Terms and Conditions of Employment

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the good work of the Low Pay Commission and how it brings people together to come up with balanced proposals, such as those before us today, which the Government have accepted.

The regulations mean that a full-time worker will be more than £2,750 better off next year compared with the year the national living wage was introduced. The regulations also increase the rates for younger workers and apprentices. Those aged between 21 and 24 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £7.70, which is a 32p increase; workers aged between 18 and 20 will receive an extra 25p an hour, taking their rate to £6.15; 16 to 17-year-olds will earn at least £4.35 an hour—a 15p increase; and apprentices aged under 19 and those in the first year of their apprenticeship will receive the largest percentage increase of 5.4%, meaning an hourly rate of £3.19.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the Minister appreciate that that is not even enough to buy a Freddo?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I point out to the hon. Lady that we are talking about the apprentice rate.

The regulations will also change the amount employers can charge workers for accommodation without it affecting their pay for national minimum wage purposes. From April, this will increase to £7 per day.

Changing the law is the first step, but we also need to make sure all workers know they are entitled to the national minimum age and that all employers know they must pay it. The Government run an annual campaign to increase awareness of the national minimum wage and the national living wage. Last year, we spent £1.48 million reaching workers and employers through posters and billboards as well as digital and online channels. We know that most businesses are good employers and pay at least the national minimum wage, but where non-compliance exists the Government will step in and make sure that money is recovered on behalf of workers.

Since 2015, we have doubled our investment in enforcement of the regulations to more than £26 million per year. More than 420 staff in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are involved in the enforcement of the national minimum wage, and they follow up every worker complaint they receive. HMRC also conducts pro-active, risk-based enforcement in sectors or areas with a higher risk of workers not being paid the legal minimum wage, including those identified by the director of labour market enforcement. In this work, it co-operates with other labour market enforcement bodies to share information and conduct joint operations where that makes sense for businesses and workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I know that many Members across this House share my concern that Brexit and the removal of hard-won EU legislation will mean a race to the bottom for workers’ rights in the UK. In that respect, it is at least a little bit encouraging to see a commitment to continuing to increase minimum wages; however, as I have said time and again in this place, it does not go nearly far enough. The UK Government’s pretendy living wage is not enough to live on. The real living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, is set at £9 an hour, or £10.55 an hour in London; the pretendy living wage falls short of that. For those of us who want a highly educated, highly skilled, high-wage economy, it continues to be extremely disappointing that the UK Government choose not to increase the minimum wage to a level people can actually live on.

High wages are linked to increased productivity—an issue the UK has struggled with for many, many years—increased staff retention and higher standards of workers. A substantial increase in wages is not a choice between acting in the interests of businesses and acting in the interests of employees; it is entirely possible to cover both. The attitude that I am hearing from Government Members is that the national living wage falls short of a real living wage, but we should celebrate it anyway because it represents a pay rise for working people. That shows a real lack of aspiration on the part of the UK Government—a Government who claim that they want to help people work their way out of poverty but whose actions fail those people time and again.

If this UK Government really wanted people to work their way out of poverty, they would be investing in our labour markets, increasing the powers of trade unions and improving the rights of those in insecure work. They are presiding over one of the lowest rates of real wage growth among the advanced nations of the G20. Andy Haldane at the Bank of England has described the past 10 years as “a lost decade” for workers, and the measures today will do very little to address that problem.

As things stand, the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. For those at the lower end of the income scale, the proposed increase in the minimum wage does not even offset the impact of the benefits freeze. I and my hon. Friends have consistently called for an end to the benefits freeze, which is a pay cut by stealth for some of the lowest earning people in this country. We welcome the Labour party’s commitment to scrap it, even if it did not feature in its 2017 manifesto.

The age pay gap is the income inequality that the national minimum wage policy creates between age groups. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy impact assessment on the policy explicitly states that the purpose of a lower minimum wage for under 25s is to

“maximise the wages of low paid younger workers, without damaging their employment prospects.”

It also says that the Government asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend separate national minimum wage rates

“by age band (16-17, 18-20 year olds, and 21-24 year olds).”

There is no real evidence to justify why that is necessary. It is insulting to young people in my constituency and across these islands to say that employers would not want them if they had to be paid a fair wage; quite apart from that, it entices employers to make hiring decisions based on age, encouraging unscrupulous employers to break the law.

Make no mistake, this is state-sponsored age discrimination. In the impact assessment, the public sector equality duty sets out that the Government must

“eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act”.

It goes on:

“The protected characteristics consist of nine groups: age, race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership.”

If women were to be paid less than men, that would be against the law because gender is one of the protected characteristics; mysteriously, however, this impact assessment does not extend to age. I would really like to see some smart lawyer take a legal challenge against the Government, because there is clear discrimination in the terms of this statutory instrument on the basis of age alone. There is no justifiable reason for this policy.

To compound matters further, the proposal that we are discussing today will increase the pay gap between age groups. The uprating that will result from the regulations means that 24-year-olds could earn £90 less a month than 25-year-olds for exactly the same job, amounting to a difference of more than £1,000 a year. The gap would increase even further within the under-25 age groups, making it even harder for young people to get by. Since the measure was brought in in 2016, 18 to 20-year-olds have seen the age pay gap between themselves and someone on the higher rate go from £1.90 to £2.06; 16 and 17-year-olds have seen it rise from £3.33 to £3.86—that gap between the highest wage and all that they are legally entitled to be paid—and for apprentices, the gap has gone from £3.90 to £4.31. No justification is given in the impact assessment for that state-sponsored age discrimination.

If I were to suggest that Members of Parliament—an MP born in 1973, perhaps, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), or an MP born in 1978, like the Minister, or myself, born in 1982—were to be paid different rates depending on age, I cannot imagine any MP in the House signing up to that. Why should young people face the discrimination in law that the Government are proposing today?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am listening carefully. Having started my working life aged 16 as an apprentice, I would not expect to get the same minimum wage at 16 as I would starting in a new job when I was 20, 30 or 40. Surely there is some recognition that experience comes with age, even if it is not always experience in the workplace. I think that perhaps people when they are older might expect to see a differential to reflect their experience.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady misses her own point, because the regulations are not called “The National Experience Wage (Amendment) Regulations”. The regulations discriminate by age alone, not by experience, so if the hon. Lady, as a 16-year-old, walked into a job on the same day as somesone who was 25, she would not be legally entitled to the same wage. The 25-year-old would have no more experience in that job, regardless of their experience in life. There might be 20 or 16-year-olds who are far more savvy on the first day in the job than a 25-year-old, or a 45-year-old, or a 65-year-old. We are not measuring experience here.

[Mike Wood]

Surely the hon. Lady acknowledges the Low Pay Commission’s conclusion:

“In light of this evidence we concluded when thinking about the pay floor for this age group, that it could not currently be set to the same level as the national living wage without risks to employment.”

[Alison Thewliss]

That was exactly the type of comment that the Conservatives made when the national minimum wage was introduced—that it would risk people’s employment. That has not been the case. The impact assessment says that the Government asked the Low Pay Commission to set the national minimum wage at these levels. The Government have instructed the Low Pay Commission to do this. That is quite different, and I do not buy the hon. Gentleman’s arguments at all.

The gap amounts to a difference of thousands of pounds in the take-home pay of a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old, a 21-year-old and a 25-year-old, and it is completely unjustifiable, because this is not about experience, as I said. It does not say that in the regulations; they specify the age, and age alone.

I shall quote from the excellent report by the Young Women’s Trust, called “Paid Less Worth Less?”, which I commend to the Minister. Shanae, who is 24, said:

“A 25 year-old starting out on their first job and just entering the workplace would have the same experience as a 16 year-old who is also just starting out. If companies want to pay based on experience, then that should be reflected in what they choose to pay people. But that’s different from paying us on our age.”

She is absolutely correct.

At 25 or younger, many people have families of their own to support and their own responsibilities, and in the research by the Young Women’s Trust, Tia mentions her circumstances specifically. She says:

“I am a care-leaver and I have lived independently since I was 17, so that makes my costs exactly the same as maybe like a 30 year-old who is living in a private rented flat. You have bills to pay like any other adult. Everyone gets hungry. Everyone has to pay for gas, electrics, toiletries, clothes and food. It still adds up the same. So I don’t see why there should be a pay difference.”

I do not see why there should be a pay difference either. It is completely unjustifiable.

Young people have to pay the same amount as somebody over 25 for rent, for getting the bus to work, for childcare, for the cinema, and maybe for a Freddo bar. All those prices are exactly the same. Young people are not entitled to discounts on their rent because of their age, and indeed they get less in benefits from this Government as well because of their age, so they are doubly missing out. Young people deserve the right to be paid a fair market value for their skills, and not be subject to state-sponsored age discrimination.

I mentioned unscrupulous employers. When I was at school, it was well known among my peers that some employers would employ young people right up until the point at which they would have to pay them more, and then they would let them go. That is particularly true for people on zero-hours contracts or in precarious employment, who can be let go at a moment’s notice. As soon as an employer has to pay them more, they are shown the door. There is very little by way protection, particularly for young people, who often do not know their rights and cannot afford legal representation to challenge an employer. A few years ago I met a constituent who had been working in a bar when the rate of pay went up. She was pretty sure that she was let go because she was the oldest person employed there, but she could not prove it. This Government are leaving the door open for unscrupulous employers to do that time and again to low-paid workers, often female workers in part-time jobs. This Government are aiding and abetting those unscrupulous employers.

Scotland is the best performing part of the UK when it comes to paying the real living wage. There are 1,363 real living wage employers in Scotland, and I am proud to say that the latest among them in my constituency include the Scottish Fairtrade Foundation, Silver Cloud and the spectacle manufacturer IOLLA, which has a shop in Finnieston. I am proud that those responsible employers are seeing the benefits of paying the real living wage, because it improves retention and morale. However, powers over the minimum wage are not currently devolved; they remain with this Government, who are not interested, frankly, in making the change for young people in this country. If the Minister is not interested in doing this, will she devolve the powers to the Scottish Government and let us get on with the job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have already highlighted, age rates are not new to these regulations. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to review the age-related rates to see whether they are fit for purpose, and to report back later in the year.

As hon. Members have raised in the House, it is absolutely true that younger workers are the most vulnerable with regard to employment. I must point out that, from September and November 2018, 11.7% of 16 to 24-year-olds were unemployed, compared with 2.9% of over-25s. It is absolutely right, when these rates are set, that we have in mind that we want young people to be in work and getting experience in order to have the future earning capacity to reach their full potential and be able to fly. They can do that through work experience, and by getting into a place of work and gaining such experience, while in some cases they will get the entrepreneurialism they need to go on to do great things.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I want to make one more point about the age-related model. This model has been in place since 1999, and it is used across OECD countries, so it is not specific to the UK.

I will move on quickly to enforcement. I have said at the Dispatch Box a number of times since I have had this role that we take enforcement extremely seriously. That is why we have doubled spending on enforcement to £26 million. In 2017-18, there were 810 penalties, totalling £14 million. This is five times more in penalties than were imposed in the last five years of the previous Labour Government. To level the criticism that we are not taking enforcement seriously is just factually incorrect.

Draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft trade marks (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Having been on lots of financial services SI Committees, I am glad to have a change of scene.

I want to pick up where the Opposition Front Bencher left off. None of us wants these regulations. It seems bizarre that we spend so much time and money debating statutory instruments that we hope we will never have to use; we are in a quite antediluvian situation. I hope very much that in the coming days the Prime Minister will take the threat of no deal completely off the table, given the damage that it would do.

We do not know what damage the statutory instruments before us might do, because there is no impact assessment. The same was true in another delegated legislation Committee I was in last week, where I raised the same issue. As a Member of this House, I am very uncomfortable passing legislation in Committee, away from much scrutiny, without an impact assessment from the Government. For larger pieces of legislation, we would have an impact assessment. For other pieces of legislation, we might also get evidence. I am pleased that Lilly has sent us all a letter, because mostly, when we look at these measures, we have no evidence—only the Government’s word. I am not saying the Government’s word cannot be trusted, but that is all we have to go on, and that is not good enough for this or any other piece of delegated legislation that we consider. It feels as though these DLs are being rushed through, and the lack of evidence and an impact assessment is deeply worrying.

Turning to the trademark regulations, I understand that when this SI was debated in the Lords, they were not satisfied that it was explicit enough about what would happen if an international trademark were to be challenged in the courts: would it have to be challenged in the UK courts and in the European Court of Justice? Two sets of court actions would certainly mean that there was a greater effect on businesses. The Lords also sought clarity on the consultation process. Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“In order to ensure that the changes being made would work in practice for users of the system, and would not result in any unintended consequences, the Intellectual Property Office held informal discussions with a small group of selected individuals with expertise in the relevant areas, or in patent law generally, to get feedback on the legal drafting of the instrument. Participants were provided with a draft of the instrument in advance.”

Businesses, not just lawyers, should have been consulted on the changes, given the scale of the differences. It is quite worrying.

The draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were also considered in the Lords, where there was similar feedback on the consulting process and the lack of widescale engagement with the legislation. Again, the Government seem to have engaged with people they already know, rather than having consulted more widely on the impact on businesses across these islands. The explanatory memorandum also notes:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because...it is designed to maintain the status quo”.

Preparation for a no-deal Brexit is not really the status quo; it is actually something quite different.

IP laws are important for innovation and for subsequent growth within the economy. Industry professionals are concerned that the exclusivity terms for medicine patents would be reduced in the UK. Anecdotally, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has raised this time and again on the Floor of the House and in other places. She is concerned that companies have said that a product would never be launched in the UK before the EU. That could have a serious impact on the competitive advantage to Scotland’s life sciences industry, which is an important growth industry in Scotland’s economy. She is also concerned about the impact on research and universities if products were no longer produced or trialled here.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) has also raised the issue recently in the House. She has a medicines testing facility in her constituency. She is concerned about where it sits within these measures, because if fewer medicines are trialled and produced here, there will be fewer things to be tested, and that will have an impact on specialist jobs in her constituency.

I understand that Lord Warner raised concerns expressed by the BioIndustry Association, which said:

“Eroding intellectual property protection whilst also seeking global free trade deals sends a signal to industry that the UK Government may…erode protection as it seeks to quickly conclude deals. This would further impact the industry in the UK and further inward foreign investment.”

Scotland does fairly well when it comes to foreign direct investment—it enjoys the highest amount in the UK outside London—so this is a cause for deep concern. We want to be able to be part of that global industry, but not at the price of standards.

It is difficult to accept the Government’s assertion that these regulations would have a minimal effect on business; for companies conducting business outside the UK, it simply cannot be the case. It is very clear from Lilly’s letter how it will be affected. It says:

“We strongly believe that this statutory instrument must be amended or withdrawn.”

How does the Minister intend to deal with its serious concerns? It says:

“IP protection in the UK would be significantly diminished”

under a no-deal Brexit. The letter also laid out other concerns, and they need to be addressed because of the impact on companies, jobs and investment in wider society.

This is in the wider context of rising tensions over intellectual property, especially between the US and China. Scottish firms and consumers need the economic weight of the EU and the protection of the world’s largest trading bloc more than ever. Brexit will only reduce the protection of Scottish intellectual property on the world stage. This is a huge concern for universities, which have spin-offs and want to develop new products. I have that in my constituency, at Strathcylde University. It is keen to be innovative, but it needs reassurance on the issue.

To pick up on the concerns of the hon. Member for Gloucester, Scotland has many protected GIs, the most notable being Scotch whisky. It is an iconic industry for Scotland, and we need to make sure that it is not put at risk at any point. Our other GIs include Scottish salmon, Scottish lamb, Scottish beef, Arbroath smokies, Shetland lamb, Orkney beef, Orkney lamb, Bonchester cheese, Stornaway black pudding, Scottish wild salmon, native Shetland wool and traditional Ayrshire dunlop. We have lots of wonderful products in Scotland that we wish very much to protect.

The political declaration says:

“Noting the protection afforded to existing geographical indications in the Withdrawal Agreement, the Parties should seek to put in place arrangements to provide appropriate protection for their geographical indications.”

We do not have very long to go; there are 71 days until exit day, if I am correct. Still waiting to see and seeking to put things in place is not really good enough for me, and it is not good enough for the protection of these industries. With under three months to go, it is a disgrace that the Government are only now getting round to the details. Businesses, along with voters, have lost belief in the Government’s ability to navigate Brexit.

I reiterate my strong concerns about the lack of an impact assessment. I am not comfortable passing this piece of delegated legislation without it. The Government need to get that put in place. It is a huge concern that we are doing this blindfolded, without an impact assessment to give us an idea of the costs to which the measures would give rise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, which is why the Government have commissioned the Augur review to look at post-18 education. In addition, we are developing a full range of T-levels that will soon be operational. It is absolutely important that we level the playing field and ensure that the 50% of people who are not going to university have that opportunity to develop their skills going forward, particularly around technical education.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Since we last met, I have been delighted to be in Bristol, a hub of brilliant technological innovation, to launch the aerospace sector deal with a commitment from business and Government to invest a quarter of a billion pounds in the aircraft of the future. I announced a life sciences sector deal, featuring £1 billion of industry investment from the global biopharmaceutical company UCB. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has been in Katowice representing the UK at COP 24. At home, we published our Good Work Plan, and, just last week, the energy price cap came into effect, ensuring that all customers get a fair deal.

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer.

A meeting of stakeholders was recently held in Pollokshields in my constituency to discuss the problems of fireworks in the community, as they really cause local residents a huge amount of distress. The Minister wrote to me last year saying that a meeting would be set up with me and other MPs to discuss the matter further. Will he give me more information as to what progress has been made to set up the meeting, as my constituents do not want to be forgotten about?

Good Work Plan

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Part of the point of making it a statutory requirement that employers should entertain a request for a more permanent contract is to prevent precisely that kind of abuse. That would be unlawful under the proposals.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is hugely disappointing that the Secretary of State has chosen to maintain state-sponsored age discrimination against workers under the age of 25, who are not entitled even to his pretendy living wage. Is he aware that the age pay gap between a 16 or 17-year-old and a 25-year-old, starting on the same day in the same job, has increased over the past three Budgets? Has he read the report by the Young Women’s Trust, “Paid Less Worth Less?”?

[Greg Clark]

The Low Pay Commission has been established to advise, on the basis of rigorous research, what the rates of pay should be for different groups. I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not have the respect for the commission that I have. As we expand the opportunities for young people, especially through apprenticeships, it is important that posts are available for them. It is the commission’s task to advise on what is the best balance between pay and opportunities.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, including the 595 people from my constituency who signed the petition.

This is becoming a regular debate. I have seen the Minister’s response to the petition and it is hugely disappointing, because my constituents do not have confidence that their concerns are being listened to or that action will be taken on them. My constituents in Glasgow Central are increasingly concerned by the escalation in violence around fireworks. On 5 November, my inbox and my Twitter feed was inundated with videos, pictures and complaints, particularly from people in Pollokshields, who were finding that fireworks were being used as weapons in their community. They are extremely disturbed by that. The Pollokshields community council is having a public meeting tonight, which has had to be moved to a bigger venue, such is the concern in the community. They expect the Government here, which has the responsibility for firework sales, to take action on their concerns, which I will outline further.

Concern is not confined to Pollokshields. Constituents in Govanhill were concerned to see fireworks being let off in the streets, some tied to railings in the middle of the road and let off at cars. People in Bridgeton were concerned by the uprooting of an entire back fence of a community garden to be used on a nearby bonfire, at a cost to the community to replace. These incidents occurred even with the big public display in Glasgow Green nearby. People did not have the excuse of there being nowhere else to go and nothing else to see. The public display was literally at the other end of the street, but people still went ahead and did that.

A resident in Strathbungo, who has been plagued by fireworks as well, points out that it is illogical and bizarre that people are allowed to go out in this country and buy explosives for their own use. That really ought to change.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about fireworks being used against firefighters? She has given examples of fireworks being used against members of the public, but in my constituency on bonfire night, firefighters in Sunderland were ambushed by a gang of youths in one of the communities, who had set fire to a car with fireworks. They had put the car over the bonfire and the car was alight. They then used other cars—what they call criminal pool cars—to block the estate, so the firefighters were trapped. The only reason the firefighters got out was because one of them had experience from the Meadow Well riots. Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am that we are selling explosives that are used against firefighters as well as the public?

[Alison Thewliss]

The experience that the hon. Lady describes is absolutely terrifying. No community should have to put up with that. The firefighters and emergency services staff should not be put at risk when they are trying to go out and help the public.

I want to mention the impact on my local police in Glasgow. The police were prepared. They went out and visited the offenders from last year and they visited shops and did test purchasing. They did what was within their power to do. Under current law, they are not able to seize fireworks, if people have them, so even if they found them, they would not be able to take them away. They were taken aback, particularly by the aggression towards the police on the night. Fireworks were being quite deliberately fired at local police officers. It was by good luck, more than anything else, that nobody was injured. Local residents were calling the police from their flats, saying that this was happening. When the police turned up there were 30 to 40 youths and young adults—not just kids, but adults as well—firing industrial scale fireworks, not small bangers, along the streets, at flats, up closes, in buildings, and towards and underneath cars. It was really quite frightening.

I will send the Minister some of the footage, which is on Twitter. Some additional footage that the police have shown me is absolutely terrifying. It was more by good luck than anything else that no one was more seriously injured. I understand that in another incident in Glasgow a three-year-old girl was injured by a firework. It is only a matter of time before things get worse. The police knew what was going to happen, as I have said. They supplemented their policing resources with a national policing resource; they had something akin to a riot van when they came to police the community. Even then they were forced to withdraw. The situation was so dangerous that they could barely put their officers out there. If it is that scary for the police, how terrifying it must be for residents, who feel that nothing can be done. The Minister must do something about it.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned PTSD and service personnel. Many of my constituents have come here from other countries—literally from war zones. It must cause fear to people who have fled violence and explosions when they hear such things replayed nightly over many weeks. It is quite significant.

I want to quote some of my constituents, who do not feel their voices have been listened to. In a comment that chimes with what the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said about his experience with his dog, one constituent said:

“As I write this email, I am sitting in my tiny internal bathroom for the third night in a row with my extremely distressed dog. I expect to be sitting here each night for at least another week. I’ve had to do this for the past 9 years.”

It is entirely unreasonable that people should have to live their lives in that way. Another constituent wrote:

“This is the third year we have lived in this area and the third year our children have been terrified of the noise and the feeling of relentless bombardment throughout the night on fireworks night. My daughter was in tears…as were many of her school friends as they were woken up dozens of times by the loud banging, racing cars and arguing voices. Our friend had a live firework thrown at his two year old in a buggy as he picked up his daughter from after school care...It is only a matter of time before one of our young people is seriously hurt…So much is written about dogs and pets being terrified at this time of year but what about our children?”

The impact can be quite traumatic, and children’s education can be affected by nights of disturbed sleep, distress and worry. From my family’s background in education, I am aware that fireworks are sometimes used in school; young people let them off in the corridors, so clearly they are able to get their hands on them.

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Another constituent wrote:

“The explosions were continuous from before 6pm until after 10 pm, with intermittent before and after that…The most terrifying was on our street. We live on Kenmure street and there were gangs congregating on the corner with Albert drive. The police tried but couldn’t keep on top of it. They let fireworks off in the street, on the pavement, horizontally, under cars and amidst people. I don’t know how more people weren’t seriously injured.”

A resident of a neighbouring street said:

“Those of us living in Herriet St Pollokshields had 30-40 men, many wearing balaclavas, setting off industrial sized fireworks in the middle of the street.”

That was a terrifying experience for my constituents, as may be imagined.

There was also a need for a clear-up afterwards. There were boxes of abandoned fireworks to be picked up, some of them dud and some not—who knows? They were littered all over the place, and I picked some up in a park last week as well. They had just been left behind. During our debate in January, I mentioned sparklers being left behind in Glasgow Green, causing damage to people’s dogs. They could not walk or play in the grass because people had left metal sparklers all over the place. I tweeted about that earlier, and someone pointed out that the red blaes pitch at the Glasgow Gaelic School in Finnieston has been left pretty much unusable by the community and school, because of the mess left behind after the fireworks. There is a cost to local government in clearing up all those things, which may take weeks.

We need to look at better licensing of events. At the moment there is a free for all, and that is not working for our constituents. There should be some kind of audit trail for wholesalers that sell industrial-sized fireworks. If they sell industrial-grade fireworks, for want of a better term, what happens to those afterwards? How do we ensure that they can be traced? If they turn up on the corner of a street on Pollokshields, how can we know where they came from? We also need to think about criminal offences in connection with agent purchase. Many fireworks fall into the hands of young people. They are clearly bought for them by adults—friends or family members; then the young people are sent off into the street with them. The criminal offences should be similar to those relating to agent purchase of alcohol. The law should allow for local byelaws. If, as in my constituency, there are areas with a particular problem, byelaws could be tighter than the overall law in preventing the sale or use of fireworks.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the frustrations of his constituents, and I share his concerns. The Minister has heard concerns from across the House, and should take them on board. One of my constituents said:

“Every year, I sign one or more petitions asking Parliament to ban the private use of fireworks, limit the public use of fireworks and/or mandate the use of so-called silent fireworks. Every year, the government responds with a bland platitude about fireworks being regulated and there being no plans for change. Every year, I hear and see those regulations being flouted, for example: fireworks being set off in public parks by private individuals …youngsters…throwing them at fire service personnel, and even fireworks being set off in the street”.

The Minister cannot hide or duck the issue. There is a problem here. The Scottish Government have taken on a review, and I welcome that. The Minister will know that the signatories to the petition come largely from Scottish constituencies. They want something to happen, because in Scotland the law does not allow us to do much more than we have done already. I urge the Minister either to deal with the issue or devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament and let the Scottish Government get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

[Alison Thewliss]

I am not aware of the circumstances that the Minister mentions. Were those fireworks seized from commercial or residential premises? On bonfire night, Police Scotland deployed public order specialists in Pollokshields. They arrested people, and they are still arresting people and investigating. The problem is not the police’s response but the source of the fireworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but as I have highlighted, I will not commit to a consultation until I have met hon. Members, spoken with my officials, and worked out with them what the best way forward is. I will be quite frank: I am not for moving on that today. However, as I have highlighted, I have open ears and an open mind, and it is obvious from today’s debate that there is a range of differing views.

To highlight two elements of the debate, I support hon. Members on the question of the problems they have raised, and to pay tribute to our emergency services. We have heard about how our emergency services have been targeted, with people using fireworks in a criminal way against those charged with protecting us. Like anyone listening to the debate and to the stories that hon. Members have recounted, I think it is disgusting that anyone working in the emergency services might be threatened with fireworks, even on a firework night. That is totally disgusting, and I share hon. Members’ concerns about that.

I will also highlight hon. Members’ concerns about animal welfare. We have heard personal stories about hon. Members’ pets and the disastrous things that have happened to horses, and I can recount stories from years ago. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) did not have a story about a hamster, and it was nice to hear about her father and his desire to have fireworks in their yard. My father would not, because the Catherine wheels that were available in the 1970s, when I was small, were dangerous: half of them did not finish or go off. Product safety has moved on significantly in the past 30 years, and although we are still targeting people who use fireworks incorrectly, the products have improved vastly. We recognise people’s concerns about their pets and animals, but it is a difficult debate.

We have heard that we should move people to public displays, rather than their having fireworks in their garden. However, we have heard complaints about public displays as well as informal ones, so the question of what people want is complex. There are many differing opinions, and we will have to make judgments about how far we need to go and what the right balance is. Legislation and enforcement always involves a balance: ensuring both that people’s rights are protected and consumers are safe, and that people are able to enjoy the things that I am sure everyone loves about fireworks.

[Alison Thewliss]

If the Scottish Government’s consultation comes back next year in favour of greater restrictions on sale, will the Minister devolve the powers to the Scottish Parliament?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am afraid that I cannot commit to that today, because I do not know what the Scottish Government’s review will say. If I am still in post, I will happily look at it at that time.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I reassure the Chamber that I am clear that the safety of our constituents remains a priority, and I will consider the work of my officials and look at the evidence base. I encourage everyone present who is interested and has contributed to the debate to meet me for a proper discussion, which will enable the Government to look at the problem and decide on the correct way forward. I also thank you, Mr Howarth, for your patience this afternoon.

Budget Resolutions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He points out exactly where the powers lie to make a real difference for people.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Drew Hendry]

I will give way one last time.

[Alison Thewliss]

Is my hon. Friend as curious as I am about the political influence on this Budget? Belfast has received £2 million from this Government for a fire fund, whereas Sauchiehall Street, which has suffered two recent fires, has not had a single penny from this Chancellor.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly about the way Scotland is treated on these matters and I thank her for that intervention.

This Government’s negligent actions have already drained our economy of much-needed, vital investment. The Chancellor failed to take the steps to support the economy and businesses. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that a hard Brexit could cost 80,000 jobs in Scotland between 2020 and 2030. Mark Carney told MPs in this building that Brexit has already cost households—families—up to £900 each. Again, there was no mention of that in the Budget. And we know why. The UK Government’s own figures have shown that there simply is no good Brexit, with a substantial hit to the economy, as a best-case scenario, running to a whopping 8% reduction in GDP. In context, that is a cost of £2,300 per person, per year by 2030. Even if the UK signs a free trade deal with the EU, Scotland’s GDP will be hit to the tune of £1,610 per person every year until 2030.

There was also a failure to support the oil and gas sector in the Budget. The UK Government have now taken more than £350 billion-worth of North sea revenues, and that is excluding, by the way, the supply chain, corporation, employment or business taxes, and we are supposed to cheer when the UK Government do nothing in their Budget for that industry, other than to float the idea of a tax increase and then say they are not imposing it, along with some vague verbal support for decommissioning. Where is the funding from the Secretary of State? Why has he not been arguing for the sector deal for oil and gas?

The Office for Budget Responsibility is stating that the outlook for oil and gas is showing a rise from £1.2 billion to £2.2 billion per year on average. Production statistics are up on 2014-15 levels by more than 23% and oil and gas sales values are up by nearly 20%. New fields such as Capercaillie, Achmelvich and Nexen’s phase two in the Buzzard Field underline the remaining potential. A study at Aberdeen University suggests an extra 4 billion barrels of oil from offshore, on top of 2017 estimates, yet the sector is still ignored. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are chuntering that the Greens will not like that. Let me tell them that, unlike the Chancellor’s passing mention or the green UK statement that came out, I intend to mention climate change in my speech. That neatly leads me on to say that the Government, having ignored the oil and gas sector, a sector vital for the coming decades—[Interruption.] I am going to make some progress. The sector is vital in the coming decades while we transfer to low and zero carbon. It is an utter disgrace. A sector deal must be brought forward now. It should include national hubs for underwater innovation, transformational technology and decommissioning.

Where was the UK Government’s manifesto pledge that committed them to working collaboratively with the Scottish Government for an ultra-deep water port for decommissioning? Oil and gas has always been a poorly discharged duty by successive Westminster Governments, complete with ministerial pinball and 20 energy Ministers in 20 years. This Government, however, are also falling asleep over their duties to climate change—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is a strong defender of that industry, which is vital to the UK economy. He will know that those companies have set out their own pledges and that they have set out how they see world changing fundamentally. They are also investing heavily in the new technologies that they want to be part of the future.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Department’s consultation on limited partnerships closed on 23 July. Scottish limited partnerships continue to be used for dirty money, to the absolute discredit of the country. When will the Minister do something about this?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

We acknowledge the reports that limited partnerships, particularly Scottish limited partnerships, have been misused. That is why we have consulted on proposals to tackle the issue and to modernise the law. In June 2017, Scottish limited partnerships were brought within the scope of the register of people with significant control, and since then there has been a fall of 80% in the registration of new partnerships.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman, despite the rhetoric, is just wrong. I have visited some of the pit areas, and one of the saddest things I ever saw was a former pit engineer who, because of the appalling transport links left as a terrible legacy to the pit areas, was unable to get out of the area and find work. [Interruption.] If he would just listen for one second, he would know that many people on zero-hours contracts actually choose that level of flexibility. [Interruption.] Well, they do, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) should talk to her constituents and find out. However, he is absolutely right that the thing we need to do—[Interruption.] Blimey, you must be hell to live with. [Interruption.] He must be hell to live with; not you, Mr Speaker, clearly. The hon. Gentleman must be hell to live with. He will know that this Government are determined to drive up wages and standards for working people, because we, not the north London intelligentsia, are the party of working people.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The lowest-paid workers are young workers, who are not entitled even to the Government’s pretendy living wage. A 17-year-old is entitled to £3.63 an hour less than a 25-year-old starting on the same day in the same job. When will this Government end the scandal of state-sponsored age discrimination?

[Claire Perry]

My understanding is that there have always been differentials for different age groups. We will continue to review this because we are the party that nationally—right across the UK—wants to make sure that productivity and wages increase, rather than using the rhetoric we hear from other Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

The Department keeps a close eye on developments of this kind, and I assure the hon. Lady that the matter is firmly on our agenda. We want to ensure, through the Matthew Taylor review and the work we are doing ourselves, that workers are treated fairly, receive the support that they need in business, and are fairly paid.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

One of the biggest missing links in the tackling of money laundering is the Government’s own agency, Companies House. When will the Minister ensure that it is funded adequately and has enough staff to carry out proper checks on businesses?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I assure the hon. Lady that we are seeking to ensure that Companies House is fit for purpose. As she will know, in 2016-17 it brought some 3,182 prosecutions. Companies House is very attuned to the challenges that it faces, particularly in relation to money laundering. That is why we are introducing, for instance, measures relating to Scottish limited partnerships, which I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome.

Smart Meters Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

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

[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.