Draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 Draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019 Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Austin.

I will set it on the record that we do not oppose these statutory instruments, despite their narrow scope and their utter failure to address the grotesque and growing inequality in the quality of work, and increasing insecurity and low pay in the UK. They implement some of the few actions contained within the Government’s Good Work plan, which makes some very limited improvements to workers’ rights but does not address the crisis of work in this country, where millions are struggling to make ends meet, and where work is certainly no longer a preventer of poverty.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

When the hon. Lady refers to a “crisis” in the workplace, is she aware that we now have record employment, with more people in employment than ever before in the history of the United Kingdom?

[Gill Furniss]

I certainly am aware of that. I am also aware that many of my constituents are in low-paid work or on zero-hours contracts, when they would rather be in good, well-paid, full-time work.

[Mr Vara]

Just for the record, it is worth noting that it was under Tony Blair that zero-hours contracts began.

[Gill Furniss]

I am quite aware of that fact, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that they were small in number at that time; they have most certainly increased under this Government. I will try to move on.

Any improvement in the rights of workers is welcome, but it is an absolute travesty that these changes are so limited, and the Government seem intent on ignoring the scale of the crisis for many working people. The Government have described their Good Work plan as the

“largest upgrade in a generation to workplace rights”.

What a damning indictment that is of their previous lack of ambition.

If the Minister really wanted to improve the rights of workers across the country, she would introduce legislation to allow trade unions access to workplaces and promote collective bargaining, and to rule out the reintroduction of employment tribunal fees, which it must be stressed have only been removed following union legal action that resulted in their being found unlawful. She would also ban zero-hours contracts and give all workers access to day one employment rights, as Labour will.

Before addressing each of the SIs, I want to put on the record my concerns that the Government have said that they intend to legislate to “clarify” the existing case law around employment status. Legislation in that area could make it easier for employers to avoid honouring workers’ rights, and unpick recent union victories in the employment tribunals. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that will not be the case.

The draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 propose three main areas of change. The proposed strengthening of employment tribunals’ power to increase sanctions on employers who breach employment law is overdue and welcome, and it should certainly be made easier for employees to trigger information and consultation rights in their workplaces. However, it is clear that the changes being proposed to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 will fall short of the action needed to facilitate meaningful consultation between an employer and their workforce. All the evidence shows that collective bargaining is the best way of achieving that. Trade unions are the collective voice of workers, and a collective voice is stronger than an individual one. Trade unions are the best way of ensuring that the interests of the many are prioritised in the workplace and in the wider economy. So, can the Minister explain why this legislation and the Good Work plan completely ignore trade unions and do nothing to strengthen their rights in the workplace?

Why does the Minister think the proposed ICE reforms should not cover agency workers and other casual workers? Under these proposals, such workers will miss out on important information and consultation rights. The SI provides that workers will be entitled to a written statement of particulars of employment from day one in their job. However, people on zero-hours contracts and workers in the insecure economy need much more than a weak right to request a contract and more predictable hours. As the General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has stated:

“The right to request guaranteed working hours is no right at all. Zero-hours contract workers will have no more leverage than Oliver Twist.”

Why are the Government treating workers with such a Dickensian attitude?

I welcome the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019. After years of campaigning and pressure from trade unions, the regulations will effectively close the Swedish derogation loophole, which has been used by employers and recruitment agencies to avoid their obligations to provide pay parity for agency workers. However, why has it taken the Minister so long, and why do agency workers have to wait over a year—until 2020—for the regulations to come into force?

Although any increase in the information to which workers are entitled is welcome, the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019 are barely an improvement on the status quo. If I was the Minister, I would be embarrassed to present them. The proposals allow agency workers to be signposted to further documents, rather than having all the information in one place as Taylor recommended—undermining the Government’s stated objective of making key information more transparent and easily accessible.

Why does the key facts sheet not include all relevant information? Why has the Minister not introduced it immediately, instead of after a year’s delay? Importantly, who will enforce the new requirement? The employment agency standards inspectorate employs just 16 people to cover an agency sector that includes hundreds of thousands of workers. Without enforcement, the legislation is meaningless.

Only one in six low-paid workers in the last 10 years managed to secure a full-time job with better pay, meaning that many workers face a lifetime of being trapped in low pay and poverty. Issuing workers with a key facts page about their workplace rights will do nothing to address such a systematic crisis. Why is the Minister not embarrassed by the empty rhetoric of that response?

Labour is committed to giving all workers equal rights from day one. Why are the Government not committed to that? Wider reforms are needed to ensure effective information and consultation in the workplace. Labour believes that the law should presume that a worker is an employee with full employment rights unless the employer can prove otherwise. Why have the Government failed in these statutory instruments to take up the Taylor review recommendation to shift the burden of proof, where the status of the worker is in dispute, from the worker to the employer?

TUC research shows that the number of people facing insecure work has risen by 27% over the last five years under this Government. The Good Work plan and these weak SIs do nothing to address the growing crisis. It is clear that only a Labour Government will take decisive action and ensure that working people get the rights to which they should be entitled. For more than 60 years, the UK, like most other countries in the world, had a Ministry of Labour. We will restore it, to give workers and trade unions a voice at the Cabinet table. The new Ministry will ensure that workers’ rights are enforced with proper resources and tough sanctions for those who do not meet legal standards.

Labour has set out a 20-point plan for equality and security at work, including banning zero-hours contracts, giving all workers equal rights from day one, doubling paid maternity leave, increasing maternity pay and banning unpaid internships. If the Government were serious about improving the lives of workers, they would implement those policies, not announce superficial tweaks via secondary legislation that will not come into effect until 2020, and that barely scratch the surface.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

To move back to union representation, about which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough feels strongly, it is true that the changes that we are making to the thresholds will ensure that workers are able to get consultation with the organisations in which they work. It is correct that in some workplaces there is contention relating to unions, and they are not necessarily representative of the whole workforce, so there is already a system in place—a threshold within unions, separate to what we are talking about with the ICE. Obviously, that is a different system. The changes that we are making will give people who are not part of a union the ability to have a conversation and consultation with the companies that they work for.

I personally feel very strongly about zero-hours contracts. I have seen many, many examples, as a constituency MP and in the working world, of zero-hours contracts being a perfect solution for people who want to be able to work. They give people the flexibility that they are unable to get in other forms of employment. It is a fallacy that every organisation that uses zero-hours contracts is bad, and that all zero-hours contracts are weighted against the worker. I can name a number of examples of where employers go much further to aid individuals and enable flexibility. The 80% increase in jobs has been in full-time employment. The Taylor report identified that keeping that flexibility in the workplace is really important. I understand that people have concerns about zero-hours contracts, but our intention is to strengthen them where we can. My narrative is that they are a good option for a lot of people who want to work. They are not always one-sided.

[Gill Furniss]

I just want to put it on the record that this obsession with zero hours seems very weird to me, because there are many other options for making jobs flexible. There are things like job shares and part-time appointments. It does not have to be a zero-hours contract. I would like the Government to take a look at that, rather than clinging on to the notion that zero-hours contracts are the only way of offering flexibility. In my book, they certainly are not.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I actually agree with the hon. Lady. They are not the only way of offering flexibility. That is why we are bringing forward the proposals that we set out in the Good Work plan. We are moving towards giving workers the right to request a more stable contract and stable hours. Less than 3% of our workforce use zero-hours contracts, and there are many other ways to do it. In my view, the narrative that zero-hours contracts are all weighted against the employee is not always the correct interpretation of how they are used. However, we have tried to outline that, as a responsible Government, where we see any potential difficulty or breaches, we will always seek to close those gaps where appropriate.

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about the timescale. She will be pleased to know, in the light of debates that we have had on certain other SIs, that impact assessments have been carried out. Because an impact has been assessed to business, these measures will come into force on 6 April 2020, giving businesses 12 months to prepare, giving us time to work with businesses on guidance and implementation, and giving workers an opportunity to understand what is coming forward.

The key facts page is a step forward, particularly for agency workers. When the regulations come into force, workers will be entitled not only to a written statement of rights but to key facts. The whole point of that is that when individuals go to agencies, they will be able to ask questions and make decisions about whether to take on work in an informed way, which we hope will ensure that there is no concern in the future. Also, where there are workplace issues, that will give individuals something on day one with which to hold their employer to account at a later date. It is a great way forward; it gives workers better information and provides transparency. Obviously, we will be working with employers over the next year to ensure that those key facts pages are implemented.

I like to think that the regulations show that we are absolutely committed to improving workers’ rights following the Taylor review. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to Matthew Taylor and his review colleagues, Greg Marsh, Diane Nicol and Paul Broadbent. I thank them for all their work in this area. It has been a pleasure to work with them over the last 12 months, even though I have only been in post since July.

As we set out in our industrial strategy, flexibility is an important UK strength. Over the past year, the UK has experienced its highest rates of economic activity and employment. The employment rate was estimated at 75.8%, the highest since comparable estimates began in 1971. We have also experienced the lowest rate of unemployment since the mid ’70s. There are now 32.53 million people in work. The strength of the jobs market in the past eight years means that over 3 million more people are in work, unemployment is lower in all regions and nations of the UK than in 2010, and wages are growing at the fastest pace possible.

The regulations implement the recommendations of the Taylor review. They will directly benefit all workers by giving them transparency about their rights on day one. We are removing the opt-out from equal pay for agency workers and giving them clear information to make informed choices about who they sign with. We are making it easier for the workforce to establish formal engagement processes for information and consultation, and we are empowering employment tribunals to impose greater penalties against the worst employers.

Members will know that the regulations are not the extent of our plans, as I hope I have laid out. Many of the other commitments in the Good Work plan are being taken forward. Last week, we launched the holiday awareness campaign, which was beautifully alluded to by the hon. Member for Hove. Our scheme to name employers that fail to pay employment tribunal awards is now live. Many of our ambitious reforms will require primary legislation, and I look forward to having further discussions with Members across the House as we bring forward further measures.

I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.

Draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)

Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)

Young Carers Support

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next point. We will never see consistently good practice across schools until they are measured and assessed on it, and Ofsted’s role in that is crucial. I ask the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to say whether we can look forward to the Government’s requiring schools to have a young carers lead and requiring Ofsted to include the issue in its inspections.

Returning to some of the other points that our young carers from Sheffield made, there were two recommendations for the national health service, which have begun to be addressed in the NHS long-term plan and the commitment to carers, for which I am grateful. I have shared their recommendations and my questions with the Minister, so I hope he will also be able to confirm that the commitment in paragraph 2.33 of the long-term plan, which says:

“We will continue to identify and support carers”,

will include young carers and recognise the special nature of their needs. Will he say whether general practitioners will be required by the Care Quality Commission to hold a register of young carers in their practices and be inspected on it?

I welcome paragraph 2.35 of the commitment, which says:

“The NHS will roll out ‘top tips’ for general practice which have been developed by Young Carers, which include access to preventive health and social prescribing, and timely referral to local support services.”

It goes on to say:

“Up to 20,000 Young Carers will benefit from this more proactive approach by 23/24”,

but does the Minister recognise that that number falls well short of the estimated 700,000 young carers across the country?

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and fellow Sheffield MP for securing this debate. In a previous life, when I was a councillor, I was privileged to chair the children, young people and families scrutiny board, and met every year with Sheffield Young Carers, to whom I say thank you once again for bringing the young carers down to Parliament and letting their voices be heard. It is a shame that we do not celebrate the work they do, because they save the NHS hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds. I was a young carer. My mother was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when I was about six, so I had the opportunity to look after her. That was good, but at the same time you are not the same as your mates; you are somebody a bit different. The ask from the Sheffield Young Carers is very small, so will he join me in hoping that the Minister will give those young people hope for a better future? The statistics that we have seen show a high risk of their becoming NEETs—not in education, employment or training—with 67% of young carers being bullied and 45% of young adult carers reporting mental health issues. This is a small group of people who really go the full mile and need some care themselves.

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for sharing her personal experience and for the work that she has previously done with Sheffield Young Carers. Our young carers also have some fairly modest recommendations on financial support, which is an issue she touched on, recognising that their families are poorer, that they have higher costs and that, unlike their peers, they cannot get part-time jobs. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on their proposal that they should get some form of carer’s allowance, which is being introduced in Scotland, and free bus passes, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is spearheading a local campaign. Specifically with relation to his Department, does the Minister agree that young carers should be one of the named groups eligible for the 16-to-19 bursary?

I have one final question, relating to implementation of the Care Act 2014. A key principle of the statutory guidance issued under that Act is:

“Children should not undertake inappropriate or excessive caring roles that may have an impact on their development…their emotional or physical wellbeing and their prospects in education and life.”

Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the impact. In 2016, the Children’s Commissioner published a report revealing a very patchy service across the country, with many young carers remaining hidden and unsupported. One problem is that there is no guidance to define what is meant by “inappropriate or excessive”. Does the Minister agree that there should be national guidelines defining what is inappropriate or excessive care, to better support professionals in assessing and providing for the needs of young carers?

Fourteen-year-old Phoebe, who also joined me to meet the Prime Minister, has been caring since the age of eight. She probably spoke for all 700,000 young carers in the country when she said:

“I never get much time to myself. I worry a lot. I do panic that I can’t look after myself as much.”

She also said:

“This affects my own well-being.”

Should we not be doing everything to ensure that the caring that contributes so much to the family and saves the country so much does not affect the wellbeing of our young people, and that those young carers get the support they need to make the most of their lives?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the new Office for Product Safety and Standards has got its strategy plan together. We are working through that, working with data-led intelligence to ensure that we tackle product safety inequalities when they appear.

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

As the Government continue to threaten the public with a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, which they admit themselves would be detrimental to consumers, a report by Which? shows that a staggering 82% of people said that the Government had communicated either too little information or no information at all about the impact of such a Brexit. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is a result of sheer incompetence, or is it simply that the Government no longer care about consumers?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

This Government are committed to retaining the high levels of consumer protection that we have. We have been very clear about that; we set out our intentions in the consumers Green Paper. We have launched advertising campaigns and published guidance on the Government’s website regarding certain elements of consumer rights. We are working closely with the Consumer Protection Partnership, which brings together the enforcement and the information bodies that work with consumers. We are committed to delivering for consumers, and that will not change—in or out of the EU.

Draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir David. It is with deep regret that we find ourselves in a situation in which we are even considering leaving the EU with no deal—a decision that would have enormous political, social and economic impacts on the UK. There is no majority in the House for such a course of action. With 40 years’ worth of intertwined regulation and policies, the proposals introduced by the Government risk cutting the vital cross-border work that is so fundamental to the protections that our citizens enjoy.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give some concrete evidence, rather than speculating, that leaving on WTO terms, on which we trade profitably with the rest of the world, would mean us being unable likewise to trade profitably with the EU, given that all the projections of fear and economic gloom predicted when we simply voted to leave have transparently been proved to be wrong?

[Gill Furniss]

I think it has been made clear by many experts, including at the Bank of England, that, should we crash out with no deal in a few weeks’ time, the economy will shrink by about 8%. We are here today to look at spending many millions of pounds.

[Mr Baron]

This is the same Bank of England that predicted economic woe if we voted to leave the European Union, suggested there would be 500,000 extra unemployed people by December 2016, and then had to apologise very publicly for getting it so wrong. I would caution against the hon. Lady quoting the Bank of England, because it got it so wrong last time.

[The Chair]

Before this continues, I remind Members that this is not an opportunity for a general debate on whether we should be leaving the European Union. The circumstances of this delegated legislation are very tight, so I remind hon. Members to keep their remarks specifically to the legislation we are discussing.

[Gill Furniss]

Time after time, the Prime Minister has been consistent in saying that the Government will ensure that UK consumers will not face any detriment following our departure from the EU, yet the Government’s own analysis in their paper, “Consumer rights if there is no Brexit deal”, outlines that there would be a watering down of consumer rights in the event of no deal. Indeed, consumer rights bodies such as Which? have made it clear that no deal would mean a direct and hard impact on areas including travel, food and energy. The EU system, in which we have been partners for over 40 years, has devised solutions to remove risks in cross-border trade, including a deep harmonisation of substantive standards, enforcement mechanisms and redress mechanisms.

UK consumers rely on the assurance that should they buy a product from the EU, they will be protected in the event that something goes wrong, and that our competition authorities can take action on their behalf or request their European counterparts to do so in their respective countries. This confidence in cross-border trade and protection has resulted in trade flourishing between EU member states, and UK consumers have been protected. The purpose of these draft regulations is to remove current reciprocal arrangements that oblige member states to co-operate in the cross-border investigation of, and enforcement on, infringements of EU consumer laws where the collective interest of consumers is harmed.

[The Chair]

Order. There is a Division in the House, so the Committee will stand adjourned for 15 minutes. Should there be a second Division, we will adjourn for a total of 25 minutes.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate and delivering an impressive and eloquent speech. Passions have risen high today, which illustrates the value of the post office network to hon. Members present and to people in the community, so it is hugely disappointing to see the empty seats on the Conservative Benches.

Post offices are a vital community asset that serve as an anchor for individuals and local businesses, as many hon. Members have highlighted. Citizens Advice surveys have shown that half of Britons say that a post office branch is the most important service in their local community. In rural areas, the importance is even greater: one rural resident in five says that without their local post office they would lose contact with friends or neighbours. Post offices are hubs rooted in community and history, and they have innovated: services have grown and now cover some Government services, while postmasters have been innovative in providing new products to accommodate the rise of online shopping.

At the same time, it is not a revelation that our high streets are struggling. In October, the Chancellor took a “too little, too late” approach to the crisis, showing the Government’s lack of commitment to our town centres. Although they shirk responsibility for the collapse of our high streets, the Government are too eager to discount their own role in overseeing the managed decline of a long-established and vital part of our high street: our post offices.

Our debate today has focused on Crown post offices, the large flagship post offices that are in prominent high street locations and are directly owned and managed by Post Office Ltd. Over the past five years, the Post Office, which is entirely owned by the Government, has announced the closure of 150 Crown post offices—40% of its 2013 Crown post office network. The closure and franchise programme has come in three waves, and the latest announcement in October 2018 stated that a further 74 Crown post offices were being closed, with an estimated 700 jobs at risk.

There is a strength of feeling about the closures across all parts of the country. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that this is not a privatisation process, but franchising is by definition a model part of privatisation. This Government drove the disastrous privatisation of our Royal Mail, many of the consequences of which we are seeing today, with private shareholders creaming off millions in dividends while services are on the decline. I am afraid that the franchising programme appears to be an incremental step in the same direction, privatising our Post Office one Crown at a time.

The impact of the closure and franchise programme is significant for the public purse, for the accessibility, quality and breadth of the service provided to the public, and for the sustainability of the network. Our high streets face a crisis and it is being compounded by the Government-managed decline of the Post Office. As I wrote in a recent article:

“The Government may continue to peddle the myth that it has no agency over our high streets—the truth is they are willingly letting a proud institution and the public down.”

They are letting the Post Office fall by the wayside in an appalling act of negligence.

Plucking post offices out of the heart of business hubs, as the closure of local Crowns does, is bad for local business and bad for the Post Office. It exacerbates financial exclusion in deprived areas, where—in the light of the significant bank closures in recent years—local people may have no access to financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has been vocal about the proposed relocation of her local Crown away from the town centre and into an area that has seen a 15% decline in footfall over two years. It is an economic fallacy to suggest that shifting a post office to a quieter part of town, away from the economic activity, will be in any way helpful to the long-term sustainability of the network.

Indeed, in allowing the transfer of counters into WHSmith, the Government risk the viability and sustainability of communities’ access to post offices. It has been suggested that WHSmith is shifting its priorities away from the high street, as highlighted by its acquisition of InMotion, a US company known for airport services. That is worrying and raises serious questions about the retailer’s long-term viability and its desire to be on the high street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) told us, there has recently been a 3% decline in profits. It is therefore surprising not only that Post Office is choosing to partner with WHSmith in this way, but that when pressed during a meeting of the all-party group on post offices, Post Office representatives provided no reassurance about any contingency plans that they may have prepared for the event of a collapse.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke eloquently about the lack of meaningful consultation in their constituencies. Indeed, during the all-party group meeting, we learned that decisions on closures had already been made and that the consultation process was merely asking for little bits of information about whether people thought they had disability access—someone in the senior management actually said that. I challenged him, saying that the consultations should be asking the public about the closures, and that responsibility for disability access should lie with the management of the post office in question.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of access, because clearly many disabled people use post offices. Does she agree that if the proposal will mean less access to post offices, it should surely be stopped?

[Gill Furniss]

I very much agree, and I will go into that point in more detail later.

Post Office management claim that they will have six months’ notice if a retailer that hosts a Post Office counter collapses, but in reality a collapse could be immediate and would risk the total closure of the counter. It seems reasonable that contingency planning should be done to prepare for all eventualities. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Post Office about the matter? Can she assure us that she is aware of reasonable contingency plans for any of those scenarios?

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the independent reports published by Consumer Focus in 2012 and by Citizens Advice in 2016, which looked at the impact of closing and franchising former Crown post offices and locating them in WHSmith branches. They concluded that it has led to an increase in queuing and service times, a deterioration in customer service and advice, poor disabled access, and a reduction in the number of counter positions. As hon. Friends have pointed out, the retailer has been voted as providing some of the worst customer service in the UK—surely not a ringing endorsement.

The impact of these changes on local communities is significant, and vulnerable people, the disabled and the old suffer the most. The general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, Jan Shortt, has said:

“Older people are some of the biggest users of the Post Office, and many rely on being able to talk to expert staff, but the move to franchise services to WHSmith is going to be bad for customers...pensioners will find some of the offices are no longer easily accessible or particularly private. This will become a second class service if we don’t stop these plans immediately.”

Similarly, the chief executive of the deaf and disabled rights charity, Inclusion London, and representative of the UK-wide Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance of disabled people and their organisations, Tracey Lazard, said:

“Replacing accessible Post Office premises with a post office counter squeezed into the back of a WHSmith store can leave Disabled people at a significant disadvantage, particularly people with a mobility impairment. Post Office Ltd should be taking action to maximise the accessibility of its premises and services rather than taking this retrograde step that cannot be justified and will instead further Disabled people’s exclusion.”

[Liz McInnes]

Given that Crown post offices are Government property, and that Post Office Ltd is proposing a change that may well be detrimental to disabled people, does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely incumbent on it to carry out an equality impact assessment?

[Gill Furniss]

I completely agree. I am sure we will be asking the Minister whether she will address that, as it would seem that it is completely irresponsible of Post Office Ltd not to do so. It should be at the heart of any consultation with the public and the organisations I have referred to, which represent many of those people.

Despite fierce local opposition to the closures and the franchising programme, the Post Office has not undertaken serious and meaningful consultation and has been clear the closures will go ahead. At the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for post offices in October, when asked that the consultation process consider the range of views on the matter, senior Post Office representatives were forced to admit that the decisions about the closures had been made, and that the consultation would merely be an exchange of information and a look at further details. Given the Post Office’s public mandate and the fierce opposition to the closures, that is astonishing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) highlighted the particular impact that the closures will have on disabled constituents in our communities. There is also the impact on financial inclusion, as well as on the many other services, including the very important biometrics and essential Home Office information and documents that are issued in post offices. In the end, despite huge public opposition, a large amount of public funds have been used, with significant job losses and significant closures.

The Minister will no doubt repeat what she has said before about not having overview of Post Office structures and processes, referring to the fact that these are commercial decisions for the Post Office. However, I refer her to a petition that the current Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), presented in March 2008. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan cited it earlier, and it is worth mentioning again. That petition urged the Government to “instruct” the Post Office to halt the closure of the post office in Maidenhead and

“to listen to the views of local people in respect of their objection to the closure of this vital part of the local community.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 142P.]

Perhaps the Minister could take a lead from the Prime Minister under whom she serves, call in Post Office management and instruct them to halt the closures. Instead of investing in our post offices, maintaining expert staff and broadening the services available, the Post Office under this Government is going backwards.

I applaud the Communication Workers Union for its campaign, Save our Post Office, and its championing and protecting of workers’ pay and conditions of service. At the same time as post offices are closing, sub-postmasters are seeing a decline in remuneration. Many have written telling me they are just about breaking even but earning less than minimum wage, and services are declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) gave worrying examples of this trend of many sub-postmasters losing their livelihood and acquiring significant debt. I have had correspondence from a sub-postmistress who told me that she is likely to lose her home because the figures she was given when taking on that sub-post office have never been realised.

How is the Minister scrutinising the Post Office’s strategy and what it means for the service? Will she outline what consultation there will be to ensure the strategy brings in relevant stakeholders and the public in a proper wide-ranging consultation? I am quite astounded that the Minister did not once come to the House so that parliamentarians could have the opportunity to scrutinise these decisions and what they mean for our constituents.

The Labour party has been clear. We want to grow the service, end the closures of our Crown post offices, maintain good pay and conditions for staff and innovate into the future, because we believe in our public institutions and what they mean to the public. At last year’s election, we pledged to create a commission to look into setting up a post bank, which would be an important step forward in financial inclusion and would also provide important income streams to maintain, sustain and grow post office services more widely.

I am pleased we have had the opportunity to debate this important matter today. I urge the Minister to recognise the strength of feeling expressed in today’s debate and reconsider her position. I urge her to take a more considered approach with the Post Office—a publicly funded institution—first, by halting the closures and, secondly, by holding Post Office Ltd to account for the decisions it is making that are having a negative impact on our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I recognise some of the concerns about mobile branches that the hon. Gentleman raises. I can assure him that I am moving on to it, and obviously I have had the opportunity to listen to hon. Members this afternoon. I am sure hon. Members will agree that we do not want to go back to the days when we saw over 7,000 post offices shut, as was unfortunately the case under the previous Labour Government.

The post offices meet and exceed all the Government’s accessibility targets at the national level. Government investment in the network enabled the modernisation of more than 7,500 branches, adding more than 200,000 opening hours per week and establishing the Post Office as the largest Sunday trading network.

The Post Office’s agreement with high street banks enables personal and business banking in all branches, providing vital access to cash and banking services to consumers, businesses and local economies as bank branches continue to close. It is right to say that the agreement held with the Post Office and banks benefits our communities, which, as the Minister responsible I have made very clear to Post Office Ltd, to my colleagues in the Treasury and to the financial institutions that I have spoken to. The Post Office is providing a vital service to our constituents, and it should be remunerated for that—in doing so, hopefully that will ensure that our postmasters are also remunerated correctly for the service they provide to our constituents.

[Gill Furniss]

The Minister talks about banking services, and I would like to bring her back to a point made earlier. When post offices supply ATMs—clearly when banks close down, ATMs often just disappear from the high street or village—the rental is so much that they lose a significant amount of money. Does the Minister want to put that right in order to incentivise keeping ATMs in post offices so that they are available to all our communities?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say the loss of banks and access to cash has been a concern for our constituents and high streets. To individual MPs who represent a constituency where they feel that their post office is in a position to add an ATM—it is not always possible—as the Government representative I will always feed in specific issues that relate to individual constituencies or branches where we can improve services. I put that offer out there. Give me the details and I will always follow it up.

[Gill Furniss]

The Minister has been given the details today—they will be in Hansard. Postmasters see that they are subsidising the ATM, which just seems wrong to me. I ask the Minister to go back and review that, and to look at finding some way that she can compensate sub-postmasters for that service.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I have heard what the hon. Lady has said today, and I will go away and look it. Every post office operates differently throughout the country. There is not a standard rule for all branches, but I will continue to look at the issues that have been highlighted. I care as much about our post office network as any hon. Member does, and that is not just because I am the Minister in post.

The Post Office’s financial performance has improved significantly, and consequently the Government funding required to sustain the network has drastically decreased and is set to decrease even further in upcoming years. It is the first time in 16 years that the Post Office has made a profit. There was a time back in the early 2000s when the Post Office had a deficit of more than £1 billion. Things have changed, and we are ensuring that we get value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring that we sustain the network.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

We recognise that a number of issues affect the pubs community. The Government have taken some important measures relating to beer duty and business rates to help pubs, but I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to discuss the position.

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

Between April and September 2018, 33 pubs a week closed and were either demolished or converted to homes or offices. The pub industry is in free fall, and communities are suffering as they see their vital community hubs diminished. What strategy, if any, have the Government to secure a long-term sustainable future for the industry?

Draft Postal and Parcel Services (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Rosindell. On the whole, I am assured that the statutory instrument mostly ensures technical changes to remove the relevant EU references from postal services regulations.

As the Minister outlined, the basis of the statutory instrument is to attempt to address retained EU law to ensure it operates effectively and alters deficiencies arising from the UK’s exit next year. Part two makes amendments to the 2000 and 2011 Acts, to remove or replace references to obligations that will no longer apply following our departure. Part three revokes the 1999 regulations, which implemented article 22 of the postal services directive and required member states to designate a national regulatory authority for the postal sector. The draft regulations will revoke the European Commission’s decision of 10 August 2010, which established the ERGP.

As the Minister will know, however, the Commons sifting Committee overturned the decision of the House of Lords to pass the SI without debate. The Committee argued that the Government should provide more information—for example, on the effect of the UK’s non-participation in the ERGP—and possible alternatives for the future. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity to sit on the Committee today.

I will be brief and get to the crux of the matter, because the Minister very competently gave us an overview of a complicated set of regulations. I have a number of questions. First, was there a discussion during the Brexit negotiations about co-operation between the UK and EU on postal services following our departure? It has become a trend that the Government have failed to conduct impact assessments on the recent wave of SIs, so what assessment has been made of the implication that this measure will have for how postal services flow and how our parcels will be delivered in future? Finally, what assessment has she made of the impact that revoking the 2018 EU regulation on cross-border parcel delivery services will have on UK consumers’ access to competitive postal service prices?

Fuel Poverty

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

In a speech on the same topic early in 2017, I said:

“We are in a cold homes crisis”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 822.]

Regrettably, that message remains. A large number of people in our society are living in fuel poverty, unable to live in a warm, dry home, tragically often resulting in excess winter deaths. Living in fuel poverty is miserable, for both the young and old. It increases anxieties and stresses and puts pressure on the already stretched NHS. According to the NHS, the current scale of the problems in England alone costs the health service approximately £3.6 million a day and results in 50,000 unnecessary deaths. The Government have a duty to ensure that everybody in the UK is living in a warm, dry home, and I am grateful for this opportunity to hold them to account on the progress—or lack of it—on tackling fuel poverty.

A year since the last debate, little progress has been made and the Government continue to miss the targets that they set. How did we get to the tragic point where, weeks before Christmas, millions of people will be vulnerable to having a cold, damp home? Under the Tories, we have seen a low-wage, low-productivity economy, with precarious working hours for millions of people, leaving them vulnerable. Coupled with that, we have seen a disastrous universal credit roll-out, forcing millions into food banks. Shamelessly, Tory Ministers have used opening a food bank as a photo opportunity recently, as though the increase in food banks were to be commended.

In my constituency, 41% of children are living in poverty, and the number of food bank parcels given out has increased exponentially. While many cannot rely on a decent pay packet, they are none the less met with increasing living costs. Under a Labour Government in 2007, we saw 2.5 million energy efficiency measures implemented in a single year. That number has fallen off a cliff. This Tory Government are failing those in fuel poverty, and they are failing the people of Britain.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on securing this important and popular debate. The strength of feeling on the matter is undeniable and the fact that more than 290,000 people and counting have signed the petition is a testament to that.

Fireworks can cause stress and anxiety in small children, older people and those who suffer from mental health issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) described how pets and livestock are particularly affected, as for them, fireworks come unannounced, which can leave them feeling extremely vulnerable. Dogs feel safe and secure when they know what to expect, so the unannounced nature of fireworks is particularly distressing. Dog owners regularly complain that they face a waiting game when it comes to loud noises and scared pets, as eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). Similarly, cats associate loud noises with danger and can retreat for days at the sound of fireworks.

However, I am conscious that most people use fireworks responsibly in line with the regulations. There is no doubt that a fabulous fireworks display is the central feature of many cultural and religious celebrations, such as Diwali, Chinese new year and new year’s eve.

As hon. Members have noted, the legislation on fireworks is 13 years old. Strict rules about the quality, quantity and sale of fireworks are covered in the Fireworks Regulations 2004, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) believes need revisiting. Since January 2005, the sale of fireworks to the public has been prohibited except by licensed traders. However, fireworks can be sold by unlicensed traders for Chinese new year, for Diwali, between 15 October and 10 November for bonfire night celebrations, and for new year celebrations. That is welcome, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who also made a refreshing confession about his boyhood misdemeanours in Cheltenham on bonfire night.

The period around bonfire night is rather long, and in the last debate on the topic I asked the then Minister whether the Government would consult on it. Can the Minister update the Chamber on whether a consultation has taken or will be taking place? The 2004 regulations are fairly strict on timings, dates and who can use fireworks, so a large body of regulation covers the matter, but having sufficient regulation and enforcing it properly are two wholly separate issues.

I now turn to the lack of enforcement. The savage cuts faced by our local authorities’ trading standards bodies, which are responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws, are seriously concerning. For example, there was a 56% reduction in the number of staff at trading standards bodies between 2009-10 and 2016. The Government have failed to address this matter properly, and although the newly established Office for Product Safety and Standards is a step forward, the scope of resources available to it does not go far enough to ensure a sufficient level of enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) highlighted the fact that if the regulations are not enforced properly, as they should be, we see a rise in the number of police having to step in when fireworks get into the wrong hands or are used inappropriately, so it is not surprising that our police forces are frustrated by the issue of fireworks. Animal welfare charities, such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the Kennel Club, agree that poor enforcement is having a detrimental effect on animal welfare.

The other matter, of course, is the UK’s departure from the EU. The Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal offers nothing to secure the future of our world-class consumer protections and the Minister has failed to outline clearly what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that enforcement is maintained after the UK leaves the EU.

It also concerns me that there are insufficient evidence and statistics on this matter. For example, no survey or study has been done on the impacts of fireworks and according to the House of Commons Library the only statistics available on this issue are on hospital admissions due to the discharge of fireworks in England—which, by the way, have been increasing. We have heard that in the last year there were 4,000 such admissions. During the last debate on this issue, I asked the then Minister, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), whether he would gather statistics and data on the sale and use of fireworks. Can the Minister update us today on whether her Department is indeed in the process of compiling that data?

I sympathise with those affected by fireworks, but more should be done to communicate the details of the regulations that are currently in place. There should also be an effective communications campaign to highlight the impacts that fireworks can have on certain groups. Has the Minister considered putting in resources and working with consumer groups and animal welfare charities to put together a comprehensive and country-wide campaign to bring attention to concerns about firework use? If people are better informed about these issues, they may reconsider their use of fireworks.

There is very strong feeling on this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) has described so well. I reiterate my call for the Minister to conduct a thorough review of the regulations that are already in place, to determine the changing impact of fireworks and what changes we need to make to the existing regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I hope to have a meeting, which I think may also have been offered by my predecessor, with hon. Members who are interested. That will be an opportunity for them to discuss this issue with me, because what has come out today is that there is no consensus. There are different elements, and a number of issues and different opinions have been discussed. That is absolutely fine—that is what a debate is about—but it is not something that we could run with. As the Minister responsible, I would like to come up with a suggested way forward, looking at things in a more organised way. That is why I suggest a face-to-face meeting with hon. Members to discuss their concerns and suggest how we might take this matter forward.

Following the January debate, officials were tasked with reviewing the guidance. In order to ensure that all views are taken into account, I have asked those officials to connect constructively with key stakeholders during the next steps, addressing any awareness or information gaps. The creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards has given us the opportunity to make the best use of scientific evidence, incident data, risk and intelligence in our decision making. As a result, we are now in a much better position to ensure we have the right evidence-based approach to firework safety, and to commission new evidence where necessary. That will ensure we have a thorough understanding of the issues with the safe sale and use of fireworks.

I will respond to a couple of questions. The hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) have asked about the consultation on fireworks, and I will happily meet Members to discuss a way forward. As I have already outlined, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is gathering data and looking at ways in which we can acquire the thorough evidence that we will need to back up anything we introduce. As for enforcement, I am personally committed to making sure that we enforce the law in this country, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough knows and as I highlighted last week.

We are also committed to consumer protection. I made my interest in that area expressly clear in two different debates last week, as well as my interest in the data and the work that we are doing. The Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Department are using data scientifically to make better decisions on consumer protection and safety.

[Gill Furniss]

It is really generous of the Minister to offer to meet those of us who have taken part in the debate. However, as I said earlier, it is 13 years since the last regulations were instated, so does she agree that a complete review of the situation is now timely? Things have changed since then. We have heard about the fireworks that sound like bombs, the high decibel levels, and the different lengths of time that things take, so it would be nice if the Minister could confirm that when she meets us, it will be with a view to reviewing the entire situation surrounding fireworks.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her thanks for my suggestion that we should have a meeting. However, as I say, I have been in this role since July, and before I commit to anything, I need to be confident of what we would achieve and how we would achieve it. I am sad to say that I will not use today as an opportunity to confirm what the hon. Lady has asked for, but I have open ears and an open mind on what hon. Members might want to highlight.

Draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard. According to the Competition and Markets Authority, there were between 500,000 and 600,000 UK timeshare owners in 2015. Almost half were in Spain, 20% in the UK, and 25% outside Europe. The 2010 regulations are important in ensuring that consumers have crucial information when they enter into what is sometimes a lifelong arrangement.

As I said in Committee on Monday, the UK has been a beacon for consumer protection in the EU and globally. We should be proud that countries across the world look at our consumer protection laws. Since the Brexit vote in 2016, however, consumers have been left in limbo, and that uncertainty has been heightened by the Government’s lack of engagement with consumer groups, particularly at a senior level, on the terms of our withdrawal.

As the Minister said, this SI is an attempt to pave the way for the continuation of current laws when we leave the EU. It also broadens the 2010 regulations by amending the definition of a holiday accommodation contract. I will not repeat the technical details that the Minister gave us so eloquently, but I want to say that, time after time, we have pressed the Government on the enforcement mechanism that will ensure effective cross-border trading and protections after we have left the EU. Unfortunately I have not received a satisfactory answer from the Minister or any of her predecessors.

As I mentioned in a similar Committee on Monday, it is staggering that there has been a 56% reduction in trading standard bodies between 2009-10 and 2016. Some local authorities have only one qualified officer, depleting their enforcement capabilities. On timeshares and other areas of this legislation, I am concerned that no deal would make it harder for consumers to enforce their rights in the EU, as we will no longer have access to the networks that can currently be used, such as the consumer protection co-operation network, alternative dispute resolutions for consumers and online dispute resolution systems. Where consumers need to take legal action against a company in a EU member state, current arrangements allow for their issuing claims in their home courts and for judgments to be enforced more easily across the EU, but those will no longer apply.

I am unhappy at the Government’s decision not to undertake impact assessments for this SI and many others, although I take on board the Minister’s comments about the impact on business. In conclusion—I shall be brief, because it is cold in here—we will approve this SI.