Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have said, we are bringing in a Bill and there will be plenty of scope to examine it and make amendments. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s engagement on that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What the Secretary of State is proposing on a property register sounds very weak and very slow. There are billions in dirty money circulating on the London property market behind shell companies. By the time he has identified corrupt owners, the properties will probably have already been transferred. He also says nothing about seizing assets and imposing criminal penalties. Why is he not freezing assets and transfers now, pending disclosure?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough a parliamentarian to know that the idea of freezing assets is outside the scope of this legislation—indeed, it is outside the scope of my Department. The Government are looking at a range of other measures that may well reflect the concerns he has described.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I suspect that we have the same choice, frankly, with that mighty hammer. But what we have to do first is make sure that we have those processes in place. The British Business Bank obviously had to scale up very quickly in the pandemic, but we are working with it and the banks, which are our first port of call in this, as it is a delegated scheme. We want to make sure that the worst-performing banks scale up to the best-performing banks in tackling this, and we will continue to work on that endeavour.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The lawfare debate, which the Minister described as “interesting”, identified how money launderers use UK courts to cover up unlawful activity, so the term that he has used is a slight underestimate. The Minister responding to that debate said:

“the Government are poised to act.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 603.]

Given that they have abandoned their economic crime Bill, given that the Attorney General is investigating malpractice at the Serious Fraud Office, which she is supposed to supervise, and given that too much oligarch money flows into the Tory party, how poised are they?

[Paul Scully]

Very.

Post Office Closures

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. You paid tribute earlier to Sir David in another of his roles here, and it occurred to me as you were doing so that this is exactly the sort of debate he would have loved, because it is about championing essential services in our constituencies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing the debate. This is an important issue—it has been for many years, and it is a shame that we have watched the decline of the post office network over that period. It should not really need saying that post offices are essential services and that they are part of our communities, but sometimes I think Post Office Ltd needs to be convinced of that. Association of Convenience Stores public surveys have shown that post offices are considered the most essential services in the community. There is also the work done by Citizens Advice. Most of all, there is the response from our constituents when offices close permanently or temporarily. That should tell us all, lest there be any doubt in the Minister’s mind, that post offices continue to be absolutely vital to sustaining communities.

It is true that there was a downsizing in the network in the 2000s and that many branches closed. I represent a constituency in a fairly small borough where there were eight proposed closures. After a very vigorous campaign, we managed to keep five of those open. Across the country, many hundreds of branches did close then. If there was any silver lining in that cloud, it was that we were told that it would make the network sustainable and able to stand on its own feet and that that would be the end of it.

There was still a sustainable network left at that point. However, a bit like with court closures, the Government seemed to get the taste from that, and we have continued to run down the network in what has really been death by a thousand cuts. We have seen a complete reduction of the Crown post office network. Whenever there is a retirement or a redevelopment, which happens quite often in my constituency, it is difficult to sustain the service and keep the office open.

I want to come on to the plague of the so-called temporary closure. I have two town centres in my constituency, in Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush. They both used to have thriving Crown offices—substantial public buildings. Hammersmith’s post office had been there for a century, since 1920, and was important not just for the functions it carried out, but as a notable public building. There were three Crown post offices in the constituency at one time and they have all gone now. We have only a third of the Crown network that we had 10 years ago.

In many cases, the product of this situation has been the rather unhappy liaison with WHSmith. It is quite easy to see why Post Office Ltd saw the attraction of WHSmith. It tends to provide space for no rental, because it is not a thriving business and wants to draw custom into its stores. In a way, it has become a marriage of two failing enterprises trying to support each other, and not a very happy one.

In Shepherds Bush, I lost the town centre Crown post office, which went into a WHSmith in the Westfield shopping centre; similarly, Hammersmith’s post office went into a WHSmith there. But at least they were continuing, and Post Office Ltd conceded that we needed town centre offices. Two years ago they told me they would find a new office for Shepherds Bush centre, but that has never materialised. That is partly, I am sure, because of covid but it shows that there is no follow-up when these things happen.

A year ago, the main office in Hammersmith closed. These are extremely busy and thriving town centres. They both had a huge throughput because of office workers during the day and they are busy shopping centres seven days a week. We know that there is a need for a continuing post office service, because the surrounding small branch offices, even when they are half a mile or a mile away, have queues outside because the main offices have closed. That is all the more extraordinary, given that most of the major banks have substantially reduced their branch networks. I used the example of Shepherds Bush, where NatWest, Barclays and Santander have all closed branches. The last remaining bank, HSBC, has reduced its hours. The post office was the only financial institution providing a great variety of services there, and it is certainly sustainable.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on this question. Why does he think there are so many closures? If he says, no, that the network numbers have remained stable over the past years, that would ignore the new practice of temporary closures. I have five temporary closures in my constituency and three of those offices have been closed for more than five years. They are all very important branches. The one in St Ann’s Road, on the border with Kensington, serves the Edward Woods estate. I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) is here in her role as Parliamentary Private Secretary. The one in White City is in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. I declare an interest in that one is just round the corner from my constituency office in the Fulham Palace Road, which we used heavily, as the Minister can imagine. Those three have been closed for more than five years. On top of that we have new closures. There is the one that I mentioned in Hammersmith, which has been closed for a year, with plans for that now abandoned and a return to the beginning with the search for a new sponsor, and there is one at Stamford Brook.

With one promised branch not opened, five branches in temporary closure and the loss of all the Crown offices we had, this is a parlous state of affairs. I ask the Minister specifically to look at the issue of temporary closures. I do not know how a closure of more than five years can be called temporary. Why is it impossible to find locations or postmasters for these places? I think the answer stares us in the face. It is that the terms and conditions that the Post Office is prepared to offer and the efforts it is prepared to put in are not sufficient to regenerate the network. We are being sold a myth that we have a stable network that is continuing at the same level as in previous years. In reality, we see more and more temporary closures that turn into permanent ones.

I hope the Minister agrees with that analysis and that he can respond to it, at least in part. This is a problem that demands his attention and that of the Government if the post office network is to survive into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I think the hon. Gentleman has a fair point. As I will try to develop a little, we need to do more to diversify and change the network to make sure it evolves, not only to use those mileage figures, but to make sure it meets demand and what is required by communities.

We wasted no time in March 2020 in announcing that post offices were an essential business and postmasters were key workers, so that post offices could stay open and provide the lifeline for businesses and customers everywhere that we have already heard about, and to enable loved ones to keep in touch at such a difficult time. Post offices have changed, because there is no Post Office without postmasters. While high streets grew quiet through the pandemic, postmasters across the UK went the extra mile to support their communities.

I was delighted to see Sara Barlow, the postmaster for Rainhill branch, and Luke Francis, postmaster for Bude branch, recognised in the recent Queen’s birthday honours for their services to local communities. Thanks to the tireless efforts of postmasters and their staff, those vital post office services continue to be available to communities across the country—an incredible 90% of the network remained open. I think there are many Saras and Lukes across the country who deserve our recognition.

However, the network was not immune to the challenges of the pandemic and branch numbers were clearly impacted. Some postmasters had to close their branches for health reasons, but other post offices were closed because of their location—for example, if they were in a university, community centre or library. The Post Office worked hard on a case by case basis to resolve any practical issues to keep as many post offices open as possible, but obviously it was not always possible.

I discussed the issues affecting the network on a regular basis with the Post Office’s chief executive, Nick Read, throughout the difficult time. His priority and that of the Post Office was, rightly, to protect vulnerable customers. The Post Office acted quickly to designate 1,000 branches as priority branches based on socio-economic criteria. These were branches that the Post Office considered would have the most detrimental impact on vulnerable customers should they close. That ensured that the Post Office’s efforts through the pandemic could be targeted. When any of those branches were forced to closed, the Post Office could implement a range of mitigations, including deploying mobile vans, the “post office in a box” kit and even redeploying trained staff from Post Office HQ itself. The Post Office also worked closely with Government to set up two cash delivery services, designed for self-isolating or shielding customers.

We have been monitoring the network situation very closely and working with the Post Office to understand further the impacts on postmasters and how we can support them throughout that period. Post offices were eligible to be awarded financial support through many of the Government’s measures to support business and were able to access other business support schemes, such as the VAT deferrals.

We also stepped in to put in place a temporary waiver for the requirement for the Post Office to provide those 11,500 branches. It was clear that despite postmasters and the Post Office doing everything they can to ensure services were available through the pandemic, it still was not possible to provide full network coverage. However, I am pleased to report that the waiver expired in June this year and that the post office network is above 11,500 again and with increased stability.

The pandemic helped to demonstrate what an incredible contribution post offices make to our communities. This confirmed, as we have heard, what we all know to be true. Many of us see first hand the impact that post offices have on our communities and how much constituents value their post office. That is widely backed by research, not just our own eyes and ears. The Association of Convenience Stores consistently finds that post offices are valued by customers and have a positive impact on the local area.

I fully appreciate and recognise the impact a post office closure can have on a community. I know it can be disruptive, particularly for those rural communities that do not have nearby alternatives, as we have heard. I can reassure hon. Members that we are confident that the post office network is stable and that the Government continue to be as fully committed as ever to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network.

However, it is inevitable that, with a network the size of the post office network, there will be variations, as we have heard, in the number of branches open at any one time. The post office network can and does fluctuate and change over that time, as postmasters move on, branches close, and new ones open. The Government’s access criteria ensure that however the network changes, services remain within local reach of all citizens. Churn in the network is part of the modern, dynamic, franchising business that the Post Office is.

A postmaster can resign for a number of reasons. They might be retiring, and the new business owner does not want to take on that post office. The postmaster might want to turn their shop back into a home. With partners who operate multiple post offices, businesses might make a commercial decision to resign from operating a post office. The reasons behind the post office closing might be varied, but I assure hon. Members that the Post Office’s response is tried and tested and it works. It requires operators to provide six months’ notice of a branch closure to allow it time to identify alternative ways to provide services.

We have talked about specific examples. That requirement applies to all franchising partners, whether it is a multiple retailer or an individual postmaster. Where notice is given, Post Office works hard with communities to make sure that the service is maintained. When it is not possible to open a full-time branch due to lack of retail premises in the local area, maintaining the service can include innovative solutions, such as mobile or outreach services. It is important that we make sure that those are temporary and that we look to more permanent, long-term solutions.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but how does he explain the circumstances that I set out? I have just totted up in my head—I have half the number of branches open that the Post Office thinks should be open. I have six open, five temporarily closed and one that was due to open two years ago that never has. That is a system that is not working. I am sure I cannot be the only MP in this situation. How does he address the problem of temporary closures?

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

And what we are doing is just what the hon. Gentleman suggests: pointing scientists in a direction, saying, “Please could you do something about climate change? Please could you do something about our commitment and our journey to net zero?” and then letting them go. It is not about restricting them.

One of the things that has bothered me throughout is that most people seem to think that all this agency will do is invent widgets. Science is not all about making things. One of the biggest things that we need to do to tackle climate change is to convince every single person to change the way they live so that we can reach our targets. We will not be able to do that without scientific research into how people work and what changes they will make. That is not about creating widgets; it is about ensuring that we are on the right track and making the right changes for people to be able to do things in their lives in order that we can move towards net zero. I think that restricting ARIA to dealing with the most important challenge in our lifetimes is not too much of a restriction. It is a huge, wide thing.

One thing that really concerns me about progress to net zero is that an awful lot of folk are going to be left behind. An awful lot of these things that are made will be sold. Yes, great; that is going to make a lot of difference to the lives of people who already have money, but people who currently have nothing will find it even more difficult if we approach climate change with the stick method and require them to make changes or pay more for their energy when they already have very little money. Those are the challenges that I would like to see ARIA tackle, so that none of our constituents are left behind when we are moving to net zero.

I wrote to the Chancellor last week after a meeting with Aberdeen Climate Action about net zero organisations. Lib Dem new clause 3 suggests that ARIA should be net zero in every year. ARIA absolutely should be net zero in every year—that was one of the amendments we moved in Committee—because we should be saying that anything new should not add to our carbon emissions but reduce them or, at the very least, leave them neutral. The Government were not willing to accept that amendment in Committee. I am glad that the Lib Dems have put it forward again, because it is so important. If we are saying that we are going to be leaders and we are going to make a difference, new organisations such as ARIA should be net zero from the very beginning, and we should commit to that. If we are going to be net zero by 2050, everyone will have to make a contribution to that, and that includes ARIA.

On scrutiny, I am afraid that I disagreed with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) was making about the Barnett formula was not that it is the best thing since sliced bread, but that we have the rules that we have. The rules mean that the Barnett formula does exist. We have been screwed over with regard to the Barnett formula a number of times in recent years, and we do not want that to happen in this case.

We would rather not have the Barnett formula—we would rather be an independent country—but if we are going to have those rules and the Government do not stick to them, there is a major element of unfairness. We are asking the Government to stick to their own rules in this regard. We have seen with legislative consent motions in recent times that they have completely ignored what the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament have said. They are not sticking to the rules, so we are just trying to get them to live up to the trust that they expect us to have in them.

On scrutiny, public procurement and FOI, I was really pleased that in Committee, the Minister confirmed that in the estimates process, ARIA will have a discrete line in the supply estimates, so we will at least be able to see how much money ARIA has in any given year. I do not disagree that ARIA should have the ability to fail —it is incredibly important that it does—but we need to be able to have scrutiny of the money that is being spent and that we as a House are agreeing to spend on it. I am very glad that the Minister confirmed that.

Finally, I am hugely concerned about the Einsteins—about the people who work in patent offices who have not been able to gain grants. I do not think that ARIA will fix that. There is still going to be the issue where if someone is networked—if they are a white man in research —they are much more likely to be able to get research grants than if they are a woman or a person of colour. Unfortunately, with the lack of ability that we have to FOI and to scrutinise some of ARIA, we cannot see what is going on with that. We cannot see whether ARIA is further entrenching the current inequality in science and technology and academia or doing a positive job towards breaking down those barriers and ensuring that people who live in the most deprived communities in Scotland are given the opportunity because they have the best possible ideas, rather than because they have the best possible friends. It is hugely important that we have more scrutiny. That is why we tabled the cronyism amendment and the amendments relating to us as Houses approving both the chair and the CEO, because those roles will be so important and because we are so excluded from the scrutiny process in relation to ARIA.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I wish to speak in support of amendments 14 and 8 in relation to bringing ARIA within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. It seems extraordinary to me that there is an exclusion for a body of this kind, although, to be honest, I have a long-standing interest in freedom of information, and for Government Ministers—this is not exclusive to this Government—to look to exempt bodies from that piece of legislation for one spurious reason or another is not that unusual.

I have worked closely with the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Three years ago I introduced, unsuccessfully, a Bill to bring the third of public sector expenditure that is carried out by private contractors within the scope of the Act. That has gained some currency recently with, as we have heard in this debate, the upsurge of cronyism, the scandals over test and trace and the employment of huge numbers of consultants on inflated salaries. The Bill is equally subject to some of the same concerns and rings the same alarm bells.

We hear about high-risk, high-reward research and ARIA being allowed to fail, and there is nothing wrong with those as functions, but there has to be transparency, and, frankly, having that in the public eye, rather than hidden away, is more likely to lead to better decision making. The parallel body that we have heard about—DARPA in the USA—has had scandals and ethics violations that have been brought to light because it is subject to the equivalent Freedom of Information Act in that country. I believe that this is the right thing to do and in the interests of good research and the good use of public money.

The excuses that are given are the usual sorts of excuses that are pulled out at this stage—that this is a small, cutting-edge body on which it will be too burdensome to impose freedom of information. Leaving aside whether a body given £800 million of public money is indeed a small body, we have heard from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), that parish councils are subject to freedom of information. So are dentists and internal drainage boards. I am not quite sure what an internal drainage board is—it sounds quite painful, actually—but I doubt that such bodies get £800 million of public money. I would take an intervention from anyone who wants to explain what an internal drainage board is, but I think it would take us off the subject.

This is just nonsense. The idea that ARIA will not have back-office functions and that its status at the cutting edge of a science superpower—I am not making those phrases up; the Minister has used them—will be hampered by making it subject to the Freedom of Information Act is fanciful. The Science and Technology Committee did indeed say that there was a danger of ARIA being stifled by bureaucracy, but it was referring not to freedom of information requests from the public and other interested parties, but to micromanagement by Government. That sounds far more likely and realistic.

The US body, DARPA, is subject to FOI. As one would expect, its budget is considerably larger, yet it gets about 50 FOIA requests a year. Comparisons have been made with UK Research and Innovation—a much larger organisation that brings together many different bodies in the sector. It gets about 20 FOIA requests per calendar month. There is no expectation that ARIA will be swamped by FOIA requests. Where they are appropriate, such requests are telling and essential, and they can bring important facts to light.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot see how ARIA will not be subject to environmental information regulations, which are the parallel regime of discovery. It seems to me entirely anomalous that one should be in and one should be out, and it may be that we would be breaching our Aarhus convention obligations. Breaching international treaties from time to time does not seem to bother this Government—I am not sure what other explanation there could be.

It is in the public interest for freedom of information to be exercised where possible. In this instance it is certainly possible, and I hope I have given some reasons why it is entirely appropriate. It was a good action by the Labour Government at the time to bring the FOI Act into force. Since then, successive Governments and Ministers—not only Conservative Ministers—have railed against it, but there have been independent investigations. The Burns commission, which was widely perceived to be a case of the Conservative Government trying to do a hatchet job on the Act, found that the Act was working well. In its inquiry, the Justice Committee—a fine body of men and women—also found that the Act was working well. The Supreme Court has spoken very strongly in favour, saying that there is a strong public interest in the press and the general public having the right, subject to appropriate safeguards, to require public authorities to provide information about their activities. That is right, and it is particularly right that it applies to ARIA. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again about the rather misguided steps they are taking.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

The UK has a long and proud tradition of science and innovation, and nowhere has this been seen more clearly than in the success of the NHS vaccine roll-out. It is because of our existing science and technology infrastructure that vaccines have been both successfully produced and rolled out in the UK and, indeed, further afield. It is British vaccines developed across the regions, including my own region, the north-east, that are allowing us to return to some form of normality. They show us all the incredible benefits that cutting-edge science and technology can provide. Any further investment in long-term, high-ambition research and development is of course welcome, but the proposals for ARIA in the Bill do not provide it with a clear purpose or mission.

I believe that ARIA must have a clear mission to offer a societal return on taxpayer investment. The Bill is an opportunity for the Government to establish a mission-led funding agency that can benefit everyone in every part of the country. ARIA must not be used to pursue vanity projects that offer no return for the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Solloway]

I add my thanks to your team, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a taskforce that has been looking into how to support universities. It has enabled us to set up a stability fund, which will enable R&D to continue in our institutions. In addition, in the roadmap, which contains the place strategy, we are talking about lots of levelling up. We are making sure we have the opportunity to take this forward and become the science superpower that we all want to be.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to help the events sector recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

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

As the Prime Minister announced last week, from 1 October the Government intend to allow audiences to return to stadiums around the country. Conferences and other business events can also recommence in a covid-19 secure way, subject to the outcome of pilots.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Government are really missing the point on this. The thing about events, meetings, conferences, exhibitions and wedding receptions is that they are organised and regulated, and yet they are more constrained at the moment than pubs and restaurants. Rather than talk about pilots and permitted venues that are not defined in the guidance, will the Government look at a faster and fuller opening of the sector before October?

[Paul Scully]

We took evidence from a number of areas, including the wedding industry, and we have the “Safer Events: A Framework for Action” White Paper. All those people will feed into that discussion. Weddings are essentially parties, and we need to ensure that they can be regulated in a covid-19-secure way. I will meet the wedding industry associations again tomorrow to continue discussions in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate I committed to developing and testing the ability for mandatory registration of electrical products, which is something we are looking at. It was initiated in a discussion at the Consumer Protection Partnership last Thursday, and we are hoping to get outcomes in the near future.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government have known for four years that there were 5.5 million Whirlpool tumble dryers in homes across the UK that were liable to catch fire. Last month, the Minister gave notice that she intended to order the recall of those dryers still in use, but now she has agreed a voluntary recall with the company. Will she reconsider that and use the powers she has? If she does not, how will we know that Whirlpool is taking this seriously?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern in this regard. He is absolutely correct to say that we issued a notice of intent to recall on Whirlpool. It submitted its proposal, which we assessed. We also took advice from an expert panel, comprising an independent QC and chief scientific officers from the Health and Safety Executive, the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We decided not only to accept the proposal, which has been published, but to issue a regulation 28 notice with regard to further information that needs to be shared with the OPSS, so that we can review the recall process.

Recall of Tumble Dryers

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on his decision to recall 500,000 unsafe tumble dryers manufactured by Whirlpool UK.

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

The Government take the safety of electrical products very seriously. For our children, relatives and families, we all want our homes to be places of safety and security. I provided an update to the House at departmental questions last week on the most recent steps taken by the Office for Product Safety and Standards in respect of Whirlpool tumble dryers. This follows the OPSS review of the actions taken by Whirlpool in relation to its corrective action. The findings of the review were published on 4 April. The OPSS review examined in detail the modification programme put in place by Whirlpool as well as technical documents supplied by Whirlpool. The review concluded that the risk posed by modified tumble dryers is low.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards produced a list of required actions for the business to take, and Whirlpool was given 28 days to respond, outlining the actions that it would take. The response received from Whirlpool was considered to be inadequate. As a result, the OPSS has written to Whirlpool to inform the company of its intention to serve a recall notice under the provisions of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 in respect of the unmodified tumble dryers that remain in homes in the UK. As required by law, Whirlpool was given 10 days’ notice of that intention, which allowed it time to submit its views prior to the service of the recall notice or to seek arbitration in line with the provisions in the GPSR. Officials in the OPSS are reviewing Whirlpool’s response to determine whether it fully meets the requirements laid down in the draft recall notice.

At this time, all enforcement options remain on the table, including serving a formal recall notice. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further while the legal process is ongoing, but I will update the House in due course. It is important to stress that consumers who have had their affected tumble dryers modified can continue to use them and that those with an unmodified affected tumble dryer have been urged to unplug them and to contact Whirlpool. I encourage all consumers to register their appliances to ensure they receive updates on product modification and recalls. The OPSS will continue to monitor the situation closely and will take any steps it deems appropriate to ensure that consumers in the UK continue to enjoy the high levels of protection they have come to expect.

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank the Minister for her response, although, given the lack of action by Whirlpool, and indeed the Government, over a four-year period, there are many questions to be asked. If they cannot all be answered today, I would be grateful if she could write to me and perhaps meet me and other interested Members, as this is clearly an ongoing matter.

The fire that destroyed 20 flats in a 19-storey block in my constituency in 2016 was one of hundreds of fires caused by over 100 models of tumble dryer manufactured between 2004 and 2015 by companies now all owned by Whirlpool, but when I met Whirlpool a couple of weeks ago, it could not even say how many reports of fires it was receiving each week. This is the most serious consumer safety issue for many years. At one stage, it was estimated that one in six households in the UK had a faulty Whirlpool tumble dryer in use. Why has it taken four years to reach this point, despite repeated requests for recall from the fire brigade and others? What steps will the Government now take to ensure that unmodified dryers are recalled? I heard what the Minister said, but anything less than a recall now would be considered wholly inadequate.

What is the basis for the estimate of 300,000 to 500,000 unmodified machines in service, given that 5.5 million were sold and only 5,000 have been modified since Whirlpool estimated itself that there were 1 million unmodified dryers in December 2017? If it goes ahead, how will the recall process work, as a matter of law and in practice, given that, as the Minister said, it is unprecedented? What progress has the OPSS made on setting up the recall database that we were promised would be live by the end of this year? What further advice is being given to the owners of Whirlpool tumble dryers? Why has Whirlpool still not published on its website the list of model numbers affected, and why is it refusing to give one to Which? and Electrical Safety First? Why did the advice change from the OPSS? It seemed quite happy with the advice in April. Will the Government look again at the modification process and at the evidence compiled by Which? saying that the modified machines are still liable to catch fire?

Finally, does the Minister agree with what her predecessor, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), said in asking the planted question last week, which is that there remain grave concerns about the “straightness” of Whirlpool? What will the Government do about this company, which has flouted the rules here? Is it not time to get tough?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern, specifically for his constituency, given the desperately sad incident that occurred there. He is absolutely right to ask these questions and raise these concerns, as would be any consumer who believed they were at risk.

We carried out the review at the behest of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who ordered a review of the Whirlpool modification process in 2018. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the review looked at the effectiveness of the technical modification and the adequacy of the outreach programme. It concluded that the risk was low, and was further reduced by the modification. Following the review, we issued a 28-day notice letter to Whirlpool, specifying issues on which we wanted more information and assurances. We were unsatisfied by its response, which is why, on 4 June, we issued a letter of intent of notice of a recall.

Following conversations that I had with the hon. Gentleman last week, he wrote to me at the end of the week asking for a meeting. As I said to him last week, I should be more than happy to meet him to discuss any of his concerns about the ongoing process. My absolute intention is to ensure that we hold companies to account when we do not believe that they are carrying out their legal obligation, which is to place safe products on the market.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to be concerned about the future prevention of fires. I can tell him that, according to Home Office data, there were 224 fires caused by tumble dryers in 2017-18, a 10% reduction on the previous year’s figure of 808. We will obviously do all that is required to ensure that consumers are kept free of harm. We are following due process, in line with the regulations, in order to ensure that Whirlpool carries out its obligations.

I am more than happy to answer any further questions from the hon. Gentleman in detail as the process continues, and, as I have said, I am also more than happy to meet any colleague at any time.

Points of Order

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think this has some relevance to security, and the Chair would not normally pronounce on such matters in the Chamber, but I want to reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, because it is important and potentially has ramifications for other Members and groups. Rather than give a knee-jerk response that is insufficiently considered, I will give a considered response at a later date. I hope that will be helpful. If I may say so—and I will—“mundane” and the right hon. Gentleman simply do not go together.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a brief answer in Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy topical questions yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who, helpfully, is on the Treasury Bench, announced that she intended to order the recall of 500,000 tumble dryers made by Whirlpool UK, an action that she described as “unprecedented”. In fact, over 5 million such machines were manufactured with a fault that makes them liable to burst into flames without warning, and they have caused several hundred fires, including one in a 19-storey block of flats in my constituency that destroyed 20 flats and could have caused serious loss of life.

This is the most serious consumer safety issue for many years, yet we have had no statement from the Government on when and how the recall will take place, and why it has taken four years for them to act. I am wondering whether you, Mr Speaker—perhaps with the assistance of the Minister—can say how these matters will be addressed in this House.

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

rose—

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify what I announced in the House yesterday. Since the Office for Product Safety and Standards review, we have kept Whirlpool’s actions under review. A letter was issued to Whirlpool, which was given 28 days to respond, and it did just that. We have informed it of our intention to issue a recall. That is part of the regulatory process. That is what I was updating the House on. We had 10 days to inform Whirlpool of that, and I believe that Friday is the deadline for that. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).

[Andy Slaughter]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

It may well be the summit of the hon. Lady’s parliamentary ambition to satisfy the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), but it may be that some years—or possibly decades, from my experience—are required before she can hope to attain that dizzy height. The hon. Gentleman does not look particularly satisfied. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady has discharged her obligations to the House, and we are grateful to her for doing so. If, as I surmise from the hon. Gentleman’s countenance, he remains dissatisfied, he knows that there are means by which he can secure fuller ministerial attention to this matter, and the House’s attention to it, in days to come.

Post Office Network

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to the point he raises further into my speech.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am more cynical than my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore); I have had a temporary closure that has lasted four years and I have four temporary closures. The Post Office knows that permanent closures get a lot of opposition, so temporary closures and downgrading Crown post offices to the back of WHSmith is its way of undermining the network while muting public opposition. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is obviously not fooled in that way.

[Marion Fellows]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have a temporary postmaster still in office in Wishaw after the sub-post office there was temporarily closed last year.

What the public are seeing is yet another managed decline of a valued public asset driven by a Tory ideology of non-intervention. The public are, through their elected Government, the owners of Post Office Ltd. They feel and have let their elected Members know that the Government should be driving action to ensure the sustainability and promotion of the post office network. I hope the Minister will outline not only the actions her Department has taken, but the further actions she will take in response to the concerns of communities, postmasters and Members here today.

The main issue undermining the sustainability of the post office network is the postmaster crisis. At the root of that is sub-postmaster pay. Scottish National party MPs and Members from all parties have heard over and again from their local sub- postmasters about how poor pay is a leading cause of closures in their constituencies; I have even had sub-postmasters contact me from England to complain about the level of pay they are receiving.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters—the organisation that represents sub-postmasters across the UK—has said that two thirds of branch closures are due to sub-postmaster resignations, and they have attributed that to low pay. Sub-postmasters’ general conditions are also poor, with as many as one third taking no time off at all last year.

A survey released this month by the National Federation of SubPostmasters found that one in five towns could lose its post office in the next year. Of the 1,000 workers surveyed, 22% plan to hand in their keys, pass on their branch or downsize. The Post Office’s 2017-18 annual report states that sub-postmasters’ pay has fallen by £17 million in one year. That is a 4.4% cut. Sub-postmasters sustained a brutal £27 million cut the year before. Looking at postmasters’ pay in the long term, we see that it has declined by £107 million since 2012.

As part of Post Office Ltd’s North Star initiative to create a profit of £100 million by 2021, it used cuts to sub-postmasters’ pay to increase its profits from £13 million to £35 million in 2017-18. That is while the majority of sub-postmasters earn less than the minimum wage for running a vital public service in their communities.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

[Liz McInnes]

Follow that.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will, but in my own manner and style. [Interruption.] Do not worry, there is no risk of passion. It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. We have not quite had 48 Members talking about posting letters today, but I hope you feel at home nevertheless. Labour Members are much less fractious, which is helpful.

We have had such a high turnout because of the excellent timeliness of the debate. We have had a good debate, and that is thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who always captures the zeitgeist. As a former Hammersmith Broadway councillor, she will know how much we have grievously suffered in Hammersmith and Fulham from the depletion of the post office network. Indeed, the Crown post office in her ex-ward moved some years ago and was franchised into WHSmith. In the past few weeks and months, I have had complaints about the service operating there.

One by one, we have lost every Crown post office through closure or through their being stuffed into a WHSmith branch. Last year, we had one left, which was the Shepherds Bush post office on Shepherds Bush Green. It is a good site and a dedicated building, and it is quite famous, because one of its frequent customers was the comedian Richard Herring. When he had his Metro column, he used to write about the Shepherds Bush post office and the more eccentric members of the constituency who he used to meet on his almost daily travels there. It was a good, friendly place, and it had wonderful staff with long service there. It was a busy branch, made more so by the fact, as is often the case in town centres nowadays, that banks were closing branches and referring people to the post office. We thought it was good.

Last year, we were told that the post office had to move because the lease was up on the building and the landlord was redeveloping. Reluctantly, we accepted that. I spent a long time helping to look for another site in the town centre. I spoke to the local shopping centre and we tried to provide something else, but talking to the Post Office is like banging one’s head against a brick wall, because the only deal in town is WHSmith. I do not know what the commercial terms are, but I suspect that the Post Office gets the space for free, or something like that, because WHSmith is so desperate to increase footfall in its pretty lousy shops. The Post Office is made an offer it cannot refuse on those terms. That is what happened.

The post office closed and moved a five or 10-minute walk away, depending on mobility, to the Westfield shopping centre. As we have heard, the office is hidden away in the back of a WHSmith with no natural daylight. Because it is the largest shopping centre in Europe and has a good footfall, the office has survived and kept its busyness and activity, but with a completely different clientele. I am glad to see that we have the support of the National Pensioners Convention and many disability rights groups in pointing out that it is not just about the facilities in the post office, but about the accessibility. Most of the elderly and local people who used to use that post office now go to sub-post offices half a mile or a mile away because they are more accessible than where the Crown post office has moved to. None the less, things continued.

The one thing we were told was that, despite the disruption and despite moving to a less favourable and less convenient location, the branch would remain a Crown post office. In all the meetings I had with the Post Office—this was only a year ago—it said that the branch would be a Crown post office with all the advantages of that. Guess what? When the wholesale franchising and closure programme was announced last year, we found out that, no, the branch would become franchised and part of the WHSmith network.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and many others, I pay tribute to the CWU, which has run an effective campaign drawing attention to the issue. The Post Office thought it could get away with it because the public would not notice a change in ownership. The changes were not necessarily, as was the case with Shepherds Bush, about moving the facility, so the Post Office thought there would no apparent change. The CWU has done an excellent job in drawing attention to the matter, because the implications are severe.

To take the example of Shepherds Bush, the manager will leave and retire after more than 20 years’ service. She has been excellent. Half the staff are similarly going to take the settlements on offer and go. The others all want to move elsewhere in the post office network, to those few Crown post offices and other services that remain open. Not one wants to join WHSmith, even though some of the staff at Shepherds Bush have already moved there from other Crown post offices closed in the recent past, including the Acton post office in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).

Why do people not want to work for WHSmith? It is not too difficult to work out. When I looked at the new rosters, sometimes less than half the number of staff will be on duty. I was there just before Christmas, and it is a busy office with queues, yet WHSmith thinks that where five staff are on at the moment, it can manage with two in future. That is bad for the customers and for staff, too. The terms and conditions are appalling in terms of pensions, holiday and pay. People will be on the minimum wage and could be on half the pay they would have earned as an experienced postal worker working for the Post Office. I am sure that many of the staff at WHSmith try to do a very good job, but as an employer it is appalling. Anyone who does not believe me should follow the Twitter account, @WHS_Carpet, which is a rather tongue-in-cheek look at the extraordinary way in which that business conducts itself. We do not know whether it will have a future. What a risk to take, putting post offices into those stores.

I am afraid that Post Office Ltd has shown a contempt for very loyal staff, who have often stayed with it over many years. It has also shown an attitude of defeatism. Where is the leadership? Where is the confidence in the services that it provides? There is none. It is all about cutting back.

That comes on top of a number of other initiatives that have depleted the network. I know that we are not talking about sub-post offices today, but within the last two to three years I have also had three sub-post offices—two of which were the nearest ones to Shepherd’s Bush Green—close “temporarily”. I think one has been temporarily closed for more than three years now, on the basis that we cannot find anywhere for it to go.

Overall, the service that is available is becoming worse, and for those who rely on it, which is still many people, there are longer distances to travel and longer queues to stand in. I would like to know from the Minister what the justification is for paying out quite large sums from the public purse to try to induce members of staff to retire, move on or take redundancy at this point. Presumably that only helps WHSmith, because it does not have to inherit those staff under TUPE conditions.

I would like to know what happens to all the equipment in the post offices. Very expensive and often quite new equipment has been fitted there. Is that simply handed over to WHSmith, or are payments made? I would like to know why senior managers in Post Office Ltd have received 7%—in some cases 9%—pay rises this year, given what they are presiding over. The staff have received less than 3%.

I feel that I have been misled over what has happened in relation to the post office network in my constituency. I also think that the Communication Workers Union and the staff have been misled, because they have worked in good faith over many years to try to ensure that the business is profitable. That has meant, in some cases, reducing staffing—by agreement and in the proper way, through collective bargaining—in a joint effort and in the belief that the management were sincere in their efforts to ensure that this viable Crown network would survive. All they have actually achieved is to do the dirty work of the Post Office, which now has fewer staff that it has to pass over to WHSmith. That makes it easier to do, but even so, it is relying on money.

There has not been a proper public consultation. I was struck by the comment from Post Office Ltd to the all-party parliamentary group that this is

“a commercial decision for us, not them”,

“them” being the public. This is a matter of great concern to the public, and it has not been given proper consultation or publicity.

I end by asking the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, a moratorium on the closures and changes. Please can we look again at the network, and have a proper review of services before we proceed in this way? Otherwise we will stumble through this and be back here again in six months to a year facing more closures of Crown post offices, until the network does not exist at all. It is part of our heritage, and part of something that we can be very proud of in this country. It still provides an excellent public service where it operates, and we are letting down not only the organisation’s staff, but all the customers who rely on post offices across mine and each one of our constituencies.