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

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 General Committees

On resuming—

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My remarks on this statutory instrument will be very brief. The SI repeals the consumer protection co-operation regulation in full to ensure that there are no unilateral obligations or rights conferred on or between EU member states and/or the UK after Brexit, in the event of a no deal.

Is it the Government’s policy to ensure that, as far as possible, UK consumers are no worse off after Brexit than before? However, it is also the case that there are no substantial policy changes proposed for UK consumer law in the event of no deal, and after Brexit. My concern is that there are absolutely no guarantees that UK consumer law will continue to evolve and develop to ensure that UK consumers are not disadvantaged and left, over time, with fewer protections relative to their European counterparts. That must be a cause of concern to us all.

Furthermore, I am well aware that the Minister simply cannot guarantee that our rights will not diverge from Europe’s over time, because that is not in the gift of the Minister. That is why this is a matter of concern. We are being asked blindly to step into the unknown. That is the nature of Brexit, deal or no deal, whether we like it or not, regardless of how we voted.

Given the circumstances today, may I throw out for the Minister’s consideration a matter I have written to her about? I thought this might be a timely moment to bring it up. She will be aware there are many areas of concern for the future, but one example that concerns me is that the EU is now set to move on standardising the expiry dates on all gift cards at five years, instead of the mishmash of confusion that we have now.

The Minister will perhaps remember that I have made inquiries. I found that the UK Government are reluctant to examine this matter carefully, despite the fact that the industry is worth billions of pounds in the UK and that the measure would cost the UK Government nothing to implement. This is one simple area where UK consumers will be left behind when such provision is adopted across the EU post-Brexit. I know that the Minister suspects that that may not happen in Europe, but I can assure her that there are definitely moves afoot for it to happen. As the CPC regulation makes clear, it is the “collective interests of consumers” that we need to be protecting.

The reality is that Brexit, with or without a deal, can only—perhaps in moments of self-reflection, the Minister will see this—reduce the UK’s influence and that of UK enforcement bodies. I do not think that is a matter of dispute. She said in her opening remarks that co-operation will continue. I of course very much hope, for the sake of consumers, that that will be the case. No one wants to see a diminution of consumer protection. No one voted for that in the referendum. Whatever they voted for, they were not voting for fewer protections as consumers. However, concerns remain, because the UK will lose the influence that it has in the area of consumer protection, and of course in other areas, as we ironically will be forced to look inwards, instead of outwards, if we are engulfed by the chaos of no deal.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. As a responsible Government, we continue to prepare proportionately for all scenarios, including the scenario that we leave the EU without a deal. That is what this statutory instrument ensures: it revokes provision in the CPC regulation and the injunctions directive that will not be reciprocated by the EU in a no-deal situation.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the particular issue that she has raised. It is not in the scope of these regulations, but, as she knows, I am more than happy to communicate with her outside this statutory instrument Committee. Importantly, the instrument ensures that, after EU exit, UK enforcers retain powers to continue protecting UK consumers in the case of infringement of UK consumer law. That includes EU-derived consumer law.

[Patricia Gibson]

What does the Minister think will be the effect on the UK’s influence in European markets, for example? After Brexit, does she think that the UK’s influence on consumer protection will increase or decrease?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The statutory instrument before us talks about UK enforcement, and that, through our UK enforcement agencies, which are already registered under EU law, will be retained under UK law. As always, this Government and our enforcement agencies are committed to the protection of consumers in this country and will do whatever they can, in the event of no deal, to ensure that the relationships with our European neighbours will be maintained as far as possible, but obviously a lot of that will rest with the EU and how it wants to deal with us after EU exit.

Fuel Poverty

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I will indeed mention that. Various groups have lobbied all Members of Parliament to contribute to the debate and I agree with the basis of what they say.

It is also fair to say that fuel poverty is a devolved matter and that the debate originates from the fuel poverty strategy for England.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady gives me a second, I hope that I will mention the point that she was about to make. Fuel poverty is a problem across the United Kingdom. I am sure that we all have constituents who struggle to keep their homes warm during the winter. The weather has no borders and does not understand devolved legislation. I am sure that the hon. Lady will confirm that.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has said that measures to tackle fuel poverty have been devolved. The real drivers of fuel poverty are the high cost of fuel—the tax on which is reserved, as he knows—and, of course, people simply not having enough money. We know about the hardship that universal credit is causing, so I would say that the real and fundamental causes of fuel poverty are very much in the power of this Government to tackle, beyond energy efficiency measures.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The Government have many different strategies, and energy efficiency measures are one of them. The importance of working together with the devolved authorities on this issue was never in more evidence than during last winter’s beast from the east—I see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not in his seat. As temperatures plunged, many households throughout the UK faced broken boilers and frozen pipes. The sustained cold weather made it even more difficult for those on the lowest incomes and in the worst properties to be able to heat their home.

As has been mentioned, last month the Office for National Statistics reported there were 50,000 excess winter deaths last winter. The figure was said by the ONS to be unusually high because of multiple causes, including the virulent strain of flu, the relative ineffectiveness of the influenza vaccine and the colder than average winter temperatures. However, old, inefficient and cold homes, combined with occupants who are vulnerable to the impact of living in a cold home, certainly have been a factor.

The fabric of our building stock cannot continue to be a source of ill health. We have put in place an ambitious framework to tackle this issue, based on energy efficiency being the best long-term solution to tackle fuel poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I will rush through my notes because other Members want to speak, but we need more time for this kind of debate in the House, not the curtailed version we have tonight.

Far too many people are suffering cold and damp, in fuel poverty, and they should not be doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out, two of the most important drivers for fixing fuel poverty are reserved to this place: low incomes and fuel prices. Austerity has been one of the key drivers of fuel poverty for people across the nations of the UK. The UN special rapporteur has been mentioned tonight, so I will not cover that ground again, but he said that the

“manifestations are clear for all to see.”

Westminster austerity increases winter austerity for people.

[Patricia Gibson]

What my hon. Friend is saying is very important. I grew up in a household where the heating was never put on, and I remember trying to do schoolwork with my freezing hands trying to hold a pen. He has talked about the factors that drive fuel poverty. Does he agree that the high cost of nuclear will do nothing but exacerbate the high cost of energy, with the extortionate price rates involved hitting poorer families hard?

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed. I can only agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come back to that.

The key thing is that universal credit is driving the problems that people face in their houses. They have a genuine problem and have to endure pain in choosing whether to eat or put on the heating. That is not a cliché. It is a fact of life for people living in fuel poverty. Over the past five years and more, we have seen it in my constituency, with people suffering from the pilot of universal credit to its roll-out today.

The worst fuel poverty comes in areas of low income and, typically, rural areas. Unemployment levels are almost irrelevant when it comes to universal credit. The measures that the Chancellor introduced in his Budget do nothing for those already struggling on universal credit. They do nothing to reverse the cuts and nothing for those who are caught by the odious rape clause. Indeed, they do nothing to address the benefits freeze—even the transition funding will not come into place until next year. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the benefits freeze will cost low-income families £210 in 2019-20. Those are poor people, women, ethnic minorities, children, single parents and those with disabilities.

Measures can be introduced to reduce fuel poverty—for example, on insulation. The UK Government cut grants in 2015, and as a result, new insulation dropped by 90%. The new ECO programme is cautiously welcomed, but as green think-tank E3G pointed out,

“At least twice as much support is needed for low income households who struggle with their energy bills.”

It went on to say that the Government of Scotland grasped the importance of energy efficiency and that, including ECO support, they

“invest four times and twice as much per capita respectively in low income household energy efficiency as is invested in England.”

Low-income households need energy efficiency, and they need that to be invested in.

The Scottish Government’s green homes network has helped thousands of people to stay warm and save energy. It is clear to everyone except the UK Government that new industries such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen need to be invested in. After the betrayal of Peterhead, with that £1 billion project withdrawn, it will not cut it for the UK Government to replace that with 10% of the investment promised. These new technologies need proper investment.

The Energy Saving Trust said that Scotland is not only “leading the way” in energy efficiency but

“regularly outperforms the rest of the UK when it comes to slashing carbon emissions.”

On public and community ownership, Local Energy Scotland, the Scottish Government’s arm, is going forward with local energy projects and community and renewable schemes through the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES. However, Ofgem’s consultation seems targeted to hit homes and businesses that generate their own electricity. The aim, it says, is to shift the burden to others; those who use more will pay less, and those who use less will pay more. That disproportionately hits those in areas of high fuel poverty.

We need fair pricing. People who are living off the grid need to be treated fairly. We need an off-grid regulator, and we need to bring forward payments for off-grid people. In 2012, my former colleague Mike Weir MP introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Winter Fuel Allowance Payments (Off Gas Grid Claimants) Bill, to help bring forward the timing of winter fuel payments to enable people to purchase fuel at a time of year when prices were likely to be lower. Yet this is not regulated.

Ofgem seems more interested in protecting the energy companies. It has also refused to do anything about the differential that households, particularly those in Highland and other rural areas, pay in energy unit prices. In Highland, it costs 4p a unit more for people to pay for their energy than in other parts of the UK. An Ofgem spokesman recently said to The Press and Journal:

“Network companies face different costs for serving customers in GB regions, for both gas and electricity. Licenced network operators recover their allowed revenues, set by Ofgem under the”—

RIIO, or “revenue = incentives + innovation + outputs”—

“price control arrangements, from customers located within their licensed areas... This is a reasonable way to allocate these costs between customers. Ultimately it would be for Government to decide if changes should be made to these existing arrangements. Typical network costs are around 25 per cent (about £250) of overall energy bills.”

Ofgem is more interested in looking after the energy companies than those consumers who are actually struggling. We need a fair redistribution of these costs, which does not mean costs rising for other people, but actually brings down the level for those who are suffering in rural areas. There is poor value and there are poor services.

In Scotland, despite benefiting from its energy wealth, Westminster has left an energy system in which consumers are struggling to pay their bills. Despite the huge renewable resources—25% of Europe’s offshore wind—and oil and gas tax revenues of £350 billion since the 1970s, investment has been in failing and failed nuclear power. Wylfa, for example, is rumoured to be benefiting from £6 billion in equity and £9 billion in debt funding from this Government. It has a strike price deal that, at £77.50, is way above a fair rate—it is, indeed, below Hinkley’s eye-watering £92.50, but way above offshore wind’s £57.50—and who pays? The consumer—those in fuel poverty.

The Scottish Government are bringing forward their publicly owned energy company, and we look forward to seeing the benefits of that. I will wind up soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you must understand that there is a lot of ground to cover in this debate, and we have been given very little time for everybody to do so. We look forward to bringing forward a publicly owned energy company to reduce bills for people in Scotland and to help them out of the poverty trap of fuel poverty, low wages and the crippling application of universal credit and austerity to people in their homes and across our communities. It is time that the UK Government took some responsibility for this and took action to alleviate the pain that people suffer on fuel poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

A quarter of Scottish households are living in fuel poverty. It is clear that that is down to low income and the high cost of fuel. Alongside that, the high cost of nuclear, with the extortionate strike prices involved, is grotesque. Scotland boasts huge renewable resources, including 25% of Europe’s offshore wind resources.

I grew up in a freezing cold household, and I remember, when I was doing my school work, trying to hold a pen with freezing cold hands. The Minister will appreciate that in this day and age, no child and no family should have to live like that. It is time that fuel poverty was tackled in a meaningful way, so that people can enjoy a minimum level of comfort in their homes. That is why what the Scottish Government are doing on defining fuel poverty—we are one of the first European countries to do so—is so important. They have set a target to cut fuel poverty to 5% by 2040. The UK Government must use their powers to do what they can to deal with this fundamental social blight that looms over too many households in the cold, dark months.

Draft Package Travel And Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 General Committees

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Hosie; it is a pleasure to see you in your place. My remarks will be brief.

The statutory instrument brings welcome consumer protections, but the Minister will be aware that it does nothing to reverse the loss of income that Brexit has meant and will continue to mean for holidaymakers, should it go ahead, which is becoming less clear with every day that passes. I say that at the risk of raising the ire of Government Members. It seems to me that the only thing that is clear is that Brexit is unclear.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury Committee that

“real household incomes are about £900…lower than…forecast in…2016.”

The question is why, and what drove that difference. Some of it, according to Mark Carney, is ascribed to Brexit. I crave your indulgence for just a brief second, Mr Hosie. Alongside what Mark Carney notes, there has been a decline in real wage growth since the Brexit referendum, largely fuelled by persistent inflation, which has been above the 2% target each month since February 2017, one of the key drivers being the weak pound as a result of the market’s dim view of the UK Government’s Brexit plans. That is the context in which we are thinking about consumers booking future holidays.

It is extremely important that the UK Government give assurances that they will seek to ensure a future partnership framework, and will retain the consumer benefits of the 2018 regulations. I agree that it is important that protection be expanded for consumers buying package holidays, to reflect modern travel booking methods, such as online booking, and that we broaden the definition of “package” to encompass new ways of purchasing package holidays.

This statutory instrument shows the importance of EU member states working together, but I fear—perhaps the Minister will seek to reassure me—that over time, Brexit will inevitably dilute and damage the consumer rights that are currently protected by EU member states working together. This will be at the expense of general consumer protection measures. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, the package holiday sector is a moving and dynamic environment, so any UK Government have to be on their game to ensure that there is no unnecessary and damaging divergence in the kind of protection that we seek in this dynamic and innovative environment, to use the right hon. Gentleman’s words.

The new directive introduced a requirement for insolvency protection arrangements that were mutually recognised by EU member states and the UK, backed up by a central contact point that should, I hope, reassure consumers of package travel. As we have heard, this insolvency protection must work for all consumers who need it. I am sure that the Minister will agree that travel businesses need to be made fully aware of consumer rights and protections, as others have indicated.

I welcome the protections offered in this statutory instrument, but I have to say again that it will not put back into holidaymakers’ and householders’ pockets the income that has been lost since this Brexit episode started. People’s income is an estimated £900 less than the Bank of England forecast it would be in 2016. That comes alongside a decline in real wage growth since the Brexit referendum. I fear that consumers will be taking fewer holidays and therefore, sadly, will need fewer protections, but those who do take holidays rely very heavily on the kind of protections set out today.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate on the e-petition calling for a change in the law to include a ban on the public use of fireworks. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate forward and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for setting out a comprehensive case, outlining the concerns we have all heard from our constituents.

I do not think that any hon. Member has argued against the fact that, when used correctly, fireworks are an enjoyable spectacle. They are enjoyed by some 10 million people across the UK each year, and, as was mentioned several times, they have become a feature of publicly organised events in November, weddings and all sorts of other celebrations throughout the year. Anyone fortunate enough to have attended a publicly organised firework display will no doubt have enjoyed it immensely, and no one here would want to interfere with that.

However, we also need to take account of the alarm, distress, danger and anxiety that fireworks far too often cause to too many people and animals, and the disruption that they can cause to communities when purchased and used irresponsibly by individuals, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who is a former fire officer, as well as many other hon. Members.

We heard from the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock some of the statistics around accidents and injuries caused by fireworks. We are all aware of the increased pressure that problems associated with fireworks bring to bear on our public services, which are already stressed, which we heard about from the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally).

Every year from October to January, I receive complaints, as I am sure we all do, from constituents whose neighbourhoods are disrupted and plagued by the irresponsible use of fireworks at all hours of the dark evenings, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). Under cover of darkness, too many people set out to cause mischief, thinking that it is funny to set off fireworks near housing, where children or whole families are shocked from their slumbers; pets, such as cats and dogs, are scared half to death; and elderly people are driven into a state of fear and alarm. The effect on horses is also an issue to be considered, as we have heard. The hon. Member for Warrington North clearly set out the effect on veterans, who might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following active service.

We last debated this issue in January, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) reminded us. We were told then by the responding Minister that the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards would address many of the concerns raised about fireworks at that time, which were similar to the concerns raised today. This new body, we were told, would receive some £12 million a year in central Government funding to ensure that there was access to information nationally and to support local authorities in their work.

The new body, we were told, would work with key stakeholders and enforcing authorities to review the guidance materials available on the safe and responsible use of fireworks. It would provide an intelligence-handling function to improve the information we had and would also examine the individual safety of particular fireworks and of other products on sale—or so we were told.

I hope the Minister can update us on the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards on the issue of fireworks. If the Office for Product Safety and Standards has not yet addressed the issue of fireworks, perhaps she will explain what has caused the delay, given the widespread concern about the effects of fireworks on our communities.

The Scottish Parliament, through the Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004, restricted when fireworks can be set off, but as we all know all too well, irresponsible people who want to set off fireworks do not care a jot about the time restrictions. They do not care whether it is legal to set off a firework at certain times of day or night, and it seems that such irresponsible people do not care a jot about safety either.

I have been contacted by constituents in a state of great distress, as I am sure we all have, after a particularly alarming and noisy night of fireworks, which can happen for no apparent reason other than the fact that it is October, November or December, or it is Tuesday, or people have fireworks left over.

Fireworks are also still available for sale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out. On such occasions, as we have heard from several Members today—we have all heard this—constituents tell us that the onslaught of fireworks has had a profound effect on not only their quality of life, but their pets, which undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. That cannot be prepared for, as it comes out of nowhere whenever someone has fireworks and thinks that they will have a bit of fun. Some people think it is a great idea to set fireworks off in the middle of the night, up tenement entrances or in the shared entryways to flats.

The sale of fireworks is strongly restricted in the Republic of Ireland. The maximum punishment for possessing fireworks without a licence or for lighting fireworks in a public place is a €10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence. In Northern Ireland, fireworks have long been subjected to some of the strictest laws in the world. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the rest of the UK is denied similar or greater protection. As we heard from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), even in the United States, which has liberal gun laws, some states believe that restrictions on fireworks should be strict.

The situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre: the use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved. It does not take a genius to work out that unless we tackle in some way the sale of fireworks and who can get their hands on them, we have lost any meaningful influence over who uses them, which makes that extremely difficult to police.

At a local level, environmental health and antisocial behaviour teams can and do work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, but that seems to deal with the consequences of the wide availability of fireworks, rather than tackling the fear, alarm, distress, fire risks and safety hazards that fireworks cause. We need to tackle the real issue of the sale of fireworks to individuals; we need to tackle the problem at source. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West reminded us that fireworks are far more powerful and prevalent than they were in the past.

The time restrictions on fireworks are regulated by law, so fireworks cannot be set off between 11 pm and 7 am, with a few exceptions for special occasions such as the new year and so on. Clearly, however, from what we have heard, that does not go far enough. An individual who wishes to buy fireworks to cause fear and alarm, to have a bit of fun because they find it entertaining to cause destruction to their neighbourhood, or to use them as weapons of choice will set off fireworks whenever and wherever they choose. Restrictions on when fireworks can be set off afford no comfort to the communities plagued by them. As we have heard from several hon. Members, the regulations cannot be enforced. Once fireworks are on sale to any individual over 18, all control is lost over irresponsible behaviour, which is sadly all too common in some of our neighbourhoods.

The Scottish Government have launched a welcome consultation on the use of fireworks, but the nub of the issue is their sale, which is reserved to this Parliament and which cannot continue to be dodged or ignored. We need action and a serious and meaningful UK-wide review of who can buy fireworks. We cannot have any more shilly-shallying. I am keen to see the results of the Scottish Government’s consultation and I believe that the UK should follow suit as a first step—I hope the Minister has been listening.

Fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but so what? We know that children can get hold of them. We also know that those using fireworks irresponsibly are often perfectly entitled to buy them under the law as it stands. The irresponsible use of fireworks is not confined to those who get hold of them illegally. That is why more needs to be done to protect communities, the elderly, pets and a range of people in our communities, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk and other hon. Members who have been contacted repeatedly over the years by constituents whose lives are made a misery for several months of the year.

As the hon. Members for Stroud and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) set out, the current situation is not working and is not sustainable for the health, wellbeing and safety of our neighbourhoods. We can all look back nostalgically, as the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) did, to bonfire nights when we were growing up, but I am sure she agrees that that cuts no ice with communities that must regularly tolerate the awfulness of fireworks misuse for several months of the year.

We can all agree that the problem appears to be growing, as the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out. The only solution is to tackle it at source and review who should be sold fireworks. Personally, I am attracted to limiting their use to licensed organised public displays that are well advertised in advance and that take place within a publicised timespan, but I am also open to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Organised licensed displays allow the many people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely. Importantly, they also allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets, as the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) pointed out. The Dogs Trust says that where public displays are organised, 93% of pet owners—a high figure—alter their plans during the display time to minimise their pet’s trauma, which protects their pet’s welfare.

As for helping pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhoods, from what we have heard today, we know that that is often not possible, because fireworks go off randomly, with no warning. We can all agree—I hope I can include the Minister in that—that the answer is greater restrictions on the sale of fireworks, instead of selling them to all and sundry over 18 years old. Organised public fireworks displays, which are a much safer option for all our communities, would then gradually become the accepted norm.

It is time to ban the free sale of fireworks except for public licensed displays, but hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us consult across the UK and see what the public think, as has already been done in Scotland—there is no reason that cannot be done across the UK. A ban would mean that we could still enjoy fireworks in our communities at new year and at celebrations such as weddings, but that they would be out of the hands of those who, by accident or design, put the fear of God into our communities, shake our children and whole families awake in their beds, alarm older people, cause real suffering to our pets and even cause injury.

We need to let the public have their say through a widespread consultation. We need to get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but I urge the Minister to consider a consultation similar to the one being carried out in Scotland. Let us hear what the public think—they need to be part of the conversation—so they can inform how we proceed to improve the situation across the UK, and let us see a meaningful response to their concerns. I hope the Minister will set out how she will proceed on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what I heard from this end. My suggestion is that the police do take such matters seriously, in any constituency. Regarding any criminal activity that is identified as serious, the police absolutely attend.

[Patricia Gibson]

If I heard the Minister correctly, she suggested—if she did not say—that the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards is ongoing. I think that is what she said—what I understood. If the office is not yet in a position to tell us how it will proceed on fireworks, with all the concerns around them, do we have a timeframe for when it might bring forward its own conclusions or proposals about how we move forward?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will move on to that reference later in my speech, and to how potentially I, as the Minister responsible, and in line with the Office for Product Safety and Standards, would like to take the matter forward. If the hon. Lady would bear with me, that would be great.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central suggested that it was not possible to seize fireworks in some cases. I would like to reassure her that fireworks can be seized under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Explosives Act 1875. Just to give her an example, Greater Manchester seized 50 kg of bangers last year and 36 kg of category 4 fireworks, and Worcestershire seized fireworks from two different premises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I know that local forces work well with local authorities and other agencies on how best to implement regulation, control local problems and carry out enforcement. My hon. Friend makes a very good point and it is something we would have to discuss with those agencies and the local authorities involved.

During the debate in January, the then Minister agreed to meet with hon. Members who had an interest in the matter and discuss their concerns. As I said in response to a Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy question last week, I am open to hearing more and to receiving information and evidence on firework safety issues. This debate has certainly provided much information for further consideration.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is being extremely generous with her time. I just want to ask her the question that I think everyone in this room wants to ask, and probably every member of the public who has an interest in the issue. Is she minded to have a consultation? I hear what she says about what has been going on, but is she minded to proceed down the path of a consultation on the sale of fireworks? I think that is what a lot of people want to know.

[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.

Budget Resolutions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that, if you put £1 in but, because of the rising cost, take £2 out, that is a cut effectively. What we have seen is a real-terms cut—[Interruption.] I have to educate him. That is what a real-terms cut means. As he has raised that issue, let us highlight other real-term and actual cuts that Scotland has endured: £400 million, due through the previous regulatory agreement for railways; the city deals are £387 million short of the match funding that the Scottish Government put in; £53 million is missing for the NHS from this Budget; and the VAT for fire and rescue services and for Police Scotland, at £175 million.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that £175 million has not been refunded to Scotland’s emergency services through VAT. Does he agree that it is bewildering that this money has not been refunded given that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is chuntering from a sedentary position, “You were told.” A special dispensation on paying VAT was given to academy schools in England, but not to Scotland’s emergency services.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I have the dubious honour of being the final speaker in this debate. [Hon. Members: “No, you’re not.”] There is not much in this Budget to excite me or my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran. We are no wiser as to when the Ayrshire growth deal will kick off. If warm words were investment we would have made huge progress with this deal, but we need more than warm words and good wishes to improve the lives of those living in the communities crying out for investment, like Saltcoats, Kilbirnie, Stevenston.

We have had some tinkering with universal credit, but nothing like what is needed, nor have any measures been taken, despite repeated demands, to pause and halt this benefit in order to make it fit for purpose. Nothing has been done to end the wage discrimination against young people, and the Government continue to perpetuate the myth of their national living wage when it is clear that the real living wage—the wage that takes into account the actual cost of living—is the right thing for workers. The Tories and the Labour party are still opposing the Scottish Parliament having this authority over wage levels, there is no commitment to end exploitative unpaid work trials and still no support for the Scottish Parliament to have any control over employment law. Such is the terror of Scotland being a beacon of progressive politics in this regard that presumably the logic is, “If we go down, we all go down together.”

We have had much talk today about welfare. The £30 billion of welfare cuts voted through in 2015 by both Labour and the Tories has exacerbated child poverty in my constituency, and yesterday’s Budget did nothing to target child poverty. We have been told by the Resolution Foundation that tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit richer households, with almost half of them set to go to the top 10% of households, yet, disappointingly, we hear that Labour will abstain on that—and that is particularly disappointing given that Labour in Scotland have been throwing up their hands in horror at the SNP Government not raising taxes to yet higher levels.

The Budget did nothing to address the £175 million paid by Police Scotland in VAT bills, coming straight out of frontline policing, at the same time as we have academy schools in England being given special dispensation from paying VAT. Perhaps someone on the Government Benches could explain that anomaly.

We have had nothing for the victims of the HELMS—Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems—green deal swindle, which left people with huge debts. We also have communities without their banks, like Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie. The Chancellor has given us no guarantees over the future sale of RBS shares to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer. We have had nothing for the WASPI women, who have been robbed—mugged—of thousands of pounds. We have had nothing on the civil nuclear police officers, who face dramatic and unsustainable changes to their pensions.

The decision in the Budget to press ahead with the pensions cold-calling ban is welcome. However, if the reason for this ban is to protect people from these calls—and I assume it is—I cannot help but wonder at the delay in implementing my own ten-minute rule Bill from 2016, which called for director-level responsibility for nuisance calls. The UK Government support this and have repeatedly said so. They even reprinted the Bill and put it in the name of one of their own Back-Bench MPs, which is ironic given that the Bill tries to deal with scamming, but still no date for implementation has been set.

The delay in reducing the stake for fixed odds betting terminals is appalling, because it is down to pressure exerted by Back-Bench Tory MPs who appear to be in thrall to the bookmaking industry. This is a pressing issue in my constituency because we have 135 of these machines, with local players losing an estimated £5 million on those terminals in 2016 alone, causing untold misery across our communities.

I could go on, but I will end by saying this: this Budget does almost nothing to improve the lives of my constituents and is a massive missed opportunity. I think so and I am sure the majority of my constituents will think so, too. The Chancellor needs to go back to the drawing board.

HELMS and the Green Deal

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to participate in the debate, Mr Robertson. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for securing a debate to expose HELMS’s mis-selling of energy-efficient products under the UK Government’s green deal programme. It has affected many of my constituents. Indeed, as we have heard, we all have constituents who have been victims of that mis-selling, and who have been caused considerable anxiety, stress and financial loss as a result of the scandal. The UK Government, as every Member who has spoken has said, need to step up and take responsibility.

There is no denying that the scheme was Government-backed, but it turns out that the wider regulatory provisions failed to ensure that the deal was fit for purpose. What is required is for the UK Government to put in place a compensation scheme for all the consumers who have been left out of pocket—and there are many. We now have a situation where some homeowners who were taken in by the scheme have been left unable to sell their homes. They are not making the savings that they were told they would. It has all come to nothing. Some have been left with higher bills than they had before. The work carried out has often been substandard. Building warrants for wall cladding have not been obtained, so the consumers affected have had to pay for retrospective warrants at 300% of the cost of a normal building warrant, or have had to pay to have corrective works done, because building standards will not issue a warrant if they deem the work not to have been done properly. We have constituents who are not on a feed-in tariff because they were not registered prior to March 2016. Far too many people now face the prospect of monthly repayments for finance deals with extensive payback periods in excess of 20 years. How can that possibly be acceptable?

I am pleased that the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth assured me in a debate on 10 October that she would ask her officials to look at the loan arrangements. She pointed out:

“The green deal…was designed to unlock the issue of persuading people to improve the energy efficiency measures of their homes. Currently, all contracts are covered by existing consumer protection, but as a second action point I undertake to go away and review this specific company and write to her with the state of progress on those conversations.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 110WH.]

I await that letter with eager anticipation. I am sure that the Minister who is responding today can see that, far from unlocking

“the issue of persuading people to improve the energy efficiency measures of their homes”,

the scandal has undoubtedly set that cause back considerably, which is in no one’s interest. However, the Government could do much to mitigate the distrust that has been sown, the alarm that has been caused and the financial loss that those caught up in the scandal feel.

We have heard that the issue is complex, but in another sense it is very simple: the UK Government-backed scheme has led to ordinary consumers facing huge difficulties, and it is incumbent on the UK Government—there is a moral imperative—to put it right. The debacle shows that the UK Government’s system of regulation is simply not fit for purpose. Consumers did not have the protection under the law that they were entitled to expect. That needs to be addressed. Those consumers who inadvertently and unwittingly signed over their feed-in tariffs must have them returned. Today, those who have suffered in the HELMS fiasco simply want to know whether the Government are going to step up, or whether they are going to leave those who trusted the Government-backed scheme floundering in debt, hardship and despair. I urge the Minister to do the right thing and help the people who have been let down, misled and swindled by the scheme.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2018

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 General Committees

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I welcome the proposals outlined by the Minister so far as they go. They are moves in the right direction, but I agree that they do not go far enough. If I may crave your indulgence for a few moments, Mr Walker, the problem with the measures is that they do not compensate for the very high electricity bills that consumers will pay as a result of the favouring of very costly nuclear options, as opposed to much cheaper renewable options. That is not just my view; it is the view of the National Infrastructure Commission, which said that the brakes should be put on nuclear power, particularly since the prices of solar and wind technologies are likely to continue falling and at a much faster rate. Lord Adonis has added his voice to those calls. He called nuclear power stations very expensive and problematic, and said:

“Like Sir John Armitt, my successor as chair, I’ve changed my view in face of the evidence”.

I wish that the Government would change their view on nuclear in the face of the evidence.

We know that advances in grid technology have opened up the prospect of drawing power from multiple sources. Strike prices for nuclear are still significantly more than those for offshore wind. It is important that the Minister considers how the UK Government will fulfil the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation for a full value for money assessment before signing any new nuclear deals, given the report on Hinkley C.

The Government are proposing to close the export tariff for rooftop solar from March 2019, despite solar being one of the cheapest forms of new power generation. I welcome any measures to try to mitigate fuel poverty, but, fundamentally, to do that in any meaningful way we have to look at the whole nuclear issue, as well as the solar and wind issue and the new technologies coming on stream.

Some 26.5% of Scottish households are in fuel poverty, which is simply unacceptable. That is the kind of thing I wish the Government would think about when they try to make inroads into fuel poverty with the measures we are discussing today, which are welcome, but simply do not go far enough. What does the Minister think of the Scottish Government’s plans to establish a not-for-profit public energy company to tackle fuel poverty while supporting economic development and climate change targets? Would her Government ever countenance considering such a measure and perhaps following suit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the right hon. Lady think that the very high strike price for power from nuclear energy helps or hinders fuel poverty?

[Claire Perry]

I find the hon. Lady’s party’s ideological objection to a balanced energy supply to be really worrying. I encourage her, as the party’s expert on this subject, to go away and have a look at the modelling. In no modelling of any energy system that I have seen, and indeed that has been shown to me by even the most ambitious pro-renewables, are base load, peak load and renewables delivered at the same time.

Luckily, across all the countries we care about having an energy system that is secure, balanced, keeps the lights on and does not overburden consumers. Again, it is easy for the hon. Lady to take such ideological positions, because she never has to sit and think about the energy system in the round, but I would encourage her to think very hard about the fact that for households that she represents in her constituency, as for those in mine, what actually matters is keeping the lights on, keeping the costs down and keeping the carbon falling.

I suspect that we may divide on the order, but I commend it to the House.

Question put.

Central Heating Installations: Consumer Protection

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consumer protections for new central heating installations.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I am extremely glad to have discovered just seconds ago that I do not need to sum up at the end of the debate. Being relatively new to this place, I suddenly had kittens at the thought that I might have completely misunderstood parliamentary procedure, but I think I may have got it right.

The very first time that what I regard as a fairly serious issue crossed my radar was shortly after my mother died. I may be called sentimental by many but I decided that it would be too sad for my mother’s old telephone number, which she had all her life, to go to some anonymous BT file. For that reason, three years ago I thought that I would ask for my telephone number to be deleted, so I could take on my mother’s old telephone number. That was when the trouble started. Why do the calls always seem to come at 5 o’clock in the afternoon? That is my impression, at least. They go, “Hello. If you’re a pensioner or on benefits, you will be very interested to know of a central heating scheme for which you could be eligible.” If I had a penny for each of those telephone calls, I would have a few quid by now.

There is nothing inherently wrong at all with the idea of people in need receiving new, efficient central heating systems, paid for by either a Government grant or a levy scheme from a large utility company. The good intention behind the scheme cannot be faulted; after all, it is simply about making those in need warm and able to afford the cost of being warm. However, the trouble comes because the recipient of the new central heating system has not paid for it directly themselves.

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 do not apply. Those regulations contain detailed and pretty stringent requirements of businesses that sell goods and services off-premises—that is, door to door. They require consumers to be given detailed paperwork, and give them the right to a cooling-off period. In fairness, other consumer laws apply, but I must tell Members, as an MP and a citizen, that making them actually bite can prove a real challenge. I do not want to go into the detail of that in the short time I have, but I am pretty sure that every Member will have some experience of that issue.

I return to the issue of people being called and asked whether they would like a new boiler and heating system. Sadly, all too often we hear stories about cowboy installations. In some cases the heating system is defective, and getting it put right can prove nearly impossible for the household involved.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Related to the matters the hon. Gentleman raises, many people across the UK—certainly in Scotland—fell victim to the Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems green energy scandal. Customers have been left feeling very let down and are pleading with the UK Government to intervene directly to assist them out of the mess they found themselves in after that company cold-called them, went into liquidation and left them high and dry.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As a fellow Scot, I come across that kind of case all too frequently, and it is a nasty example of what I am on about. I will return to the sort of regulatory scheme we might use to try to tackle it. Of course, at that point the person in trouble often turns to their MP for help, so I am pleased to have secured the debate.

I have no doubt that Her Majesty’s Government and the Minister wish to do everything they can to help sort out this issue, so I wonder whether I may make a few suggestions. The first is that there ought to be a truly independent body—it could be administered by local authorities—to assess the need for a particular household to be considered for a new central heating system.

I suggest that would achieve two things. First, it would nip in the bud the rather extraordinary situation, which I am sure my Scottish colleague will recognise, whereby virtually new boilers and heating systems are unnecessarily removed and replaced when there is no need for that to happen—the system may just have needed some mechanical tweaking to make it work better. Sadly, that happens, and it is a waste of money. Secondly, I hope that it would tackle thorny situations where there is a really old heating system—30 or 40 years old, or more—that is highly inefficient but, for reasons I know not, contractors hesitate to replace it. There is something wrong with the system in that respect. There is evidence of that, and I suggest that the Department should look at that aspect of the issue.

My second suggestion is that there should be an accreditation system for businesses that install such equipment. After all, in the building world, we have building control regulations. We all know them—they run in parallel with planning conditions. Those regulations cover all manner of issues about the design and construction of a new build—everything from the steepness of a staircase to the load-bearing potential of roof trusses. The fact is that those rules work well—I think I can say that is true throughout the UK—which is why we do not have houses falling on our heads. People may get a bit irritated when building control people come out and say, “No, you’ve not done it right,” but the regulations are there for the best of reasons. It seems to me that a similar regime could be applied to heating systems purchased through grants and levies. The bottom line is that if a heating system is installed wrongly, it can, in the wrong circumstances, be dangerous and may cause a household fire.

My third and final suggestion is that there should be a cooling-off period after a householder agrees to a system being installed during which they are allowed to change their mind. Indeed, my first suggestion could kick in at that point. It should be the law that, when a householder says to the person on the other end of the telephone, “Yes, I like the sound of a new central heating system,” it must be pointed out to them that that system must be run past the independent body I mentioned before they proceed. The independent body may agree with the householder and say, “Yes, your system could do with upgrading, and this suitably accredited firm might be just the people to do it for you.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out how we could improve the situation and prevent the unfortunate experiences of our constituents, but I hope the Minister agrees that we must also try to address some of the huge injustices that my constituents and people much further afield have experienced. We are in a situation where consumers cannot sell their houses. Under the HELMS deals, consumers had solar panels fitted in good faith but found they were not in the feed-in tariff and could not register for it. They were mis-sold credit deals, they pay more for their electricity, and they are tied into payment contracts with energy suppliers for two decades. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about fixing those injustices before—

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are meant to be brief.

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed, but I just wondered—

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Yes, they will be brief—thank you. I call Jamie Stone.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing the debate and on approaching it in a collegial way. He asked important questions on behalf of his belated mother—I extend my condolences to him for his loss—and raised important questions that cross the provision of better forms of central heating as well as, more broadly, telephone mis-selling and consumer rights. I feel qualified to answer some of his points but, in my summation, I will say how I will help to perhaps raise all of our understanding.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are committed to making energy bills more affordable, particularly for lower income or more vulnerable households. Of course, that involves working with industry in particular to improve both the targeting of schemes such as the one to which he referred and the process of delivering improvements in a way that benefits consumers. I will take a moment to talk about current protections and then address some of the hon. Gentleman’s excellent suggestions.

Reasonable levels of protection are in place for boiler installations. Indeed, all installations should be reported to a local authority building control, which is responsible for ensuring that such work meets building codes and regulations, not least because of safety questions. All installers of gas boilers must be on the Gas Safe Register—and, of course, they can be struck off. We have the highest energy efficiency standards for gas boiler installations of any European country, and we continue to raise those standards to ensure that consumers get the maximum heating efficiency for the minimum cost and carbon dioxide emissions. As with any other consumer contract, if consumers are dissatisfied with how the work has been delivered, they can appeal to their local citizens advice bureau or trading standards. In Scotland, people can appeal to Home Energy Scotland, which can provide free and impartial energy advice.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about cooling-off periods, the installation of a boiler, as with any consumer contract, is subject to a cooling-off period, which I believe is 14 days. I will put that in a letter to him, which I will refer to later in my remarks.

As the hon. Gentleman noted, we also have the energy company obligation scheme to help those who are struggling with bills. Historically, that scheme has been split between helping those struggling with bill payments and reducing carbon emissions. I have decided to put as close as possible to 100% of that scheme into solving the challenge of fuel poverty, as part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reduce the level of fuel poverty by 2035. The scheme is worth about £640 million a year—a large sum of money—and 10% of the households in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have received measures under it, which might include electric storage heaters and oil boilers. I am sure that, like in my constituency, many of his constituents will live off the gas grid and be reliant on stand-alone heating.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about how we can ensure that these things are needed. I live in an off-gas-grid area in the middle of my constituency, and most weeks I go home to a flyer through my door suggesting that I apply for a new oil boiler. I do not feel that I am the target audience for these measures, and I have raised repeatedly with my team how we improve the targeting of this valuable sum of money towards those who need it most.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in the latest iteration of ECO, we have increased the level of money that a local authority can spend with its discretion to 25%. We have also increased the level of money spent in rural areas such as those we represent to 15%, so there is now more of a local targeting element. On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that local authorities should know who has been approached, I am the least likely person to want to burden our hard-pressed local officials with more reporting requirements on behalf of central Government, but the local relevance of measures, as he said, is incredibly important.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned standards. Any ECO installation must meet building regulations and British installation standards, and insulation measures must have an appropriate lifetime guarantee—even tighter measures than for general installations

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) rightly raised the question of renewable heat contracts sold to constituents that had indirect payments associated with them. In June, I introduced an assignment of rights so that people trapped in such contracts can assign them to another party, which should enable them to free up their homes for sale. One of my action points from the debate is to write to her with the details of that scheme to share with her constituents.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for promising to write to me on that, because it is important to many constituents. Given that we know that HELMS exploited constituents by mis-selling a Government-backed deal and that the Government backed the company, will the UK Government undertake even to consider a review of green deal loans proposed by that company, given the high volume of loans that have a payback period exceeding 20 years?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady is not alone in raising the challenges of mis-selling under the green deal, and I have asked my officials to look at that. The green deal—I was on its Bill Committee—was designed to unlock the issue of persuading people to improve the energy efficiency measures of their homes. Currently, all contracts are covered by existing consumer protection, but as a second action point I undertake to go away and review this specific company and write to her with the state of progress on those conversations.

I mentioned the assignment of rights, and both hon. Members have raised the challenge of whether there should not be more trust in the system. We have a question of mis-selling, which I will address in my final remarks, but should households not be able to trust the installer phoning them up to offer what could be a valuable addition to their homes? We conducted a review called “Each Home Counts”, and one of its key recommendations was for an independent, all-encompassing mark of quality for both installation and customer service that consumers can rely on and trust. We will launch a more robust, Government-endorsed quality scheme through TrustMark.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for helping to bring some clarity to the matter. I did not want to get back to the old idea of what a “proper job” is that some of us used to hear at school. It is amazing how many people thought that certain things were proper jobs, and it has to be said that it was mostly men and that a proper job was one that was traditionally male orientated—surprise, surprise—and other things were just basic jobs. However, the sorts of jobs that were once dismissed—in care, healthcare and other areas—are vital in today’s economy, and we need people to be doing them and to see them as the type of job and career that they want to go into.

While exploring the Bill, I was concerned that we should not end up with Parliament in effect asking the Minister to draw up a list of every job he could possibly think of and every type of employment activity that could ever be done for an employer, so amendment 8 is about targeting whether someone is employed. I am conscious that we have to make sure that our language and intentions are fairly clear. We should bear in mind our brief debate on another private Member’s Bill, the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. Most of us would think that a trial was a very short period—perhaps an hour or two, just to see how someone mixed with a team—but the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) gave an example of a place that had interpreted a trial as several weeks of working for nothing. Clearly, none of us would view that as a trial; the process was just about trying to dodge minimum and living wage legislation. We need to make sure that there is no opportunity to misuse what we all might think are reasonable words in the English language.

I am conscious of time and wish to give others the opportunity to speak. I shall listen carefully to the arguments made by the Minister and the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, when they speak about my amendments. I have been reassured by some of the interventions I have taken from my hon. Friend, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his interventions, which have helped to clarify some points. To be clear, I will support the Bill even if my amendments are not accepted. It would not be beneficial for anyone if the Bill was not passed.

This welcome Bill will help many in the darkest times of their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton can take great pride in the difference that his Bill will make to those people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester can take great pride in how they have used their personal experience to help others who end up in the same position. I support the Bill wholeheartedly and hope that the discussion of my amendments will help to make it even better.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing forward this Bill and for the consensual and sensitive approach that he has demonstrated as he piloted the Bill to this stage. I appreciate all the work that he has done to ensure that, finally, the anomaly and the injustice of bereaved parents not having any protection in employment law is addressed. I also thank the members of the Bill Committee. I make special mention of the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), with whom I have made common cause on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Lady for her work on this Bill, particularly during Committee stage. Earlier, she said that we had worked together to improve this Bill. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) were delighted that the Government were willing to accept her amendment on stillbirth. That is a clear sign of how cross-party working can improve legislation as it goes through the House. That particular amendment will always be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the hon. Lady.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What the Bill has shown, across this House, is the best of what the House of Commons can be. It is unfortunate that we cannot work in a more consensual manner on many more issues. On an issue such as this, when it is about human beings, compassion and feelings for our fellow man, this House has come out today looking much better than it often does. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words.

To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law is a terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud to say that, today, we will correct that. The Bill sets out a minimum leave period of two weeks. I know that that is not very long, but given that currently there is no entitlement at all, it offers a start and provides legal recognition that the response to such a life-changing event can no longer be—and should no longer be—a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when, whatever criticism people make of the House of Commons, either justified or unjustified, we can feel that we are making a real and practical difference to people’s lives as they face the worst circumstances imaginable—the death of their child.

Let me turn to amendments 22 and 23. We know the trauma that accompanies the death of a child. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. For some parents, going on as far as possible as though the death is not “real” will be a reaction that helps them cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term. People cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, there is no right or wrong way to do this. That is why the amendments are important. If they are passed, they will provide a signal to bereaved parents. The Bill is saying, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and we recognise its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that date.” I do not believe that that is really what we wish to do; it is not the message that we want to send out, which is why flexibility is so important.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Lady on the Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of flexibility and also of respect that each person is an individual and that each family copes in different ways. In some tragic cases, there are also practical reasons why greater flexibility is needed. For example, if there is an inquest or an inquiry into a death, that may come significantly later, and that may be a period when leave is needed to cope with the trauma of that event.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I was just about to move on to that. I agree wholeheartedly with his insightful remarks.

It is simply not appropriate or desirable to set an early time frame as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need for leave only when they have had time—it can be months later—to deal with the enormity of the loss, and when the reality of the loss has sunk in.

Much of the discussion around this Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness. Yes, it is true, far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by some terrible, unforgiving disease against which they have so few resources to defend themselves, but let us not forget that children die in a variety of circumstances. The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic. When a parent loses their child in dramatic and sudden circumstances, they will have had no idea that the last time they saw their child would be the last time that they saw them alive. Then there is some horrific accident—perhaps a car accident or some other type of accident—and in a moment, families are destroyed by grief and the cruel random nature of events.

We need flexibility not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way in their own time, but, as the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) said, to deal with a fatal accident inquiry, which is what would happen in Scotland, or a coroner’s inquiry in England. There may be a court case; perhaps even a trial. We have to consider all of those circumstances. There may be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a whole host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. If it is not, I fear that bereaved parents, whose employers—a small minority of them—are not as sympathetic as they might be, may face losing their jobs as well as losing their child. Bereaved parents must have the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider this carefully. I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable fellow.

Amendments 24 and 25 seek to recognise that the loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing no matter how old, or what age, that son or daughter may be. I think we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in this Bill. I am sure that everyone in this House, and beyond it, would agree that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should not and must not be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21, 23 or 25—we can pick whatever age we like.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hard work that my hon. Friend has put into this Bill and the passion with which she is speaking. She has had very personal experiences that have led to her commitment to taking all this forward.

This amendment is important because the relationship between parents and their offspring is changing. Nowadays, children may go back to live with their parents at much later ages—indeed, well into their adult lives—due to a range of changing societal circumstances. Those wider societal changes make the amendment much more important and relevant to the modern world. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to bear it in mind that the relationship between a parent and a child, even as the child grows up and becomes an adult themselves, is rather special. As he says, the traditional picture of young people growing up and moving out is no longer borne out in the statistics, for a variety of reasons. The relationship of parents and children living in the same house has to be recognised at any age, but also even when they are not living in the same house.

I understand why the Government have put this into the Bill, but drawing the line at the age of 18 when we are talking about the death of a child appears to me to be quite random and artificial. I do not think that such a distinction is appropriate in the context of the loss of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Minister and the whole House to keep it in mind that this Bill’s focus and starting point—we need only look at the title—is the bereaved parent, not the child. It is not about the circumstances of the age at which the child is lost—it is about protecting parents.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion—in relation to this Bill, at least—becomes more academic. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, the older a parent is when they lose their son or daughter, the more likely it is that they will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of this Bill.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful points. She is right that this is about the impact on the person. As I said, my grandmother was into her late 70s and her son was 59, but his death still impacted her very strongly emotionally.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I listened very carefully to the personal example that he gave us from his own family, which makes the point very well.

I ask the House to consider some other examples, such as that of a daughter aged 24 with a young child of her own whom she is perhaps bringing up on her own. As the Bill stands, if she were to die, her bereaved parents would not have any of the support that it could offer, even though there may be a thousand reasons why they will need bereavement leave—for example, the support that their grandchild might need if she had been bringing the child up on her own. I put to the House an interesting example that is completely, and sadly too often, within the realms of possibility. What about a son aged 25 who would not be covered by this Bill? Let us say that he is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile region, and loses his life during a tour of duty. Do his parents not deserve the protection that the Bill offers because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that the intention of the Bill is really to exclude such parents, and that is why I have tabled these amendments.

I remind the House that this Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. I do not presume to judge whether one kind of grief is worse than another, but we can all agree that it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to have to bury one’s husband or one’s wife. That, sadly, is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody—nobody—expects to bury their own child. A child is a parent’s investment—their stake in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I remember speaking at an event on child loss at which a solicitor who had acted in many, many cases where negligence had been involved told me that it was exceptionally rare for the parent to go back to the workplace because of the trauma. That would be less likely, as the hon. Lady says, if the parent had the ability to take some time out to deal with the grief. There is also action on the national bereavement care pathway that is at a pilot stage at the moment. These two things combined are likely to give parents a level of support that simply has not been there so far.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Lady’s point is very well made, and I could not agree more. The initial input at the early stages through the level of support that can be offered in the workplace under the law is so important if we are going to help people to recover in any form from the trauma. It is better than having them parked out of the workplace, economically inactive and floundering alone in their grief with no support, as has been the case up until now. We lose too many marriages, and too many potential contributors to the workforce and society, because people do not get the support that they need.

The amendments I have tabled are extremely important. I will not press them to a vote, because a private Member’s Bill is such a fragile thing, and nobody wants to do anything that will take the entire matter off the table, but I urge the Minister to give those matters serious consideration and really reflect on including them in the Bill.

[Michael Tomlinson]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). She spoke with clarity and passion and from experience, and it is clear from other interventions that she has made a real difference to the Bill. I thank her for her words and for her work.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work in guiding the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). I have piloted a presentation Bill through the House, and I got it all the way to Third Reading before it fell at the last hurdle, so I completely appreciate the fragile china that is a private Member’s Bill. I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury speaking in the very first Adjournment debate that I attended as a new Member of Parliament, and what a powerful experience it was to sit close to her. I think that I appeared in a number of leaflets distributed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, because I was sitting just behind him when he was making one of his powerful speeches. That had a double benefit: me hearing his wise words and the people of Colchester seeing my face in his leaflet.

I will come back to amendments 24 and 25 in due course, because the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran struck a raw nerve, and her words were very prescient. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has spoken in great detail to all his amendments, which I have signed, so I do not feel the need to bang on at length, but I want to address two or three areas.

First, amendments 1 and 2 relate to primary care givers and grandparents. While those amendments may not be necessary because of how the Bill is drafted—it is clear that the Secretary of State will lay regulations and that there will be a definition of a bereaved parent—it is important that we debate in this place at some length what we expect that definition to include. At a time when we need more foster carers and adoptive parents, it is right that we use the term “primary care giver”, rather than just “parent”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I will test your patience for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating some of the earlier remarks that I made in thanking the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). We have seen, over a number of months, real examples of constructive cross-party working. When that happens in this House—it does not happen very often—it can be quite a beautiful thing, so we should treasure it when it does happen.

The Bill is not perfect, but its passing today is hugely welcome and enormously significant. In passing this Bill, Parliament will do something good, which will help parents in their darkest hours. Today, Parliament has recognised that a parent burying their child is such a life-changing and such a traumatic event that it should be recognised in law. How it is dealt with in the workplace can no longer be left entirely at the discretion of employers—however well-meaning many, many employers may be. As the Minister said, if something is important and it matters, it is right that the law should recognise that fact.

The consensus across this House today is a testament to how important this Bill’s provisions are. We can easily imagine that they command the same consensus right across the United Kingdom. It is no secret that I would have liked more flexibility on when leave can be taken, and I would have liked the age restriction removed, but we have made a start. As the Minister said, it is hoped that the consultation will bring in many of the improvements that Members across the Chamber have talked about today. There is more to do, but this Bill sets a tone and a cultural shift.

I wish to extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) for sharing his own very personal story with us. I was particularly impressed by his eminently sensible suggestion that the comments, speeches and remarks that have been made today should definitely form part of the consultation, which we all hope will allow further improvements to be made to the Bill.

The Bill, as we have heard, sets out only minimum provisions, and we know that there is more work to do. Again, I pay tribute to the work that has been done so far, which will make such a difference to the lives of parents who find themselves bereaved. We have made a start, and I believe that we can and that we will go further in the future. I very much support the Bill.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am pleased to take part in a debate with so much consensus, which does not happen often. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) who has done a power of work on the issue and continues to champion the cause, as we all recognise. I thank the consumer organisation Which? for providing an excellent briefing, as has Electrical Safety First.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards is welcome, of course, as we have heard from a number of Members. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, it is important as a way of strengthening our product safety regime and making sure that customers are aware of and, importantly, can have confidence in the availability of an effective system, should products need repair or replacement. However, caution is required about the impact. In its report the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee regretted the Government’s limited response, and the lack of urgency about acting on recommendations to address product safety issues. It found that reductions in funding for local trading standards and national trading bodies were having the negative effect that might be expected on the adequacy of the existing product safety system.

That finding, combined with the fragmentation of the current system, makes it difficult for consumers to have confidence in the consistent enforcement of the required standards across the UK. We have heard today of responses from the manufacturer Whirlpool to a defect in its tumble dryers, which clearly show the limitations of the existing system. Indeed, as a direct result of its slow response, 1 million homes still contain potentially dangerous appliances, as set out by the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who explained the dangers that have dogged consumers who have those machines and has, of course, been a champion in the area in question.

There is no doubt that progress in improving the safety of electrical goods has been too slow. I suspect that the Minister would probably agree with that, in his quieter moments. That is despite a widely supported set of recommendations, made in Lynn Faulds Wood’s independent review, published two years ago. That review, which had a national product safety agency as its central recommendation, concluded that that was needed as part of a long-overdue overhaul of the entire system. All hon. Members welcome the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, but as we have heard, it must have sufficient scope and resources to deal with issues of product safety across the UK.

[Stephen Kerr]

Despite what I am about to say, I do not wish to introduce a tone of discord, but I was distressed last week when, in the Scottish Parliament, our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, answered a question from Miles Briggs MSP regarding genuine concerns about the safety of babies being permitted to sleep in baby boxes. The response he received did not indicate to me that the First Minister shares any kind of genuine feeling for the fact that people are sincerely concerned about product safety and baby boxes.

[Patricia Gibson]

That question is a bit leftfield, but I am happy to take it head on.

[Stephen Kerr]

It is about product safety.

[Patricia Gibson]

If the hon. Gentleman googles the Scottish Cot Death Trust, he will find that it has no concerns about baby boxes. However, if cardboard is set alight it does catch fire—there is a revelation for the hon. Gentleman—and the trick is not to light matches around cardboard. That is probably the safest thing for a baby.

As I was saying, the Office for Product Safety and Standards must be given sufficient scope and resources to deal with issues of product safety. It must be independent and have real teeth to protect consumers and prevent dangerous products from doing them harm. The Minister will be interested to hear that the consumer organisation Which? has expressed concern and disappointment that the full overhaul and fundamental reform needed to stop unsafe goods from reaching or remaining in our homes does not appear to be on the table. Disappointingly, it seems that the new office has not engaged with consumer organisations such as Which?, which I am sure the Minister would agree has some standing and calibre. I wonder why that is, and how consumers would view that lack of engagement. What does it mean when an organisation of such status cannot get the new office to engage with it? Perhaps that is something the Minister could unblock.

It seems a missed opportunity that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will apparently not address the systematic weaknesses in the existing enforcement framework, as set out by Which?, and it seems that there is no action plan for the new office—Which? has expended considerable effort in trying to elicit such a plan, but without success. This matter is fairly straight- forward because we all know about the ongoing failures in the product safety system, and recent product safety issues have brought into even greater focus questions about the adequacy of the current regulatory and enforcement system in the UK. There are concerns about a lack of effective co-ordination and direction in the new office, and if local authorities have no regulatory enforcement staffing resource, that might be a big problem. We know how under pressure trading standards officers are locally, and their role is extremely important for safety in our communities.

The OPSS must also consider product recall as part of its strategy—as the hon. Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) pointed out, product recall has an average success rate of only 20%, and potentially, millions of unsafe products remain in unsuspecting homes. It must also consider online retail, as that must be held to the legal standards that apply to other forms of retail shopping and product safety—that point was also raised by the hon. Members for Makerfield and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

Counterfeit goods are a huge problem, and we need a way forward to counter that issue. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn pointed out, data collection and sharing for product safety is fragmented and incomplete, and we need a true picture of the scale of the problem of unsafe goods. An injury database could be used to help collect intelligence and quickly identify dangerous products, and that would be a positive step forward.

We have the opportunity to address current weaknesses in the system and make sure that it is fit for purpose in the potentially more diverse trading environment that the UK will be part of in years to come—that point was set out by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). We have the opportunity to introduce a new national independent regime for product safety to ensure effective enforcement, market surveillance, and appropriate standards for goods. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us, getting product safety wrong will, and indeed has, cost lives.

The post-Brexit world raises challenges, and we cannot have a situation where the UK diverges significantly from the rest of the EU, as that could only be to the detriment of consumers—I hope the Minister will reassure us on that point. We all agree that the new office is welcome, but we are concerned to ensure that it has the power, resource and strategic direction to help it achieve what we all want, which is a safe environment for our consumers who buy products in good faith and have a right to expect that they are safe.