Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and the amendments. Millions of consumers in the UK are facing challenges with their energy bills, and I find it outrageous that loyalty is punished by some energy companies. It is counterproductive, especially for those speaking up for the free market. We must be careful, however, not to commit the politician’s syllogism from “Yes, Minister”: “There is a problem. Something must be done. This is something, so let’s do this.” The amendments seek to ameliorate that.

I am not a great believer in the idea that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best when it comes to running energy, and I worry that the idea that said proverbial gentlemen in a panel are best placed to determine energy prices gives succour to Labour ideas that it, as the state, is best placed to run the whole sector. The fact that Labour does believe that is precisely why I would not support any of its amendments but will stick with a Government who, notwithstanding their occasional prices and incomes board-type moments, represent a strong—indeed, the best—bulwark against socialism.

I will not go into huge technical details other than to praise the work and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has argued for a more dynamic solution to this problem, proposing a maximum mark-up between the ultra-competitive, consumer-friendly deals and the default tariffs that loyal customers pay. I supported his amendments and the intention to point out a better way of stimulating the market towards greater fairness via relative cap mechanisms.

Nevertheless, the fact is we are facing an urgent problem for which we need an urgent solution. To this end, I will support the Bill with—and, indeed, because of—the added sunset clauses, for which I thank the Minister, and which make this a temporary measure up until 2020. I hope that comments from me and others will point the way ahead at that time.

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

I am delighted to support the Bill, and I am glad to have worked with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was instrumental in its introduction and in pushing for the cap. It is disappointing that Ofgem required five months in which to implement it, but at least we shall have it in time for winter 2018.

The amendments to support and protect vulnerable and domestic consumers during the cap’s implementation are of course welcome, and it is right for the Minister and Ofgem to take account of the distinct needs and circumstances of vulnerable consumers when setting the cap, but since entering the House I, like the hon. Gentleman, have developed a healthy scepticism in my opinion of the way in which regulators, including Ofgem, go about their business—or not, as the case may be.

More than a quarter of households that contain a disabled person—27%, or about 4.1 million—spend more than £1,500 a year on a year on energy, and 790,000 of those spend more than £2,500. In my constituency, consumers are overpaying for electricity by £5.5 million a year. There is no denying that high energy costs have a serious impact on disabled people’s financial resilience. They limit those people’s ability to access employment and training and savings, and their ability to participate fully in society. Vulnerable and disabled consumers face higher energy costs than any other consumers, and that must be factored into any consideration.

As we heard earlier, the amendments that are intended to establish either an ongoing tariff differential or a relative cap are simply not robust enough to ensure that consumers would ultimately benefit from them. There is a risk that both the relative tariff differential and the relative cap could trigger unintended consequences, such as energy companies’ raising their minimum tariffs to meet the required difference from their maximum tariffs. That poses a series of questions about consumers’ interests. Indeed, stakeholders such as Ofgem, the Government and Citizens Advice have warned that a relative cap would not prevent overcharging and might simply result in price increases for the best-value tariffs. There is widespread agreement that an absolute cap is the best option if overcharging is to be prevented. Moreover, a relative cap might decrease the number of people switching providers or tariffs, which would clearly not be in the interests of consumers.

We need to know more details of the criteria that Ofgem must follow when conducting its review of competition for domestic supply contracts under clause 7. Those criteria are set out in amendment 8. It is essential that the Minister and Ofgem are as transparent as possible when setting the targets, so that the price cap does what it says on the tin. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) spoke about time of use tariffs. I am extremely suspicious of those, because they will inevitably penalise families with children, who have little flexibility when it comes to controlling when they use their energy. I do not think any of us want that.

[James Heappey]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but I think that there will automatically be technology in white goods, for instance, that will allow people to shift their demand to take advantage of time of use tariffs. Most families will save significantly as a result.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I appreciate that such tariffs will benefit some consumers—I do not think anyone would deny that—but I question whether the system would be flexible enough to benefit all families with children, and others whose energy use cannot be as flexible as they might like.

The amendment to ensure that customers must benefit from the cap by at least £100 seems very arbitrary and risks unintended consequences. I agree with the hon. Member for Wells about that, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). There is widespread concern that the big energy companies will use exemptions and green tariffs to ensure that they meet the target.

It is essential that the Bill delivers for consumers and that the period of the cap is used to deliver a fairer, more competitive market for consumers. It must deliver a change for consumers who have been overcharged for too long. There is consensus that the energy market is broken and needs to be fixed, which is why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It enables us to begin to do that, but we must ensure that we get it right and that there are no unintended consequences for the very consumers whom we seek to protect and assist. I know that the Minister will be mindful of that. We need to ensure that consumers benefit from action on this issue after the tariff is lifted in 2020 or 2023.

The launch of the independently chaired commission for customers in vulnerable circumstances by Energy UK in January will report on its findings and recommendations on energy companies, the Government, regulators and consumer groups towards the end of this year. I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will note that as we approach the end of the tariff cap, so that the voices of consumers can feed directly into the process of ensuring that they are offered as much protection as possible as the broken market is improved to become more fair and transparent.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).

It is clear that the energy market is not working for the consumer, and with that in mind, I am pleased to support the Bill. However, I firmly believe that these additional measures must be temporary. Permanent Government intervention in the energy market of the kind that is proposed in new clause 1 is, I believe, unnecessary. Indeed, things are already changing. As recently as 2010, there were only 13 energy suppliers in the United Kingdom; now there are well over 60. Independent suppliers are growing and, rightly, posing new challenges for the big six. They already account for some 20% of the dual fuel market.

The basis of healthy competition is enabling consumers to go elsewhere with relative ease if they find a better deal. Nearly 20% of households a year already switch suppliers. By making switching quicker and easier, we can make that figure even higher and force big suppliers to stop taking long-standing customers for granted as they have done for many years.

There are now about 10 million first-generation smart meters in operation in the United Kingdom. While the roll-out is progressing, there is a long way to go to meet the ambitious target of 53 million by 2020. In the context of the Bill, a key element is the roll-out of the SMETS 2 meters, which is due to begin this year. SMETS 2 consumers will benefit from quick and easy switching, and the meters should be intelligent enough to identify the lowest tariff. They have the potential to be a real force for competition in the energy market. At that point, there will be no need for the price cap, which is why it would not be prudent to introduce a permanent relative cap. It would be bad for customers, and it would work against the positive changes that will be made over the next few years.

New clause 1 is the product of a belief that markets simply do not work. As a Conservative, I believe that they can work. I note the progress that we have made, and the progress that we will make in the coming years. I acknowledge that the market needs the temporary cap, and I support the Bill as a means of protecting consumers, not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that it will contribute to a reduction in the very real fuel poverty that some people endure.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. The reassurances I was given this morning were first that there would be no store closures and secondly that the head offices of both Sainsbury’s and Asda would remain open. Those are both very positive things. My hon. Friend mentions the forced sale of particular branches, and that is clearly a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority. When Sainsbury’s and Asda move on to the phase 2 investigation, they will get down to the granularity of the merger’s impact on particular villages, towns and cities. If there is a feeling that it will cause a lack of competition in the marketplace, the CMA has the power, when making a decision, to force the sale of stores to competitors to ensure that there is greater competition for the consumer.

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

The Secretary of State pointed out that the merger of Britain’s second and third largest supermarket chains will need to be approved by the Competition and Markets Authority and be scrutinised by regulators such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which was set up to protect small suppliers. As he said, the consumers’ voice is essential, and there are very real concerns that the merger will lead to reduced competition and be bad for shoppers, potentially hitting prices and the range of products available. Despite protestations to the contrary, fears remain that this could cost the jobs of the workers upon whose hard work these companies have been built. As we have heard, the Competition and Markets Authority may well demand that the combined group sells off some stores to prevent market dominance when there is both a Sainsbury’s and an Asda in the same area, but that can only be bad news for consumers and employees. Does the Secretary of State agree that the merger must not be at the expense of consumers’ interests or jobs, and will he commit to keeping the House updated on these important matters?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; she raises some very important points. Sadly, my responsibilities do not yet run to my being the Secretary of State, but I am grateful for the confidence and faith that she has shown in me.

In relation to the consumer, this is at the heart of what the CMA will consider. It will look at how this merger will affect our constituents—people concerned about the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread—and it will be very attuned to such an impact. All the assertions made by both Sainsbury’s and Asda so far show that they believe that this will lead to a reduction in costs, and therefore a reduction in prices on the shelf. The CMA and the Government will of course be keeping a close eye on that, but Sainsbury’s and Asda believe that this will lead to better prices for the consumer.

Dieter Helm Energy Review

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing this debate. I am pleased we are having this debate on the cost of the Dieter Helm independent review, launched by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and led, of course, by Professor Helm, an economist specialising in energy. Such a review is a rather important matter. Therefore, it was extremely disappointing that it was announced by BEIS on a Sunday in the peak of the August holiday season last year and was scheduled to last a mere 30 days.

The review was set in the context of rising customer concern about power prices, which were set to increase by 15%, following the decision by British Gas to increase electricity prices by 12.5% on average, despite falling wholesale prices. Although UK domestic power tariffs remain low relative to other countries in the EU, they are rising, and for industrial users, they are the third highest of 15 European countries, according to the UK Government’s figures. One reason is increases in climate-related policy costs, which make up a growing proportion of the average energy bill.

The review’s terms of reference are about ensuring energy is affordable for households and businesses. It sets out 11 short bullet points and reiterates the laudable ambition to have the lowest energy costs in Europe for homes and businesses. However, the expert panel of five working alongside Professor Helm lacked a consumer voice, although manufacturing was represented. I do not understand why that was the case, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on it.

Although the review was independent, with the purpose of reviewing the cost of energy, it focused on electricity. The Government said:

“The specific aim of this review is to report and make recommendations on how”

carbon and energy security aims

“can be met in the power sector at minimum cost and without imposing further costs on the exchequer.”

Indeed, the Government recognised that, although the UK has some of the lowest gas prices in Europe, our electricity prices are less competitive, compared with those for households in Europe, and are among the most expensive for the industry. Bills are about volume, not just price. For example, average domestic electricity prices in the US are half those of the UK, but bills are higher because the more energy-efficient UK homes have less waste. The same can be said of gas.

As well as the fact that the review was restricted to electricity, utility firms’ pricing and profits were not included, which some might argue was a missed opportunity. The Government have rejected the idea that the review was too narrowly based on Professor Helm’s opinions and too brief to unearth any valuable new evidence. Does that remain their view? How on earth can anyone seriously consider the cost issues facing UK energy without looking at the £20 billion Hinkley Point reactor project? I know that many in the energy industry agree with that.

There has been much debate about various aspects of this report, and that is as it should be. The report’s two main findings are that the cost of energy is significantly higher than it needs to be, and that energy policy, regulation and market design are not fit for the purposes of the emerging low-carbon energy market, but I believe we have to focus on the cost of energy to the consumer. The report makes it clear that, since late 2014, the price of oil, gas and coal has fallen significantly, the price of renewables has fallen, and there is downward pressure on the cost of transmission, distribution and supply. New technologies should mean lower, not higher, costs, and much greater scope for energy efficiency. Margins should fall as competition increases, yet Professor Helm points out—if we accept this—that households have seen few benefits from the cost reductions. Prices have gone up, not down, for too many consumers.

I am sure I do not need to tell the Minister about the strain that the unnecessarily high costs for households put on household budgets across the UK. Indeed, Professor Helm warns that such costs risk undermining the broader democratic support for decarbonisation. The Climate Change Act 2008 estimates that the cost of decarbonising electricity is about 20% of typical electricity bills, and it is thought that such legacy costs will amount to well over £100 billion by 2030. Professor Helm concludes that much more decarbonisation could have been achieved for less, and that costs should be lower and falling further. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on that.

As Professor Helm identifies, the problem is that those higher than necessary costs are locked in for at least a decade, despite the Government’s welcome temporary price cap, due to contracts that the Government entered into. We need a way to reduce the burden imposed on consumers and businesses and ensure that decarbonisation costs are more transparent, at the very least.

There is no doubt a difficult balance to strike between costs and the challenges that the electricity and energy system will face in the next decade and beyond. Carbon budgets need to be met as we invest in new technologies that come on stream. We are living through a technological transformation, and electricity is increasingly the dominant energy form.

Professor Helm is clear that the 2050 carbon target could be met at a lower cost. It could perhaps even be met early, which would be of real benefit to households and the entire industry. Does the Minister have any thoughts about that? It is important that we consider Professor Helm’s work more carefully than is possible in a 90-minute debate, because our wider economic needs, and our ability to meet our energy demands and deliver our carbon budgets may, as Professor Helm points out, depend on it. We must also be extremely mindful when we attempt to break out of the high costs of our energy system, which locks too many households into fuel poverty. There are opportunities in the energy market, and I am extremely interested to hear how the Minister intends to capitalise on them for the sake of consumers, businesses and the delivery of our carbon budgets.

We cannot take Professor Helm’s conclusions as gospel, and nor should we. Indeed, in the past his work has not been short of critics, but it always provokes debate. It seems that Governments have pretty much ignored much of what he has said in the past. I am interested to hear about how his work will inform the Government’s approach as we face the future in this field, and about how consumers can remain at the heart of this process.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

A short trial period—just be clear again, I mean one to two hours—can give an employer the confidence to give someone a job, perhaps someone from a disadvantaged background who does not necessarily come across very strongly in interview. That might give an employer the confidence to employ that person when they might not otherwise do so.

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

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can clarify something for me. I am listening very carefully to what he says, but I cannot understand why there have to be unpaid trial shifts when it would be much fairer just to put somebody on a temporary contract, then assess them and decide whether to give them a permanent contract.

[Chris Philp]

To be absolutely clear, I do not think that full, unpaid trial shifts are ethical, right or moral. My understanding is that they are illegal already, and if they are not illegal they certainly should be made so. I definitely do not want full, unpaid trial shifts to be legal. However, a short period of time—one or two hours, I would suggest—should not require a temporary contract. Asking someone to enter into a temporary contract entails a certain amount of paperwork and bureaucracy. Notwithstanding the point about the two years, in relation to discrimination it creates immediately binding legal obligations. To do all that for someone who is essentially going through an interview process imposes an unreasonable burden on a prospective employer. If an employer is interviewing 10 people for one position, to have to give all 10 a temporary contract would be excessive in the context of a one or two-hour trial.

I have spoken for a little bit longer than I planned to. Before I conclude, I will take one last intervention.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I have long expressed concern and alarm at the way the energy market simply does not seem to work for consumers. I have worked with Members from other parties, most notably the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), to try to ensure action is taken on this issue.

The fact that the Bill will impose a cap on the price of the standard variable and default tariffs, at least until 2020 and possibly longer, is good news for consumer, particularly those who do not switch for a whole variety of reasons. The Competition and Markets Authority’s investigations found

“a lack of engagement in the markets on the part of many customers, which suppliers are able to exploit by charging high prices.”

Indeed, some 34% of domestic energy customers had never considered switching supplier, with 56% saying that they did not know whether it was possible or did not know whether they had done so in the past.

As we have heard, consumers on standard variable tariffs are much more likely to be older, disabled, on low incomes, living in rented accommodation or without internet access. Those on standard variable tariffs have not seen their bills fall by much when the cost of providing energy has fallen. Such savings as are available are passed on only to consumers who were active switchers, as we have heard. We have to understand that not all consumers can engage in the switching process, so suppliers clearly need to do more to ensure that customers are not trapped in poor deals. The poorer someone is, the more likely they are to be on the more expensive standard variable tariff, subsidising cheaper electricity deals for the better-off. That cannot be right, and is essentially what has brought us to this point.

People in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran are overpaying on energy bills by £5.5 million a year. That illustrates the need for action in the market, but that action is much more urgent than the mooted timetable of winter 2018 would suggest. I absolutely welcome the cap, but I am extremely disappointed that Ofgem has said it will need five months to implement it. We have been told that the cap will be in place for winter 2018, but why not sooner? I am afraid that the perception again raises its head that Ofgem is dragging its feet.

The Bill is indeed welcome, but the focus hereafter must be on fixing this broken market. We must have easier and faster ways to switch suppliers, for those who can and do; we need more transparent energy bills for consumers; and we need to create the conditions for a much more competitive market. Some people propose that we should consider scrapping standard variable tariffs altogether and prohibiting all tariffs without an end date, as they inhibit consumer engagement, but that prompts the question what energy suppliers can and will do to increase consumer engagement, because the figures for switching and the CMA investigations have shown that consumer engagement is severely lacking, for a whole variety of reasons.

Is it not interesting that, since there has been political focus on this matter, with a commitment from all parties to tackle the standard variable tariff rip-off, we now see some energy companies withdrawing this tariff, or seeking to introduce new measures to prevent customers from languishing on it? That shows that, so far, there has been a lack of will to deal with this issue on the part of the bigger companies in particular. However, it is clear that political focus in itself can help to drive change.

I echo the view that was expressed earlier: we must take care that the action taken in this Bill, welcome as it is, does not lead to higher prices in the longer term. We cannot have a situation in which energy providers offset initial price reductions with increases once the cap is removed. We also need to ensure that consumers who are on a cap default tariff do not lose out as market conditions change in the future. When the cap is lifted, we need to ensure that we know what the conditions and criteria for doing so are and that, in the end, we are left with a more competitive and fairer market for consumers. We need to know what the impact of this cap is and to ensure that there will be no adverse impact on a competitive market.

What is done by the Government and the regulator for the period during which this cap is in place really matters. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this, as we cannot begin too early to prepare for what comes after this cap—whenever it is lifted. We need to know how we can continue to protect consumers and ensure that they have energy deals that are right for them and that they are not ripped off as they have been. We cannot go back to business as usual after the cap is removed. We need real and lasting change, and this period when the cap is in place is an opportunity to make that change happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I must sit down soon; I have taken many interventions.

We must make data far more available to allow more competition in the market. That is where the Government’s policy differs from that of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Yes, absolutely. There needs to be an acceptance that this is just one measure and there are many more measures—including on energy efficiency, which should have had much more attention from the Government.

There remains a need to remove legislative obstacles to data sharing for vulnerable customers to give them better consumer protection. There also remains—

[Patricia Gibson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Drew Hendry]

Yes.

[Patricia Gibson]

I will make a very brief intervention if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said in my speech, we are having this debate because of the loyalty penalty that people pay. We see this in the energy industry, the insurance industry and a whole range of industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more Government regulation across industries to stop people being punished for being loyal to their providers, whatever the market?

[Drew Hendry]

I absolutely agree. To assist, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take no more interventions during the rest of this speech.

As I said, we need data sharing for vulnerable customers to give them better protection. There remains a risk, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who is still in the Chamber, that suppliers may just increase their lowest prices to maintain profit. We will all be watching carefully to see how they react.

So what must now be done? In Scotland, the SNP Government are providing resources for financial health check-ups to help pensioners and those on low incomes to make the most of their money and to secure the best energy tariffs. The UK Government will, I hope, follow suit.

We call on the Government to place a new duty on energy companies to set out a clear timetable for reducing the number of people on prepayment meters, to implement the Competition and Markets Authority’s call to reduce the costs for households and to introduce a requirement for energy companies to prioritise the roll-out of new-generation smart meters to households at risk of fuel poverty. That can all be done in short measure.

When it comes to disabled people, even more action is needed. Disabled people face higher energy costs because of issues related to their impairment or condition. Those extra costs have a detrimental impact on disabled people’s financial resilience and ability to fully participate in society. The price cap goes some way, but the UK Government must now put in place longer term plans alongside the price cap to improve support for disabled consumers, including increasing accessible communication and digital inclusion and, as I mentioned earlier, building on more effective data use.

The challenges for disabled people are that they have no choice but to consume more. They have limited mobility, use more heating to stay warm and run additional technology and equipment. Over a quarter—27%—of households with a disabled person spend more than £1,500 a year on energy, and nearly 800,000 households across the nations of the UK spend more than £,2,500.

There must be a different way to deal with this. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have announced a publicly owned energy company, supporting efforts to take fuel poverty and climate change targets seriously. We will provide people, particularly those on low incomes, with more choice and the option of a supplier whose only job is to secure the lowest price for consumers and who looks after the wellbeing of those who lack the confidence or ability to engage effectively in complex energy markets. That will also allow us to deliver on broader energy ambitions for renewable generation and the maximisation of community benefit. By the end of this parliamentary term, the conditions will be in place to meet the set-up challenges.

In welcoming the Bill, I once again stress that this action comes too late in the day for many. Progress on helping hard-pressed consumers must now be much more rapid and effective, especially for those who are hurting the most.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee back to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before anyone asks the question, the two microphone recording devices are not spies or anything else; they are in fact Hansard picking up voices from that end of the Committee Room, so they are perfectly legitimate.

Schedule

Parental bereavement leave and pay

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

I beg to move amendment 10, in the schedule, page 2, line 22, at end insert

“, including arrangements for taking the entitled leave at different points within the period specified in subsection (6).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations on parental bereavement leave provide flexibility on when the entitled leave can be taken.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(5A) Provision under subsection (4)(a) must secure that an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section will not be required to be taken consecutively and may be taken in blocks of one day at a time.”

This amendment would allow flexibility in the parental bereavement leave arrangements.

Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “52 weeks”.

This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks.

Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “26 weeks”.

This amendment would extend the minimum period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 26 weeks.

[Patricia Gibson]

I wish to speak in support of amendment 10, because it is important that there be flexibility on when parental bereavement leave is taken. The loss of a child, if it is anything, is hugely traumatic. 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. Going on as far as possible as though the death is not real will be a reaction that helps some parents to 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.

Other people cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. There is no right or wrong way to do so. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted, we will in effect, even if we do not wish to, be saying to bereaved parents, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your bereavement leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that, as set out in the Bill.” I honestly think we can do better.

It is not appropriate or desirable to set an early timeframe as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need of leave only some months later, when the enormity and the reality of the loss have truly sunk in. Others may prefer a phased return to work instead of taking the leave in one set block.

Much of the discussion that I have seen on the Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness, and it is true that far too many children are lost in that way. Far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by an unforgiving disease against which the child has few or no resources to defend itself. There is no doubt that to watch a child go through that—to watch your own child go through that—is beyond heartbreaking and beyond horrific, but we cannot forget that many children also die in a variety of other circumstances.

The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic when the parent had no idea when they last saw their child that that would be the last time they saw their child alive. There may be a car accident or some other horrific accident. A child is knocked down perhaps, and in a moment a family is destroyed by grief and the random cruelty of events.

I therefore believe that flexibility is needed not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way and in their own time, but because, depending on the circumstances, there might be a fatal accident inquiry following the death or, in England, a coroner’s inquiry. There might be a court case and perhaps even a trial. There might be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. It should be remembered that not all bereaved parents will necessarily take any or all of this leave, but they must have the option, and the option must be flexible. I fear that if it is not, bereaved parents who work for the minority of employers who are not as sympathetic as we might wish them to be might face losing their job as well as their child. Bereaved parents need the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully, as we try to put on the statute book the best Bill possible for parents.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.

There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is exactly what I mean. I also commit to revisit this, and to see if there is a way that we can publish the consultation earlier and allow it to report before Third Reading. I will do my level best and I will talk to officials and see if that is possible. I want as wide a consultation as possible.

[Patricia Gibson]

For clarity—I ask the Minister to forgive me if he has already said this—is he saying that although he will not accept the amendments today, he is not closing the door and is vowing to return to them?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. I want to make sure that we get this right. We have already heard that we have a number of different views on the number of days, so I want to allow everybody to consider, in a very calm way, the best advice possible and to come to a definitive decision about the days. I am closing nothing down. I am saying that all these options are on the table, and I am happy to consider all of them, should they be recommended by results of the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

In the light of what the Minister has said, and of the consensus and good will on both sides of the Committee—this is the first time I have served on a private Member’s Bill Committee, although I have served on Government Bill Committees before—I will not press amendment 3. I look forward to the Minister coming back with the consultation.

[Patricia Gibson]

As has already been said this week and last week, we are all treading very carefully on broken glass. We are terrified to do or ask for the wrong thing, in case it upsets the whole apple-cart. I draw comfort from the fact that the Minister is not saying no. From what I understand, he is saying not yet.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think maybe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am really hopeful that we are still in the process of shaping the final Bill, and I draw great comfort from my sense that the Minister and everybody here wants this to be the best Bill possible. There is nothing to be gained by passing a Bill with which we and bereaved parents are not happy. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule, page 2, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert—

“(a) at least two weeks’ leave, and

(b) at least one day’s leave for the day on which the child’s funeral takes place.”

This amendment would ensure that the minimum period of parental bereavement leave is two weeks plus an additional day for the day of the child’s funeral.

I will not detain the Committee for too long. Amendment 2, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would provide two weeks’ paid bereavement leave and one additional day dedicated for the child’s funeral. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, which has lobbied me and countless other hon. Members to table the amendment.

When I spoke to amendment 3, I referred to the sheer range of circumstances faced by parents. Amendment 2 was tabled in the knowledge that if the death of a child is unexplained, for example, there can be a longer period between death and burial or cremation. In Glasgow, there have been delays in post mortems due to hold-ups with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Amendment 2 would give a bit more flexibility and acknowledge that the day of the funeral can be particularly stressful, busy and difficult. The funeral is in itself a milestone in the grieving process and should, in our view, be treated differently and more flexibly. To conclude, a number of charities, including CLIC Sargent, allow for an additional day for the funeral. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I just wanted to suggest to the Minister that if employers are already quite generous and understanding in such tragic circumstances, it shows that there is a recognition that such space should already be provided by the law, rather than employers having to make up policy for their own businesses. As a Parliament we should be taking a lead in saying that we recognise that employers, on the whole, realise and understand that this has to be done, so let us enshrine it in law because we all seem to agree. If there is the odd rogue employer that does not—you know?

[Andrew Griffiths]

What we would not want though is a situation where employers say that they do not need to have a policy in place because there is already a statutory requirement. In other areas, such as maternity, there is a statutory pay period and some businesses enhance that, but the vast majority do not. We need a consultation to properly understand, because I would hate for this to be the minimum and for that to be what is expected, rather than businesses stepping up to the plate and offering the generous terms that they already do. The hon. Member for North West Durham is itching to—

--- Later in debate ---

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Scottish National Party: 3
Labour: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 7

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule, page 2, line 35, leave out from “means” to end and insert

“a son or daughter of any age”.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement leave, to a son or daughter of any age.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 14, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or in full time education, or both”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.

Amendment 19, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 7, in schedule, page 9, line 18, leave out from “means” to end and insert

“a son or daughter of any age”.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.

Amendment 13, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Amendment 15, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or in full time education, or both”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.

Amendment 18, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

[Patricia Gibson]

Previous discussions in this Committee have made me fearful of asking for much, but amendments 6 and 7 are really important. They refuse to put the loss of a son or daughter on a sliding scale of grief, which I know is not the intention behind the Bill, but I fear may be its unintended consequence. The loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing, no matter how old they are. It is clear from our sittings last week that 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 the Bill. I am sure that no Committee member would accept or even suggest that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21 or 23.

Amendments 14 and 15 address the Bill’s distinction between offspring who are and are not in full-time education. Such distinctions are artificial, and I do not think that they are appropriate in the context of the death of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that the Bill’s focus—its starting point—is parents, not the circumstances or the age of the child lost.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion becomes more academic—the older they are, the more likely it is that their parents will be retired anyway and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. But imagine losing a daughter aged 24 who has a young child of her own and is perhaps even bringing up that child on her own. As the Bill stands, her bereaved parents will not have the support that the Bill could offer, even though there may be 1,000 reasons why they will need bereavement leave, given the support that their grandchildren may need.

The parents of, say, a son aged 25 years old would not be covered by the Bill. Let us say that that son is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile area, doing a tour of duty in an area of instability. Do his parents not deserve to be covered by the provisions in the Bill, because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment.

[Will Quince]

This question was always at the forefront of our minds in preparing and drafting all incarnations of the Bill. The hon. Lady raises a very good question about why we focus on an arbitrary limit—18, in this case, although I think we are coming on in a moment to amendments that consider that in more detail. The question that I would pose back to her is: why then stop at parents? Why are we not including spouses? She rightly raises the example of a 25 or 28-year-old. In such instances, a spouse would be equally traumatised by the death as a parent.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would not want to diminish in any way the loss of a husband or wife, but the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. It is entirely different. I do not pretend to judge whether one grief is worse than the other, but it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to bury a husband or wife. That is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody expects to bury their own children. A child is a person’s investment in the future. I really do not see the equivalence; otherwise, we could have a Bill about bereavement, not a parental bereavement Bill. It is a parental bereavement Bill because we, as a Parliament, recognise the particular circumstances of someone burying their own son or daughter. I hope that I have answered the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

I really hope that the Minister and the whole Committee will reflect on this matter, and consider my amendment a worthy addition to the Bill. As I said last week, the benefits, both social and emotional, will surely outweigh any financial costs, which I really do not think will be significant in terms of overall Treasury spend. The Minister will no doubt want to correct me on that.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says she does not think it will be significant. Does she have any evidence or figures to back up her amendment?

[Patricia Gibson]

I would simply refer the Minister to what I said last week: we know that people who lose sons or daughters are eight times more likely than their peers to divorce. We know that there is a social cost of divorce. There is also a cost to the Government in terms of economic activity if people fall out of the workforce because they are not coping. That is why support is so important at that critical stage of vulnerability and grief.

[Laura Pidcock]

I asked the Library to do an academic exercise on extending the entitlement to those between the ages of nought to 40, which would pull in 29,918 people, based on the figures for nought to 18. Obviously, that is a very crude exercise, and not incredibly accurate, but it gives us some idea that it is not a huge increase. Of course, not all 40-year-olds who die will have parents in employment.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I already said that the older the son or daughter is when they die, the more likely it is that the parents will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will know far better than I that there is a social cost, and a financial cost to the Treasury, when families break down. There is a cost to the country when people become economically inactive. We are talking about £140 per week, not lottery wins.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

My understanding is that one of the reasons for having a fairly arbitrary age range was to recognise that, at that point, the parents are the sole people responsible for that individual. However, beyond the age of 18 it is not completely unreasonable to think that the person would have a spouse, a partner or other individuals who would also take on responsibility for them, perhaps in funeral planning arrangements.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say what he is perhaps arguing for, although I am not: that those who do not have a significant other or spouse should be covered by this Bill, no matter what age they are. He is suggesting that they would have somebody else to make the arrangements for them.

It is perfectly possible for somebody to be over the age of 18 and to be responsible for themselves, but not to have a significant partner to take on that responsibility. That is a huge assumption. Many people live on their own; we know that single occupancy is rising, even amongst young people. It is at record levels. We cannot assume that people are always attached. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the example I gave, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility: a young man or woman serving as a British soldier in foreign lands facing a traumatic and awful death, and the impact that would have on the parents if that soldier were over 18 and did not have a significant other. These are the situations we need to think about if we are trying to get this Bill right.

Given the economic cost to the country of family breakdown, the Bill should cover people who are not married or in a significant relationship. The reason why it is called the Parental Bereavement Bill is that we are talking about parents and the unnatural experience of having to bury your child. That loss is not tempered if your child is older; I do not see a distinction there.

[David Linden]

In response to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, I should say that the national health service does not stop treating people at 18 for teenage cancer. There is an issue of consistency here. The NHS does not recognise at just 18. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?

[Patricia Gibson]

That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. She rightly says that the amendment would make a statement, but passing this Bill in itself would make a far greater statement. It has taken a long time to get to this position and my worry is that her request to increase the cost sixfold compared with the Treasury’s current modelling will kill this Bill; the Government would have to withdraw their support, and we would move into the next Parliament. It could come back, but I would feel sad if there was such a delay just because of this amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.

I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Like everybody in the room, I was moved by the fine speech and impassioned words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. A family that includes one of my closest friends lost their daughter, sister, niece and granddaughter in the most horrific of circumstances only a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time with them through that process. Their child was 30, and their grief was no different from how it would have been at any other point in that child’s life. I quite understand what the hon. Lady is saying.

I have children either side of the line: a 21-year-old and 20-year-old, and a 14-year-old and 10-year-old, so I can see it from both sides. If I look at my own children—I would never want to contemplate the circumstances—there is a slight difference in dependency; I feel more responsible for the ones under 18. The hon. Lady spoke about everyone in the room, and we were all moved by what she said, but it is not just everyone in the room we have to consider. It is sad to say, because these things are not about money, but we have to consider the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for North West Durham cited some interesting figures that I was not aware of, but on a raw calculation the amendment would increase the cost to the taxpayer five or sixfold—the cost would go from £2 million up to about £12 million. Despite the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the statutory pay, there is a cost to employers because they have to cover the time off for the person. That is £1.4 million or £1.5 million, and it would go up to £15 million. Members may well argue—I might well agree—that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the grief that might be mitigated by the changes, but the amendment would mean going back to the drawing board and talking to the Treasury. It would fundamentally and fatally stop the Bill in its tracks, and we might not have time to bring it forward again.

I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Bill is a signal to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. That is key. The Bill does not do everything we would expect. I would expect any employer to give someone as much time off as they needed on full pay. That is what we have done in our business. With the Bill, we are trying to send a signal to the small minority of employers that are not compassionate, fair or understanding.

We have had a lot of engagement already with charities. None of them has said, “There should be no limit.” Some have suggested a slightly higher limit in certain circumstances, but no one has suggested having no limit, although we should not take that as read. That is an interesting point on some of the feedback we have had.

We have to consider employers in terms of cost and logistics. Members have understandably tabled a number of amendments. The hon. Member for North West Durham has tabled one on lifelong disability, and there are many different ways in which the legislation could be changed to improve it or to cover different circumstances. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talks about children in full-time education. There are problems with the cut-off point and how the legislation would cater for that. The amendment would complicate the legislation.

I understand why Members have tabled the amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of them, but given the fragility and complexity of taking a private Member’s Bill through this House and the other place, I politely and respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendments so we can move the Bill forward.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not for one moment underestimate the devastation that the loss of a child at any age can cause, but the Government are committed to supporting the Bill and so I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and engage with ACAS and officials in my Department to establish better practices for all employers in supporting all bereaved parents.

[Patricia Gibson]

The words that we started out with at the beginning of this process—perfect must not be the enemy of good—ring in all our ears, I am sure. I know that the Minister and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton understand that all anybody wants is to make the Bill the best that it can be. Absolutely nobody wants to kill it. It is important—we know it is fragile—that this Bill can proceed to the Chamber as soon as possible. However, I know the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that in the light of what he has said and the fragility of the entire process, we will withdraw—not happily, but we will do it—amendments 6 and 7, but when the Bill reaches the Floor of the House, and I hope to God it does, some of the amendments will resurface. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 12, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert  

“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.—(Laura Pidcock.)

This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Yes, it is perfectly in order to speak more than once.

[Patricia Gibson]

I will be brief. Scottish National party Members have tabled amendments 8 and 9, but I begin by agreeing with everything the hon. Member for Colchester said. There should not be any differentiation between stillbirths and babies who are lost to their parents shortly after birth.

We tabled amendments 8 and 9 because we too are concerned about stillbirth. As the hon. Gentleman said, stillbirths are currently covered by maternity and paternity leave, but will the Minister respond with thoughts on when and why regulations regarding stillbirths will need to be made under the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out? I ask him—I am really probing him—in the schedule, page 4, line 30, to leave out “may” and insert “must” so that we can all be assured that, as the hon. Gentleman set out eloquently, the relevant regulations to ensure provision for cases of stillbirth are every bit as robust as those for the death of any other child covered in the Bill.

We all know—many in the room know to their cost—that a stillbirth is every bit as traumatic as losing a child at any other age. It casts a shadow over bereaved parents for the rest of their lives. I think it is essential, as I hope we all do, that all aspects of employment law that the Bill covers take full cognisance of that, for the sake of the thousands of parents bereaved in this particular way every year.

Smart Meters Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I had not realised that the SNP spokesperson wanted to come in. It has been so long, we got lost somewhere along the way.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You and I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that I am going to keep my remarks on Report very brief, because there will be another opportunity to speak and we are all keen, interested and excited to get to Third Reading.

I want to make one or two comments about new clauses 2 and 3, which are very important. I genuinely feel that the deadline to complete the roll-out by 2020 is simply not realistic. Beyond that, I am genuinely concerned that aggressive tactics have been deployed, and the fact that the energy companies face heavy fines if they do not meet this 2020 deadline only makes this more concerning. As I have said to the Minister, I feel there is a genuine conflict between best practice in rolling out smart meters to consumers and the potential penalties imposed on companies that do not meet the targets for the roll-out.

I am very concerned about the deadline of 2020 because the data show that, as of June 2017, only about 7.7 million smart meters had been installed out of a target of about 60 million premises. We know that the first generation of smart meters revealed some issues, and it is not yet clear whether there will be similar issues with the deployment of the second generation. In Scotland, many flats and tenements have banks of meters installed in communal areas, and there does not seem to be a solution for the installation of smart meters in those cases.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter roll-out with reference to the 2020 deadline, which is very important. It is worth remembering that the cost of smart meters is £11 billion and rising, and that cost is borne by every single household. Not every single household is necessarily told that when they are contacted, but it is important to put it on the record.

Smart Energy GB has referred to a Government cost-benefit analysis. Everyone in the House agrees that there are cost benefits, but the figure of £11 billion is one to watch closely. The UK Government must be transparent and publish the cost and progress of the roll-out, given that the 2020 deadline seems unrealistic to many people, myself included. It seems clear to me that the deadline ought to be reviewed, so that the roll-out is completed efficiently and shields consumers from unfair tariff rises. I urge the Minister to take on board these comments. I will say no more about the other new clauses—time is short, and I will let other Members speak—but I look forward to Third Reading.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I want to specifically oppose new clause 5. Although I have some sympathy with its intentions, I am concerned that, by including the cost of the smart meter implementation programme in billing, there is a danger of misleading consumers about the cost-benefits of the roll-out, as well as of detracting from the overwhelmingly positive impact that the programme will have on consumers’ ability both to monitor their energy use and to manage the cost of their bills in the long term. The programme is clearly in the best interests of the consumer, yielding £1.50 of savings for every £1 invested. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the cost of the overall project is already available to consumers, and has been scrutinised both by Parliament and in the detailed impact assessment carried out by the Department.

I firmly believe that what consumers such as those in my constituency really care about is the savings that can be achieved by having a smart meter installed. By having near real-time information about energy consumption displayed in the home, consumers will for the first time be able to manage their usage properly. If done correctly, that will result in a pounds, shillings and pence saving on their energy bills. I apologise for using pounds, shillings and pence, but it has a big impact. On reflection, the new clause does little to improve the quality of the Bill and I am unable to support it.

In summary, it is clear that smart metering is central to the wider energy revolution currently taking place in Britain, and I commend the Government for the action they have already taken to ensure that we have a cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy future. I am pleased to support the Bill tonight in its unamended form, and I congratulate the Minister and his team on piloting it to this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

It is important to point out that we in the SNP accept that there are some real advantages to the consumer in switching to a smart meter and to smart meters in general. However, that does not mean that I suggest that the roll-out will be trouble-free and that I have no concerns about it, because that would not be true. Before proceeding, however, I would like to point out that I accept that the Minister has been receptive throughout to my concerns and the concerns of others across this House in Committee and beyond, and I thank him for that. I know he is keen to get this right, as we all are, and I thank him for his listening, consensual and constructive approach.

In the past, I pointed out to the Minister that I had concerns about aggressive selling which I believe is, as I have said, a result of Ofgem having the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions—or certainly not assisted by that fact. One of the licence conditions is that each energy company should install smart meters in consumer homes by the end of 2020. Failure to do so can result in a massive penalty for the company. That being the case, aggressive selling starts to make more sense, given the pressure that energy companies are under to deliver smart meters to consumer homes within a rather tight deadline. I continue to detect a level of suspicion and scepticism about smart meters among far too many consumers. I hope that the Minister will accept that the licence conditions place pressure on the energy companies to roll out smart meters by 2020, and that that can place pressure on consumers in turn.

I am sure that, like me, the Minister will have been disturbed to learn of recent reports of energy companies employing salespeople to go out and proactively sell smart meters to consumers. If the reports are true, those salespeople can earn commissions of more than £1,000 week, which equates to bonuses of twice what the average worker earns in a year. Will the Minister acknowledge that this can lead to overbearing and aggressive doorstep selling, which can put consumers under pressure? Does he share my concerns about this? If so, what steps can he take to address it?

Cold calling is a discredited way of selling that puts undue pressure on consumers, particularly vulnerable ones. Does the Minister think that this is an acceptable way to proceed, given the rewards that sales reps can earn if they “persuade” enough people to install a smart meter? Is sending target-hungry salespeople to chap on the doors of the elderly and vulnerable the most desirable way we can think of to roll out smart meters? I would be extremely disappointed if the Minister—and indeed Ofgem—thought so. We know that doorstep energy selling was left with a very poor reputation after a series of investigations by Ofgem led to suppliers being fined millions of pounds for misleading customers over how much they could save. This resulted, between 2011 and 2012, in all the big six suppliers scrapping face-to-face sales practices, but smaller energy companies are now once again sending staff out to knock on doors. Is the Minister entirely comfortable with that? What reassurances can he offer to consumers and vulnerable members of our communities that they have the protection they need from such companies?

The Minister will also be aware of concerns about misleading letters being sent to consumers suggesting that smart meters are compulsory rather than optional. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for sending me samples of letters that have gone out to consumers from various energy companies, in order to reassure me. However, very few of those letters point out that smart meters are optional, and that the customer can refuse to have one. All the power companies in the sample of the largest suppliers say absolutely nothing about smart meters being optional. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable? Is he, like me and the trading standards authorities, concerned about this? If so, what action can Ofgem take to address the situation?

What is going on with the “You have been chosen for a free upgrade to a smart meter” letters that some companies are sending to consumers? I wish all consumers were aware that when a business tells them that they have been “specially selected” for something, it usually means that everyone has been “specially selected” for it and that the term is meaningless. Another old favourite involves the words “You are eligible”, which is also misleading, because everyone is eligible. If we all have the option to have a smart meter, why do some companies feel that it is honest and in order to tell us that we have been “specially selected”, or that we are “eligible” for one? Does the Minister have concerns about this way of misleading customers?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I was trying to attract her attention while she was mid-speech. The type of sales proposal she has mentioned is totally unacceptable. It is not within the regulations, and if she would like to write to me or see me with specific examples, I will take the matter up with the regulators myself.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but the information that I am imparting tonight comes from the sample of letters that the Minister sent to me, so some energy companies are clearly using this sharp practice. I would not say that all of them are, but some are certainly not saying that smart meters are optional, instead using language such as “You are eligible” or “You have been specially selected,” which is unacceptable.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that vulnerable citizens may fall foul of such things? For example, my constituent Mr Vezza ended up with no power for three years when his electricity was cut off due to a misunderstanding because he did not want a smart meter installed. He was so fearful about getting in touch with the energy company that he has been living without electricity for three years.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am sure that the Minister listened carefully to that intervention, because that is an example of the kind of extreme situation that some vulnerable consumers can find themselves in. The Minister will be keen to investigate such things, because it is simply unacceptable that vulnerable consumers can be left in such dire circumstances.

I have real concerns about the mythology being sold to consumers that smart meters are free. That needs to be addressed, because they are not free. We all pay for them through our energy bills. Why has that not been communicated to the consumer? The Minister and I do not see eye to eye on this, but if there is no intention to mislead, why is the consumer not being told that smart meters are not free—in the sense that a normal person would understand the term? Free means that it costs nothing. Smart meters are being paid for by all of us through our bills. As I said on Report, the cost of smart meters is £11 billion and rising. Smart Energy GB has referred to a Government cost-benefit analysis, but I am particularly worried about the figure. I will not be the only person in the House to be closely monitoring it, because I fear that it may rise, and that goes to the heart of consumer confidence. If there is no intention to mislead, what is the harm in energy companies clearly communicating with consumers about the costs that will be incurred when they get a smart meter? I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.

Some of the letters from energy companies that I have seen about deemed appointment are pushy. One particular company sent a letter to consumers stating that smart meters are flawed and will not work if they switch supplier, meaning that consumers should not switch after receiving a smart meter. That is what I call the cart pulling the horse. What does the Minister think of that practice? Ofgem talks about the deemed appointment system being acceptable, but I do not agree. Ofgem states that suppliers must ensure that they are compliant with their wider regulatory and other legal obligations and that suppliers should monitor consumer experiences. I wonder, then, what Ofgem makes of letters telling people that it is not advisable to change supplier once a smart meter has been installed because it will not work.

The Minister is well aware of my concerns and of the fact that many people are extremely suspicious about smart meters, not because they do not want to have greater control over the energy they use, not because they do not want to know which appliances are consuming high levels of power, not because they want to put estimated bills behind them, and not because they do not want to see the energy they are using in real time. People are suspicious because of the hard sell and the misinformation telling them they do not have a choice when they know that they do. Reports of target-driven, sales-hungry cold callers will do nothing to dispel that suspicion; it will only increase it.

I will end where I began. Despite everything that I have said, there are benefits to having a smart meter. However, as I have been saying for a long time, the Government and the energy companies need to ensure that consumers are at the heart of the process. Consumers will get on board by having access to correct and accurate information. Misleading information will only further alienate the consumers who could potentially benefit most from smart meters. That cannot be good. Energy efficiency is extremely important, and never more so than in households that are struggling to make ends meet, in which fuel poverty remains at 78%. Smart meters can help people to take measures that may help them and their household to have greater control over energy consumption. That is why we must get this right, and we must take consumers with us. I fear that we have a long way to go, given some of the concerns I have raised.

I urge the Minister to reflect further on the very real concerns I have raised—from my past experience, I know he will—and to do all he can to address them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (First sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

The hon. Member for North West Durham pointed out that the Bill is not perfect. We will no doubt, I suspect, have minor disagreements about what we want the Bill to include, in particular perhaps about the length of time when the leave can be taken and about the eligibility criteria. Indeed, I have tabled amendments of my own. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning: the Bill is the result of more than two years’ work, so please let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. This Bill must pass. We have to get it on to the statute book. It is a hugely important first step that gives thousands of parents up and down the country the statutory protection that they rightly deserve and the time and peace to grieve.

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

I want to echo some of what has been said. I most sincerely and profoundly thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing this very important Bill and for all the work he has done to ensure that we reach this point, building on the work of the hon. Member for Colchester and the former Member for Glasgow South.

The anomaly of bereaved parents and the injustice they face of not having any protection in employment law is finally being addressed. This is a good day for Parliament. The Bill is warmly welcomed by every one of my Scottish National party colleagues and has support across the House, as we would expect. As has been said, most employers are perfectly decent, but we all understand —perhaps this is where the Bill arises from—that such an important matter cannot be left to the good will of individual employers.

Many of us have had the tragic and life-changing experience of having to bury our own child, but the Bill is not for us. It is for all those men and women who will have to undergo that agony in future. We in public life, especially those of us who have gone through that traumatic experience, have a duty—a desire by which we are often driven—to improve the situation for those who in the coming years will suffer the same terrible fate of losing a child.

It is important that we all approach the Bill in a non-partisan manner, which is always a pleasure because it happens so infrequently in this House. Some things are just too important to be considered party political and go well beyond the realms of party affiliation, which is why I am hugely encouraged by the tone of hon. Members’ opening remarks. My regret is that in the run-up to the Bill, I was not insightful or prepared enough to work with other hon. Members to table cross-party amendments. That would have given the important signal that this is not a party political issue. I hold my hands up to that.

Many people who have not undergone the experience of losing their child will not understand that there is no protection—they have never had any reason to make inquiries into that. It has taken us so long to get to this point because it is so difficult to even broach the subject of the death of a child. It has been taboo for too long, and thankfully, that is changing.

For too long, parents have had no formal protection under employment law. Together, today, we can seek to put that right. By passing some of the amendments, I hope we can put it right in a way of which we can be truly proud.

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

Like the hon. Member for North West Durham, this is my first appearance in a Bill Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all members of the Committee for their wonderful contributions. I am delighted to see cross-party support for this very important Bill, and I am keen to move on to the substance of the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Parental bereavement leave and pay: review of extension of entitlement

‘The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay a report before Parliament reviewing the extension of entitlement to parental bereavement leave and pay to people who are self-employed or are employed on zero-hours contracts.’—(Patricia Gibson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the extension of parental bereavement leave and pay to self-employed people and those on zero-hours contracts.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Parental bereavement leave is a contributory benefit. As set out, those bereaved parents who are envisaged to be eligible for leave under the Bill will need to meet the minimum requirements relating to continuity of employment—they will need at least 26 weeks with their current employer. During that leave, earnings will be paid at the statutory flat rate, which is set at £140.98 a week or 90% of average earnings, whichever is lower. Later, under other amendments, we can have a debate about how far short those provisions fall of what we want, but I urge the Minister to consider how these entitlements for bereaved parents will be extended to those in precarious work, such as those on zero-hours contracts.

That is important because, as we have all agreed, the Bill is about supporting parents who suffer the awful experience of having to bury their own child. This surely cannot and should not be reduced to a matter of work contracts. Our starting principle is the loss of a child, so I urge Minister to include as many bereaved parents as possible within the Bill’s remit. Remember, many people on precarious contracts are on them because it is so difficult for them to find the permanent, secure employment that we would all wish to have. Many of them are struggling because there are too few employment protection rights anyway. If they do go through the awful nightmare of losing their child, they will continue to lose out.

I remind the Minister that the loss of a child can often lead to the complete breakdown of a marriage. Sadly, in the ordinary course of events, 50% of marriages end in divorce, but some studies show that the death of a child makes the bereaved parents eight times more likely to divorce than other couples. There is a social cost to divorce, and it is often borne by the state as well as the families. Bereaved parents are more likely to develop depression and other mental health issues. Some turn to drink or other forms of self-medication; some even drop out of the workplace altogether and become economically inactive. I say that to the Minister because apart from the compassion that the Bill should show to bereaved parents who might be excluded from it under its current terms, from a purely financial perspective—leaving the compassion behind—it makes sense to offer that monetary support during the critical early days following a bereavement.

I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to including these provisions in the Bill, so that parents who are doing their best and working hard, but do not enjoy the security of a permanent contract and all the rights that it confers, do not miss out should they face this awful tragedy. We should extend the rights to them as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the hon. Lady’s arguments. The world of employment is changing rapidly. We are in a new world. Although I have been self-employed virtually all my life and I see self-employment as a wonderful opportunity for people to get on in life, there is no doubt that some companies are using another kind of opportunity to circumvent the employment laws that have been developed over centuries, so that it is easier and cheaper for them to employ people. The concern is that that is also being done to avoid the other obligations that employers have to employees, which is the point the hon. Lady was getting at.

Truly self-employed people tend to have more flexibility in their work, so they have other means of taking the time off that is required in these tragic circumstances, but we do not want future employers to use that to circumvent legislation. We need to look at that, and the Government are looking at it in the form of the Taylor review, which considers modern working practices. In July, as the hon. Lady knows, it reported on the overall context of legislation, including its impact on self-employed people and whether the gig economy is being abused to get round employment rights. The provisions in the Bill generally mirror other parental entitlements. The Taylor review may well recommend that some other parental provisions apply in these circumstances, which may affect this legislation in future. We need to look at the difference in entitlement between employed and self-employed people.

Throughout the process, we were keen to engage with charities and to listen to how we might improve the legislation based on their experiences. I mentioned some of them in my opening remarks. They include Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance, the Rainbow Trust and Bliss. Other bodies such as Unison have submitted points to consider; people will be familiar with many of them. Charities suggested that we look at the issues around self-employment. We and the Government should consider that in the context of wider employment legislation.

Another matter that I do not have much influence over in this Committee, and which would complicate things in a way that none of us wants, is the impact on the Exchequer. It is important to state that we are spending taxpayers’ money. The financial context is that under the new clause, the Exchequer would pay the statutory pay for people in these circumstances. We have to take that into account. That amount has not been calculated, so that could cause more delays.

[Patricia Gibson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there may well be a social cost if people do not get the support that they need. The statistics around bereaved parents do not make for comfortable reading.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I would not argue against that for a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talked about the impact of the employer treating his workforce properly and how that can lift morale, or certainly does not damage morale, and how treating people with consideration can get people back to work more quickly. I am sure that that applies in a wider social context.

My point was that for any legislation, we look at the impact assessment, including the obvious hard-cash impact. In this case, that would require a revisitation of the assessment, which could cause delays in the Bill process. At this point, it is probably fairer to let the Minister have his say, because he is best placed to respond to those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

Yes. There is a great expectation that in the very near future, the response to the review will come from the Government, and I think it will address such issues. The review included comments about the approach to tax, parental leave and pay entitlements for self-employed people. I suggest that this is not the time to include the new clause in the Bill. I think it is presumptive for us to talk unilaterally about this issue when in a short period of time, wider employment rights—

[Patricia Gibson]

I just want to be clear that I understand the Minister correctly. Is he assuring us that when the Taylor review reports, and the Government reflect on it, any concerns raised in new clause 2 will be addressed by the Government?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government’s response to the Taylor review will, I am sure, specifically address the points made by Matthew Taylor in relation to flexible working, zero-hours contracts and parental benefits. I think I can give her some comfort that those are exactly the kind of things that Matthew Taylor is passionately promoting and that the Government are keen to respond to in the near future.

It would be easy for us to get caught up in the wider discussion about employment rights and what will happen in response to the Taylor review. It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Bill, and the previous Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I understand his nervousness about over-complicating what is in effect a framework Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whose Bill this is, makes the clear point that the Bill has to be properly costed. All Members of the Committee will understand. We have among us an eminent colleague with ministerial experience at the Treasury who is looking at me. I understand what is going through his mind. He wants to ensure that there are rigorous numbers attached to this. Accepting the new clause would make the process much more complex and should be avoided.

The Bill and its predecessor have come about because, at a time of tragedy, time away from the workplace was either not allowed or extremely limited. That is the issue we are trying to address, and I do not want to lose sight of that as we debate these important issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that the response to the Taylor review will consider the issue of flexible working, those on zero-hours contracts and their access to benefits. It will be covered; I can reassure the hon. Lady of that.

With those reassurances, I hope we can agree that it will be best to consider issues of rights and entitlements for the self-employed and those working on zero-hours contracts in the round, rather than in isolation as we would be doing with the new clause. Since those issues are being actively considered elsewhere, the Bill is not the right place to address them. On that basis and with those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

[Patricia Gibson]

In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Parental bereavement leave and pay

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“Such relationship with the child may include—

(a) the mother as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(b) the father as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(c) the step-parent of the child, by virtue of marriage or civil partnership with the mother or father at the time of birth, and

(d) the adoptive parent of the child.”

This amendment would give specific examples in the definition of a ‘bereaved parent’ for the purposes of taking parental bereavement leave.

Fireworks

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 29th January 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 hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for setting out a comprehensive case and the Petitions Committee for selecting it.

I do not think that anyone here has argued against the fact that used correctly, fireworks are an enjoyable spectacle. They are enjoyed by some 10 million people across the UK each year, and they have become a feature, as has been mentioned several times, of publicly organised events in November, weddings and all sorts of other celebrations. 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 are also here 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.

I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), which I particularly wanted to mention because it is such a rare event that I felt it should be put on record. He gave us the perspective of a senior fire officer, which is certainly worth listening to. I agree with him wholeheartedly, so I shall hang on to that for future reference.

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. 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 are scared half to death and elderly people are driven into a state of fear and alarm. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) also pointed out the effect on horses.

People who want to set off fireworks do not care a jot about the time restrictions mentioned by some Members in this debate. They do not care whether it is legal to set off a firework at that time of day or night, and it seems that such irresponsible people do not care a jot about safety. I have been contacted by constituents in a state of great distress after a particularly alarming and noisy night of fireworks, which can take place for no apparent reason other than that it is October, November or December and people have fireworks left over or they are still available for sale.

On such occasions, constituents tell me that the onslaught of fireworks has had a profound effect not just on their quality of life but on their pets, which undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. It cannot really 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 great to set them off in the middle of the night up closes or in the shared entranceways to flats.

The situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre. The use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) explained. It does not take a genius to work out that unless we tackle the sale of fireworks and who can get their hands on them, we have lost any meaningful influence over who uses them. As the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) pointed out, it is extremely difficult to police.

I know that on a local level, environmental health and perhaps even antisocial behaviour teams can and do work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, but that seems to be dealing with the consequences of the wide availability of fireworks, when what we need is to tackle 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.

As I have mentioned, the time restrictions for fireworks are regulated by law. They 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. However, that does not go far enough. A particular type of individual who wishes to buy fireworks to cause fear and alarm, and to have a bit of fun because they find it entertaining to cause destruction to their neighbourhood or use them as weapons of choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) pointed out, will set off those fireworks whenever and wherever they choose.

Restrictions on when fireworks can be set off afford no comfort to communities plagued by them. The fact is that the regulations cannot be enforced, as has been said repeatedly in this debate. Once they 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 hon. Member for Clwyd South suggested a consultation on where to go in terms of the sale of and restrictions on fireworks. That is a good idea, but any consultation on the issue cannot be used as an excuse to kick it into the long grass. It needs action.

I know that fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but so what? We know that children are able to get hold of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central pointed out. We also know that often, those using fireworks irresponsibly are perfectly entitled to buy them under the law as it currently 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 have heard today from a host of elected representatives who have been contacted repeatedly over the years by constituents whose lives are made a misery for several months of the year.

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 many Members have done in this debate, to bonfire nights when we were growing up, but that cuts absolutely no ice with communities that currently and regularly must tolerate the awfulness of misuse of fireworks for several months of the year.

As my hon. Friend the. Member for Edinburgh East pointed out, the problem appears to be growing. The only sensible solution is to tackle it at source: fireworks should be sold only for licensed, organised public displays that are well advertised in advance and that take place within a publicised time span. That would allow people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely and, importantly, it would also allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets.

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 pets’ welfare. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who spoke about helping pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhoods, but that is not often possible because fireworks go off randomly with no warning.

I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) that if we ban the sale of fireworks to all and sundry over 18 years old, organised public firework displays—a much safer option for all our communities —will become the accepted norm. There is a consensus across the Chamber that it is time to ban the free sale of fireworks except for public licensed displays. That 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 get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but I urge the Minister to consider banning them from being sold freely so that we can all be sure that they will be used sensibly, safely and responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

[Patricia Gibson]

Can the Minister assure me and many other Members in the Chamber today that this new body will consider the fact that, as long as fireworks are pretty freely available to anybody over the age of 18, and despite the powers and the enforcing authorities that he has said will take action against the irresponsible misuse of fireworks, prosecutions will be extremely difficult, because of the nature of the crime? As we have heard today, quite literally the evidence goes up in smoke, people scatter and there is no evidence left to prosecute anybody. Is that something that the new body he is talking about will examine?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am delighted to say to the hon. Lady that the new body will have the power to make recommendations to Government, so if it believes there are issues in relation to the sale and regulation of a particular item—be that a tumble dryer or a firework—it will have that power to make recommendations about those issues to Government, and it will be for Ministers to respond to such recommendations.

I will just add something in relation to the collection of information concerning antisocial behaviour. Of course, collection of such data would be a decision for the Home Office to make. I am sure that Ministers within the Home Office will look at this debate; I will make sure that the concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed today are drawn to their attention. Clearly, however, it is a decision for the Home Office as to which data it chooses to collect or not collect.

In closing, I again thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. Clearly, the safety of our constituents remains at the forefront of all our minds, and as the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection, I am absolutely clear that we have to do all we can to protect our constituents, who are the people we are here to represent. I look forward to working with colleagues on this issue in the future, and I thank you, Mr Hanson, for your time.

Delivery Charges (Scotland)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to participate in this debate and build on the excellent work carried out by one of my former colleagues, Mike Weir, the former MP for Angus; former MSP, Rob Gibson—no relation—of the Scottish Parliament; and Kenneth Gibson—relation—in the Scottish Parliament.

As an MP who represents two islands, it is very important that I speak in this debate, as some of my constituents on the island of Arran are expected to pay a postcode lottery of 50% more on some occasions than the rest of the UK, based purely on where they live. We know that the cross-party Scottish Parliament group on postal services, of which Kenneth Gibson was chair, has been relentlessly lobbying the UK Government for five years to no avail. This issue truly has been going round for a long time and it is time that it was properly addressed.

Regarding the point that if ferry journeys are needed to deliver parcels that will increase the price, the fact is that because the Scottish Government have fully funded the road-equivalent tariff going on a ferry should not incur any additional delivery costs. That is clearly a con and it has to be addressed.

It really is time that the UK Government addressed this issue and stopped the discrimination against my island constituents and all those constituents who live in rural areas.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I cannot give way because of the discourtesy that has been shown to Members by speakers taking far longer than was advised.

It is essential that a set of standards are adopted for deliveries to every single corner of the UK, just as we have for the universal service obligation. I am keen that the Minister should tell us today that this will somehow be addressed by the UK Government, because it has been going on for too long and my constituents, and constituents living in rural communities across the UK, deserve better.