantee of further work. Whirlpool had 28 days in which to respond. It responded, and the OPSS reviewed that information and was not satisfied, finding that the commitment was inadequate. We therefore decided to issue a notice—an intention to recall. As I have outlined today, we will be reviewing what has been submitted by Whirlpool. There is no intention to put, as has been suggested, big business over the needs and safety of consumers, and we will not do that. Fundamentally, the safety of people in their homes is of utmost importance to me and the Government and I will do everything in my power to make sure that large companies and manufacturers absolutely comply with their legal obligation to place only products that are safe on the market. If they fail to do so, this Government will take appropriate action to hold them to account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about banks moving away from our high streets and the post offices picking up the slack. That is why I am proud of what Post Office Ltd has done in negotiating this new framework. I disagree with him when he says that what postmasters receive is a pittance. In fact, the remuneration has doubled or trebled; it has increased significantly. The Post Office will also be bringing that forward: it will be remunerating postmasters from October, rather than January, when the framework comes into place.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

The new report by a representative group of sub-postmasters notes that a fifth of sub-postmasters are planning to leave the profession, due to increasing financial pressures—indeed we have heard, from different sources, of postmasters earning well below the minimum wage. The result could be the closure of 2,500 branches, threatening the viability and sustainability of the entire network. What discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office to ensure that sub-postmasters are getting a fair deal? Will she urge the Post Office to look at contingency plans to ensure that such closures do not occur?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

It is true that Members across the House care deeply about our Post Office, and so do the Government. The number of branches remains at its most stable for a decade. To give the hon. Lady some reassurance, my meetings on Thursday will include one of the formal meetings held quarterly—with ministerial oversight—between Post Office Ltd and the National Federation of SubPostmasters to tackle some of the key issues.

I reiterate at the Dispatch Box that Post Office Ltd will be undertaking a review of pay, which will report back in the autumn. I agree that any sub-postmaster who wants to take on a post office franchise must be able to do so in the knowledge that it is financially viable. We are supporting them, and the Post Office is supporting them, to serve their communities.

Consumer Protection

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

UK consumers spend over £1,160 billion a year on goods and services, and they are the backbone of the British economy. They spend their hard-earned money in shops and, increasingly, online. It is vital they are properly protected when buying products to ensure consumer safety.

The majority of law enforcement—75% of public enforcement responsibilities—is carried out by local authority trading standards services, from scams to products. However, those services have had to deal with cuts of more than 50% over the past seven years, and some parts of the country have been hit particularly hard. These cuts will undoubtedly have a negative impact on their ability properly to inform and enforce consumer protection.

Sadly, lack of compliance with consumer protection law can have serious and deadly consequences. For example, around 3,000 fires each year in the UK are caused by faulty electrical appliances. This technical order

“establishes equivalency with respect to the investigatory powers in Schedule 5 to the Act between the Secretary of State and those of local authority Trading Standards and district councils in Northern Ireland”.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to say:

“The instrument allows the Office for Product Safety and Standards, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to investigate claims of unsafe products in the context of a national incident, where local authority Trading Standards…lack the resources or expertise to do so.”

I broadly welcome this statutory instrument, in that it attempts to strengthen the enforcement regime. However, there are some points to note.

According to the National Audit Office, overall, local trading standards have lost 56% of their full-time equivalent staff since 2009, and 20 services in England have had funding cut by over 60% since 2011. Some services now have only one qualified officer. Despite that lack of funding, local trading standards teams are expected to enforce 263 different pieces of legislation for different Government Departments, with little direction from Government on the priority of those issues. It is this Government who have taken away the vital ability of trading standards to properly enforce consumer protection.

The OPSS was finally established after years of reviews and consultations, but unfortunately it has proved to be weak. It launched an investigation into Whirlpool following reports that more than 100 Creda, Hotpoint, Indesit, Proline and Swan tumble dryer models—all brands owned by Whirlpool—made between April 2004 and October 2015 could pose a fire risk. It is known that at least 750 fires have been reported since 2004 that involved those dryers.

Following its investigation, the OPSS assessed Whirlpool’s tumble dryer modification programme, and judged that the risk to consumers from modified machines is low. Consumer groups led by Which? were incensed by what they called a

“fundamentally flawed”

investigation

“that appears to favour business interests over people’s safety.”

The investigation failed to speak with any affected Whirlpool customers as part of the review, and further failed to verify the history of the 28 Whirlpool dryers it tested as part of the inquiry, so it was unable to draw conclusions about when the machines had been modified and by whom.

How does the Minister suggest we have confidence in the OPSS if its first ever investigation has been so widely criticised for its failure properly to tackle the issues at hand? It is one thing to give it investigatory power, but another for the OPSS sufficiently to use those powers to investigate big business and hold it to account for its handling of such serious issues.

In so far as the use and scope of the investigatory powers is concerned, the note outlines that,

“it is envisaged that the investigatory powers will not be used frequently...However, when these occur the Office will be able to support and supplement the work of local authority Trading Standards more effectively than at present”.

Can the Minister outline what criteria will be set and will have to be met for OPSS and the Secretary of State to use these powers? Can she outline the process used to decide whether and when these powers will be used? Can she outline the process that will take—will any investigation undertaken by the OPSS then invalidate a local trading standards investigation? Will the two co-operate or will they be able to undertake any investigations in parallel? Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with trading standards about the use of these powers?

In conclusion, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, yet again, an SI has been prepared without an accompanying impact assessment, and ask why that is.

British Steel

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with British Steel regarding its future.

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

My Department is in regular conversation with a wide range of companies, including those in the steel industry. As the House will be aware, the Government entered into a commercial agreement with British Steel on 24 April, valued at £120 million, relating to the company’s obligations under the EU emissions trading system. The Secretary of State updated the House on that agreement in an oral statement on 1 May—the first available opportunity after market-sensitive elements of the resulting transaction were concluded. The commercial agreement reached with British Steel ensured that the company was able to meet its 2018 EU ETS obligations under a deed of forfeiture. It also ensured that the company did not incur an EU ETS non-compliance fine which, coupled with 2018 ETS liabilities, would have equated to a financial pressure of over £600 million—a sum that would have put the company under significant financial strain.

The speculation regarding the future of British Steel will no doubt be creating uncertainty for those employed by the company. As shown through the ETS agreement, the Government have been willing to act. We have been in ongoing discussions with the company, and I am sure the House will understand that we cannot comment in detail at this stage. We will update the House when more information is available. I can, however, reassure the House that, subject to strict legal bounds, the Government will leave no stone unturned in their support of the steel industry.

Yesterday I signed up to the UK steel charter. We want to acknowledge and support the initiative from the industry, and the charter is one element of that. We have been also been encouraging the UK steel sector to strengthen its engagement with all existing and potential domestic steel consumers, maximising opportunities to benefit from the £3.8 billion a year of high market value opportunities that we have identified by 2030. We recognise that global economic conditions continue to be challenging for the industry, which is why the Government are working with the sector, unions and the devolved Administrations to support a sustainable, productive and modern UK steel sector.

[Gill Furniss]

It goes without saying that the UK steel industry is critical to our manufacturing base and that protecting the industry should be of paramount importance to the Government. The industry provides over 30,000 highly skilled, well-paid jobs in the UK, and British Steel directly employs around 4,500 in Scunthorpe, with a further 20,000 down the supply chain. Does the Minister agree the Government should be doing everything in their power to prevent British Steel from entering administration?

It is reported that British Steel had initially asked the Government for a £75 million loan in emergency financial support and subsequently reduced that request to around £30 million following negotiations with the Department. Will the Minister outline the asks of British Steel throughout the negotiations? Have the discussions included just financial support or a wider package of measures to support the site in Scunthorpe and the steel industry more widely?

Will the Minister confirm the status of the negotiations and why they are reported to have stalled in recent days? It has been reported that one of the reasons was the Department’s frustration with Greybull Capital’s apparent unwillingness to put money on the table. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? What impact did the company’s decision to acquire Ascoval last week have on the negotiations? If no deal can be reached with Greybull, have the Government considered any other options, such as bringing British Steel into public ownership?

Finally, the steel sector is facing myriad issues, from the value of sterling and the uncertainty around future trading with the EU through to US trade tariffs, and the Government could have taken steps to address them, such as greater procurement of UK steel, agreeing a sector deal, as the industry was requesting, and taking action on energy prices. Does the Minister accept that this Government have simply failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that UK steel remains competitive?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the commitment that she and her family have shown to the steel sector over many years. I represent the constituency of Pendle, which is dominated by manufacturing, and I share her passion for the steel sector. I will leave no stone unturned, and neither will the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in supporting the UK steel sector.

As the House will know, we can only act within the strict bounds of what is legally possible under domestic and European law. I can assure the House that we will continue to do whatever is in our power to support the UK steel industry and those who work in the sector. We are working with the sector, the unions and the devolved Administrations to support all aspects of the UK steel sector.

The Government have taken a number of important longer-term steps, including ensuring that social and economic factors can be taken into account in public sector steel procurement, and providing more than £291 million in compensation to the steel sector since 2013 to make energy costs more competitive. We have also published a pipeline of upcoming national infrastructure projects every year to enable steel businesses to plan for future demand.

As I mentioned earlier, I signed the UK steel charter yesterday, and I will be encouraging other hon. Members and Government Departments to do the same. We want to acknowledge the importance of this industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee on Justice, makes an excellent point on one of our principal sources of export earnings. More than that, the pre-eminence of law in the UK brings firms from jurisdictions around the world to do business here. We are determined that we should maintain our good relations across the continent and that we should keep up to date in our practices. He will know that, through the industrial strategy, we are investing in the regulators’ pioneer fund to make sure that legal services take their place at the cutting edge of innovation.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

On 4 April, the Office for Product Safety and Standards published its investigation into Whirlpool and the ongoing issue of its product safety. The report was lambasted by consumer organisations, including Which?, as weak. Just days later it was revealed in the media that Whirlpool allegedly paid one consumer to stay silent after she was forced to flee with two young children as a blaze engulfed her home after her dryer had been modified. Can the Minister tell us whether the OPSS was aware of those allegations and, if not, whether it will now reopen its investigation in light of the accusations?

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

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and I commit to making sure that I speak to the OPSS about the allegations she has highlighted and what further information we can ascertain. She is right, in that I laid a written ministerial statement before the House on 4 April. I have to let the House know that the OPSS has written to Whirlpool asking it to take action, and it has 28 days to reply to that. I stand ready, as the Minister, to make sure that consumer safety and protection is at the heart of what we are doing and that we take further action where necessary.

Post Office Network

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate. She is an ardent advocate for her community and speaks passionately about the importance of post offices to our local communities. I also thank the CWU, the National Federation of SubPostmasters and all those individuals who work very hard in a cross-party and collegiate way—they know who they are.

The post office is an important bastion in our local communities. It is a long-standing British institution, trusted and loved by the public. It is there for individuals as well as local businesses. Polls by Citizens Advice and others show that the post office is one of the most important services in the local community and, as many have pointed out, it is vital for rural communities. One in five rural residents said in response to a Citizens Advice survey that they would lose contact with friends or neighbours were it not for the post office.

Importantly, post offices are often a lifeline for older people in our communities. Later Life Ambitions, an umbrella group representing more than a quarter of a million pensioners, is clear about the significant importance of the post office to the security, independence, mental health and wellbeing of older people. It stated:

“The Post Office matters to older people both for the services it provides directly to them, but also for the role it plays in supporting the local businesses on which older people often rely.”

Indeed, at a time when our high streets are struggling, the post office is an important economic backbone for our local high streets. It offers small businesses the opportunity to do business locally and provides that important link that ties in the community. More than ever, we need to protect and encourage the growth of post offices. Unfortunately, the Government are overseeing a managed decline of the service.

Since 2010 we have seen cuts to branches and services and a fall in remuneration for sub-postmasters. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw told us eloquently—and scandalously—of the 1,016 temporary closed post offices throughout the UK, which is a terrible state of affairs for the communities affected. Most notably, we have seen a significant reduction in the Crown post office branches: the high street branches that provide the widest range of services, that are easily accessible for local communities and are inclusive of people with disabilities.

Over the past five years the Post Office has announced the closure of 150 Crown post offices, which is 40% of its 2013 Crown post office network. Most have been transferred to retailers such as WHSmith to install a counter for post office services in other premises. Although that retains a level of provision in the area, it is often done in the face of substantial local opposition and with a significant reduction in services, accessibility and well-paid jobs. The removal of high street branches away from view is contrary to economic sense. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was unable to attend today, but she has made important points about her local post office, which was in a prime location in York, but is now being moved into a WHSmith in a more remote area of the town, where shops are closing and where the level of footfall is not as high as it was before. In some cases, post offices have been relocated to retail units close to existing ones. I can speak for a sub-postmaster in my constituency, where another outlet was allowed to open a post office about a mile away from his business, and he is really seeing the hardship of that and wondering whether he will be able to continue.

Furthermore, transferring post offices to retailers such as WHSmith could be perceived as risky in a climate that has seen our struggling high street stores closing at alarming rates. At an all-party group on post offices meeting in October last year, I was surprised when Post Office executives gave me and other Members no reassurances of any contingency planning in the event of difficulties facing WHSmith. I urge the Minister to provide us with an insight into what assessment she has made of the long-term sustainability of that partnership as a matter of urgency?

As the modernisation programme continues, we are also seeing a gradual retreat of Post Office financial services. Instead of growing services, only last month it announced it will close the Post Office Money current account, which serves 21,000 customers. And the end is in sight for the Post Office card account, which will hit many people hard if they are in vulnerable circumstances and do not have the income to open a bank account in a high street bank.

Rural communities in particular rely on the post office to access financial services. Removing those services leaves consumers vulnerable to even further financial exclusion. To have a sustainable future, we have to be bold and brave about what our post office can offer. That is why I am delighted that the Labour party has announced we will set up a post bank to deliver banking services through post office branches, including relationship banking with small businesses. By utilising the extensive network of post office branches, the post bank would have by far the largest branch network of all UK banks. The report that has looked into the matter estimates that more than 3,600 post office branches are suitable to provide banking services, or would be with a small amount of capital investment. With the branches spread evenly across the country, every community would have easy access to face-to-face banking in their local branch of the post bank.

We have to recognise that we must invest and encourage our trusted institutions and not let them down. Does the Minister agree that a post bank could form a creative and bold answer to the long-term sustainability of the post office network and to the receding presence of banks on our high streets?

Beyond the closures and the fall in services, we also see the Post Office squeezing hard-working sub-postmasters’ remuneration. Sub-postmasters play a significant role in the running of the post office network. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) told us about his postmaster who felt conned into setting up the business and could now face financial ruin and also hardship to the community that he set up to serve. It simply does not make sense. Some 98% of the post office network is run by sub-postmasters—mostly individual, independent business people—but remuneration for sub-postmasters has fallen in recent years.

In its 2017-18 annual report, the Post Office reported that the amount paid to sub-postmasters had fallen by £17 million since 2016-17, a reduction of 4.4%.The fall in remuneration is pushing them out of business, and many have to endure months of below minimum wage pay, all under the party that claims it is the party of business. What assessment has the Minister made of the remuneration for sub-postmasters? Can she share any insights with Members of the House? Does she not agree that the Government should carry out an urgent review to prevent more closures and more hardship, and the terrible tragedies of people who have set up a business in all good faith then facing financial ruin?

In this debate, there is an elephant in the room. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the matter privately, where I was able to raise my concerns. As we know, a group of sub-postmasters has launched a legal case against the Post Office on an issue surrounding its IT system. I do not want to go into details as the case is ongoing and will probably last until 2020. As I highlighted earlier, there is a relationship of trust between the public and the Post Office. It appears that some light has been shed into some of the practices and behaviour that appear to run deep into the psyche of the organisation. I hope the Minister will consider that a broader review into the management and governance structure of the Post Office, and whether the Government have fully exercised their oversight functions, or whether those powers need to be significantly strengthened, might be required to assure the public and to commit to the long-term sustainability of the network.

I have outlined only some of the matters that bring into question the long-term sustainability of the post office network. Many Members have made their views known in this and previous debates about how those matters exercise the communities that they represent. To secure a hopeful future for it, we must address the issues. We have to address the closures by ending them and the declining financial services by being bold and creative. We have to address the retention of a network of experienced staff by ensuring that they are properly remunerated and looked after. Finally, we have to address the issues raised in the justices’ findings by reviewing the overall governance of the Post Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because that is exactly what I hope to do.

[Gill Furniss]

I want to continue on the point about contingency planning. At an APPG meeting some months ago, when we questioned the management who had turned up to talk to us about various things, it was clear that they had no contingency plan whatsoever should WHSmith fail. It is okay to say they have been doing it since 2006, but so have NatWest, HSBC and TSB, and now we see them disappearing from the high street. It is crucial that the Minister takes that seriously. If she did not know that the Post Office had no contingency plans in place, its keeping her in the dark is a serious omission on its part.

More generally, at that APPG meeting the management told us that the consultation was not worth the paper it was written on and that they would not take notice of any views from individuals or communities. Indeed, the only reason they were asking was to see whether there were any comments on disabled access. I asked them why that was the case, because they have a duty of care to look at disabled access and to listen to communities.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but the reality is that 98% of the post office network is franchised. That is the fundamental business model within the Post Office and its distribution of services. The hon. Lady makes a presumption that WHSmith will fail, and its franchises will therefore be under threat. That does not take into account the potential future development of the Post Office and how we are challenging it. However, as I have outlined today, and in any conversation I have had with any colleague, when hon. Members highlight something to me, I will, as the responsible Minister, always raise that with the Post Office.

In my day-to-day role, I will always challenge the decisions and workings of the Post Office. However, while we are the Post Office’s shareholder, it is commercially run, so it is within its rights to manage operational delivery, but it is for me to challenge, oversee and raise questions where I believe work is needed to resolve matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady is right to raise those concerns. She is also right that we are concerned about any particular closures that may happen, as is Post Office Ltd. That is why Post Office Ltd works hard—it always works hard—where there are unforeseen closures to make sure that those branches reopen. Since I have been in post there have been a number of examples where I and local MPs have worked with the post office network and local communities to make sure that new facilities are opened.

Where there have been closures, I would always encourage people to raise them with Ministers and to work with Post Office Ltd to make sure that we can sustain the network. The hon. Lady is right to have concerns, but she is wrong to say that the intention is not to renew those branches and not make sure that the network is stable in Scotland. There is a commitment and a desire to achieve that.

Government investment has also enabled the modernisation of over 7,500 branches, added more than 200,000 opening hours per week and established the Post Office as the largest network trading on Sundays. In terms of services provided, the Post Office’s agreement with the high street banks enables personal and business banking in all branches, ensuring that every community has appropriate access to cash and supporting consumers, businesses and local economies in the face of bank branch closures, particularly in rural and urban deprived areas. I encourage the House to look closely and objectively at these facts; they show unequivocally that the network is at its most stable and is much more sustainable today than in 2010.

We are not complacent. Post Office Ltd has to keep exploring new business opportunities to ensure a thriving national network for the benefit of communities, businesses and postmasters up and down the country. One of the most important and visible aspects of the Post Office strategy is its franchising programme. I accept that some communities have a strong emotional attachment to Crown post offices and naturally there will be concerns when proposals come forward to franchise their local branches, but our high streets are facing unprecedented challenges and the Post Office is not immune to them. Just like any other high street business, it needs to respond to these pressures and adapt to changing customer needs.

Franchising has reduced the taxpayer funding that the Post Office requires from Government, while maintaining—and, in some instances, improving—customer service levels. In fact, the report by Citizens Advice in 2017 indicated that franchised branches are performing in line with or better than traditional branches. I reassure hon. Members that, as part of its ongoing monitoring role, Citizens Advice will continue to track the impact of post office changes on consumers and on customer satisfaction in respect of post offices. Citizens Advice also has a formal advisory role in reviewing changes to Crown post offices across Great Britain that are relocated and franchised.

Serving rural communities is at the very heart of the Post Office’s social purpose. There are over 6,100 post offices in rural areas and virtually everyone living in such areas is within 3 miles of one of those branches. Last year, a study by Citizens Advice found that seven out of 10 rural consumers buy essential items at post offices and almost 3 million rural shoppers—that is, 31% of rural residents—visit a post office on a weekly basis, compared to 21% of people living in urban areas. The importance of post offices to rural areas is illustrated by the fact that almost half have community status. They are the last shops in the village, as hon. Members have outlined. Rural post office branches, whether main, local or traditional, can offer the same products and services as urban ones of the same category.

The Post Office recognises the unique challenge of running a community branch and supports those postmasters differently from those in the rest of the network. They receive fixed remuneration, as well as variable remuneration, to reflect their special situation. In addition, the Post Office delivered almost £10 million of investment via the Community Fund between 2014 and 2018. That enabled community branches to invest in their associated retail business. The Post Office has now launched a smaller community branch development scheme that will benefit an anticipated 700 branches. Let me be clear: this Government and the Post Office will continue to support rural post offices.

Some hon. Members raised concerns about the rates of remuneration paid to postmasters, especially for banking services; I, too, have been and continue to be concerned about that issue. While the contractual relationship between Post Office Ltd and postmasters is an operational responsibility for the company, I care deeply about the issue and I am determined to make sure that running a post office remains an attractive business proposition.

We offer post offices several ways of doing that, including the development of services for the future. My challenge to people thinking of taking on a franchise or a post office is to make sure that they deliver the services demanded by consumers and therefore enable post offices to continue to be relevant in today’s market, given the way consumers use services now compared to the past.

I have committed to meeting interested parties, including the Post Office Ltd and the National Federation of SubPostmasters, more regularly so we can ensure that particular issues, case studies and direct concerns are discussed and challenged on a more frequent basis, and we can all work together. Everybody in this room and all our stakeholders want to see the Post Office thrive and develop in the future. Some Members may regard me as having a different ideological view: there may be different ways of getting there, but the outcomes should remain the same.

[Gill Furniss]

The Minister talks about her passion for post offices and how everyone will work together. Would it not make more sense to have a review of how things are working at the moment? As I and others have mentioned, having a friendly little chat probably will not work. We urgently need a proper review of the governance and management and of the remuneration of sub-postmasters.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady would like me to announce that we will hold a review, but fundamentally, as I have outlined, the Post Office is a commercial entity operating in a competitive market. It is owned by the taxpayer, and it is right that we are challenged and that it is run efficiently.

I point out that the Post Office has been making a surplus. We now have a sustainable network and a surplus. We have moved on from a time when there were more than 7,000 post office closures and the Post Office was over £1 billion in debt. We are not in that place today. That has been achieved by maintaining the network and investing correctly. However, I have tried to show that I understand hon. Members’ concerns about the viability of postmasters and their pay. I hope I have already outlined and expressed my determination to get to the bottom of some of these challenges and to ensure that they are addressed by the Post Office.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. I do speak to postmasters and, if time allows, I will be happy to go and visit post offices in any part of the country, if possible. However, we really need to look at the network and understand the operation. Post Office Ltd operates more than 11,547 stores—a sustainable network. In many of those circumstances, there will be particular differences. Of those stores, 98% are franchises, which in effect are businesses in themselves. It is acceptable to expect that there will be some churn and there will be particular issues that need to be dealt with.

[Gill Furniss]

indicated dissent.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is the reality. I apologise to her, because she is always very courteous to me in the many debates we have. At some stage or another there will be issues with a number within the network, and it is right that those are raised and that we deal with them. This is not something I like to accept, but sometimes there will be cases that cause problems, and the right course of action is to have debates such as this, to challenge me or whichever Minister is responsible and to ensure that we work to ensure that those particular branch or constituency issues are dealt with.

Part of the changes to the network involved moving from fixed and variable remuneration to a fully variable basis, based on transaction fees. That means that it is now important that a post office service is combined with a good retail offer to be successful. At the same time, fixed remuneration remains in those rural and remote locations where that approach is just not viable.

Post Office Ltd is not complacent and periodically reviews the rate of return on all services for postmasters to reflect the time and effort involved. For example, last year the Post Office increased remuneration on banking deposits twice to reflect the increased demand for services. I thank hon. Members for their positive comments about the increase announced last week to remuneration for postmasters for banking transactions; as hon. Members have outlined, that has doubled or in some cases tripled the fee payable to postmasters. Where possible, Post Office Ltd will continue to use the renewals of commercial contracts as opportunities to negotiate improved rates that can be shared with the postmaster.

I will answer a direct question put to me about why the Post Office is bringing forward the increase in charges only in October and why it is not happening before that time. The Post Office has taken the decision to implement the new banking framework payments to postmasters one quarter before the new negotiated banking framework comes into play. I understand that postmasters may be concerned, but the Post Office has acted to bring that in early and to enable the uplift to postmasters as soon as practically possible.

I want to pick up on one point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), and give him some more information on cashpoints. He raised a concern about a post office having to pay the Post Office for that machine. Under its agreement with the Bank of Ireland, the Post Office pays post offices for the provision of the machines; they are remunerated for that. I would not be able to comment on any private agreement between an individual post office and another provider for the cashpoints. I would very much welcome further information after the debate, and I am happy to look into the issue for him.

Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Gray. We are 17 days from our departure from the European Union. It is perhaps no wonder that statutory instruments are being rushed through Parliament. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that makes provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation. The volume and flow of EU exit secondary legislation is deeply concerning in respect of accountability and scrutiny.

The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken. However, establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes because of the limited accountability it allows. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation with high policy content via this vehicle. As legislators, we have to get it right. These regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book and, as such, they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition would like to put on the record our deepest concern that the process for considering these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be.

Today, we are focusing on the SI on product safety and metrology, which has been called a “beast of an SI”, to quote a story in The Times on 12 February. It is 636 pages long, weighs 2.5 kilos and puts together 11 issues that would usually be in separate documents to be sifted through. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was damning about the length and scope of the SI and the Government’s approach to bringing it to Parliament. It notes that

“the exceptional size and complexity of the instrument inhibit effective parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals (both by this Sub-Committee and by the House in debate), carry a considerable risk that the whole instrument may have to be withdrawn if a single serious drafting error has been made (as happened in this case), and reduce the accessibility of the legislation. We find that the Department may have chosen the approach for its own convenience, rather than in the interest of Parliament or those affected by the proposals”.

I appreciate the Minister’s attempts in the last few days to bring forward more information to help us scrutinise the draft regulations, but those attempts cannot justify the size and scope of this secondary legislation. It risks setting a precedent, and risks the democratic scrutiny that is vital to bringing about new legislation. In light of this, will the Minister make a commitment that this does not set a precedent for bundling significant changes into one SI in the future?

The statutory instrument relates to a no-deal scenario under which the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Despite the Prime Minister’s claims in October 2017 that leaving the EU would not negatively impact consumer protections, the Government’s own no-deal analysis wholly contradicts that. There is serious concern and uncertainty about the impact of a no-deal scenario on consumer protection, as it may essentially water down 40-plus years of progress in this area. Major consumer groups such as Which? have come out strongly against a no-deal Brexit, arguing that it could be catastrophic for consumer protections, many of which are intrinsically linked with the EU.

The SI attempts to transfer the rights and regulations from EU law into UK law, and in the process to iron out some of the deficiencies that would arise as a result of the UK leaving the EU. Under a no-deal scenario, this is a necessary piece of legislation to ensure that we continue to enjoy important consumer protections. I do not dispute that. However, further scrutiny reveals a few problems. First, the SI proposes that following our departure the UK will no longer be able to use the CE mark to identify safe products. That will be replaced in the UK with a new “UK conformity assessed” marking—the UKCA. The Government have said that they will continue to accept the CE mark until further notice. Will the Minister outline what assessment her Department has made of the timeframe for doing that?

Furthermore, the CE mark is a trusted and established mark that gives consumers the confidence to purchase products. That is a basis of a healthy economy: one where consumers have trust that the products they buy are safe. It will take significant work to bring the UKCA to the same level of credibility. What resources are there and what actions are the Government taking to ensure that people are aware of the new UKCA marking?

Furthermore, what discussions have the Government had with the European Commission about it accepting the UKCA mark in a no-deal Brexit, given that if it does not, there will be no incentive for foreign manufacturers to have their products certified in the UK? Rather, they will get their CE marking, assured that it will be accepted in the UK. What assessment have the Government undertaken of the EU not recognising the UKCA marking, and the impact this will have on consumer confidence and business activity in the UK?

Another point of contention is market surveillance following the UK leaving the EU. The UK will lose access to RAPEX, the EU’s rapid alert system, and the information and communication system on market surveillance, and replace them with a UK-based database on market surveillance to help us remove unsafe goods. Information sharing is a vital element of our continued good consumer protection. The RAPEX system is a good example of UK co-operation. This SI and the Government’s failure to secure a commitment on RAPEX risk losing the vital information sharing that has been critical to the safety of products across the EU.

We know that the increased transfer of responsibilities to UK authorities will increase the workload of the extremely overstretched trading standards bodies, which have suffered cuts of 40% since 2010. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of a no-deal Brexit on local trading standards and their workload? Furthermore, what discussions has the Minister had about securing further resources for trading standards bodies and other enforcement bodies, so that consumers are reassured they will be safe in the event of no deal? I have consistently asked the Minister that question. Has she taken steps to make such assessments? It is vital that we are aware of the cost to local enforcement bodies so that we can plan ahead.

The explanatory memorandum outlines that an impact assessment was made and an informal consultation was undertaken with cross-representation of stakeholders, including trade associations and other industry representatives. It is suggested that there is no significant impact on business and other organisations. On the same page, it contradicts itself by suggesting that familiarisation costs will impact around 241,000 businesses to the tune of some £19.6 million and a further £1.2 million for cosmetic products specifically. In addition to the costs a no-deal Brexit would have for business, even the familiarisation costs are not insignificant, particularly for small businesses with very tight margins.

Furthermore, I am sceptical about the calculations. It is suggested, for example, that the assessment of the impact is based on a corporate manager or director taking three hours to familiarise themselves with the new legislation. I simply suggest to the Minister that it may take far longer than three hours for a manager to read and digest all the information in the 600-plus pages and share it with staff across the organisation. If the regulations pass today, what plans does the Minister have to bring the details of the SI to the public and particularly to the businesses it affects in bite-sized and understandable language to make it easier for businesses to familiarise themselves with it?

I have spoken to many consumer bodies that have been seriously concerned about the lack of engagement from the top levels of Government during the Brexit negotiations. Consumers are at the heart of our economy, yet there has been little interaction with consumer groups throughout the Brexit process. It is an indictment of the way in which the Prime Minister has overseen the negotiations. It is suggested that there was an informal consultation with groups. Will the Minister provide a list of all the organisations that took part in the consultation process and the nature of those meetings?

I conclude by making it clear that I am deeply concerned about the length and breadth of the SI. While I do not dispute the need for it in a no-deal scenario, the Opposition will vote against it on the basis of the process by which the Government have sought to take it through Parliament.