Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[Gill Furniss]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Liz McInnes]

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

[Gill Furniss]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

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

[Gill Furniss]

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

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

[Gill Furniss]

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

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

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

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

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

Fuel Poverty

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fireworks: Public Sales

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

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

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

[Gill Furniss]

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

[Kelly Tolhurst]

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

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

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Textile Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 General Committees

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

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

We should be proud that the UK has often been a beacon for consumer protections in the EU and globally, with countries across the world looking to our consumer protection laws. Unfortunately, consumers have been left in limbo since the Brexit vote in June 2016, with little assurance about whether they will continue to enjoy the same rights and protections or what the Government’s Brexit agenda will mean in that regard.

The deal announced last week mentions a level playing field for consumer protection for the transition period, but fails to address the future of consumer protection after Brexit, so there are still vast uncertainties for consumers. The Government have failed to properly engage with consumer groups about Brexit, especially at the highest level. That is an abdication of their duty to UK consumers, who collectively put £100 billion into the economy each month.

The regulations are technical and aim to ensure a smooth transition after 29 March 2019. They amend legislation in the field of labelling and composition of textile products. They transfer powers to the Secretary of State to recognise new textile fibre names and testing methods, amend the language that must be used to label textiles and transfer labelling obligations to importers into the United Kingdom.

In principle, we do not oppose what are, on the face of it, technical changes, but I am still not clear about questions of jurisdiction and enforceability after Brexit, as I mentioned in a Westminster Hall debate on consumer protection and Brexit in October 2017. For example, it is crucial that we maintain cross-border consumer protection so that consumers have the confidence and security that the products they are purchasing are safe, but the Government have not been clear about how they will ensure that those mechanisms are ready to go after 29 March, and indeed after the transition period.

As the head of consumer policy at Citizens Advice said in evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union,

“It is one thing to say that the rule of law applies, but if there is no right to compensation when travelling abroad, or purchasing from an EU trader, if the cross-border agreements are not there to back it up it is not worth as much as it would suggest.”

Does the Minister have any further details about that? On the regulations, what mechanisms will be in place after Brexit to ensure that any differential changes in future textile product arrangements are enforced accordingly? What impact will any divergence in regulation have on consumer rights and confidence in the UK?

Although not explicitly stated, the regulations will be enforced by local trading standards bodies, but cuts to local authorities since 2010, which have led to some local authorities’ services being cut by in excess of 50% according to a Chartered Trading Standards Institute study, have diminished trading standards’ ability to properly inform and enforce consumer protection laws. There has been a 56% reduction in the number of trading standards officers from 2009 to 2016 according to the National Audit Office, leaving some services with just one qualified officer.

What assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the draft order’s increasing the workload of already financially stretched local trading standards services following the UK’s exit from the EU? Will further funds will be allocated to trading standards to accommodate the extra workload? The Office for Product Safety and Standards is a step forward.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Perhaps I was not listening to the Minister as carefully as the hon. Lady, but the Minister told us that the European Commission does not enforce the EU regulations itself. Those powers are domestic, so the draft order will not actually present a change on the ground.

[Gill Furniss]

My point is that the 50% cuts to trading standards are already having an impact on protecting people’s rights in this country. The Minister has given me absolutely no evidence that there will be further funding. I ask her to consider that, because these services are already very pressed. I have already pointed out that many local authorities have only one officer. On the Whirlpool issue, Peterborough has been pulled out because it has become the country’s major trading standards service for dealing with those very dangerous products.

Finally, is the testing infrastructure and particularly expertise in place to undertake the testing of textiles? If so, will further funds be required to sustain an adequate level of testing following the UK’s exit? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions raised.

Former Steelworks Site in Redcar

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing this important debate. She is a champion not just for her constituents, but for steel communities across our country, and her passion for her local area shone through her speech.

It is clear that, out of crisis, there is an opportunity that must be seized. The news over three years ago that the Redcar blast furnace would be finally turned off was a terrible blow to all of us from steel communities. The closure of SSI marked the time when our country’s steel crisis first made headlines, as steel manufacturing ended in a region that had shaped the industry for 150 years. Despite emerging in the wake of the devastation of such huge job losses, the local master plan represents the best of regeneration. It unites the region around a plan that is ambitious for the communities and businesses of south Tees, and aims to create 20,000 jobs.

As the recent BBC series “The Mighty Redcar” highlighted so well, Redcar is a brilliant town. However, the investment needed to make the plan succeed is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar laid out, there are huge complexities in securing land and delivering plans. There is a simple truth here: in the last two years, the Government have not been shy of announcing funds and special schemes, or of sprinkling ministerial visits to the site, but the words are not yet matched by delivery of anything like the funds needed. As has been said, much of the funding announced is for the most basic security and remediation work. The Government have a legal duty to keep the site safe, so much of the vaunted £118 million in last year’s Budget is to be used to comply with their legal duty to fund the site and to protect the public from industrial hazards.

The money for specific investment schemes is welcome, but it is far too little. Much more finance is required to complete the most basic infrastructure and land assembly works, let alone create an essential and inspiring mixed-use site at Redcar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, companies were seriously looking to invest, but now have cold feet because of the Government’s failure to promise the real funds needed for the site.

Public funding has the power to unlock private investment, but it needs to be at a level that gives confidence to investors that the Government stand behind the scheme. Will the Minister use the opportunity he has this morning to outline specifically what further funding the Government will allocate to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the master plan? Will he also confirm that there will be a commitment to the additional powers suggested by my hon. Friends who have spoken so eloquently today, which could help bring the delays to an end? Will he give clarity on the very serious issues surrounding the airport, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)?

Examples such as this of essential schemes being delayed by this Government’s failure to commit highlight why Labour’s infrastructure plans are so important. Success with schemes of this complexity and size is not won cheaply. We must invest to get the outcome that Redcar, the Tees valley and the whole country need. The next Labour Government will have communities such as Redcar at the heart of their programme, and I know that as our infrastructure plans are developed in detail, Teesside will not be forgotten.

I want to make something very clear. The closure of SSI was a consequence of a Government with no plan for steel—a Government who stood by as a great industry teetered on the brink and, in the case of Redcar, closed for the last time. This is an important point, because no doubt we are about to hear from the Minister—although I hesitate to put words in his mouth—about millions of pounds committed for Redcar and the site, special economic zones, and the work that the Government are doing. We should remember this: SSI Redcar collapsed because there was no policy to support British steelmaking properly, on energy costs, on taxation or on investment.

The tragedy is that we have seen very few steps forward in the last three years. Energy costs for British steelmakers are still 50% more than for European competitors, and calls for a fairer business rates system for large producers have been met with silence in Whitehall. Crucially, we still have no steel sector deal for our industry to bring together comprehensive action.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gill Furniss]

I am sorry; we must get on.

We have waited more than a year since steel companies set out what was needed, but we are yet to see action from this Government. Without that and wider industrial regeneration, there is little safety for other steel towns, and there is not the environment that will deliver success for south Tees.

This summer, Labour launched the Build it in Britain campaign, committing a Labour Government to using the capacity and expertise of Britain’s industries to fulfil far more of the country’s infrastructure needs. A Labour Government would have prevented the collapse of SSI Redcar, stepping in where this Tory Government were unwilling to save jobs and expertise to support the economy.

There will be a future for the south Tees site; I am sure of that. With great Labour women such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and council leader Sue Jeffrey fighting for their area, I am confident there can be huge success.

I have to say that I found the remarks by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) about the former MP for Redcar, the late Marjorie Mowlam, very distasteful. [Interruption.] You referred to Mo Mowlam.

[Anna Turley]

The remarks were directed at my predecessor, Vera Baird, but my hon. Friend makes an important point, and I totally agree that the remarks were disrespectful; Vera Baird did her best in extremely difficult circumstances. I come back to the point that unlike the Conservative Government, the Labour Government saved the steelworks, which were reopened.

[Gill Furniss]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

To conclude, the Government must properly back this fantastic opportunity, not just for Redcar’s sake, but for our future economy. If they cannot deliver the ambitious plan that the South Tees Development Corporation master plan lays out, a Labour Government will.

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

It is customary in Westminster Hall debates to say what a privilege it is to appear in front of the Chair. In your case, Mrs Moon, that is absolutely true. I am greatly honoured to do so.

[Gill Furniss]

Charmer!

[Richard Harrington]

Just currying favour with the Chair—but it is actually genuinely true. One of the most interesting days I have had in this job was spent visiting Mrs Moon and her constituency.

I thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing the debate. These are very important topical points and I congratulate her on the consistency of her representations on this project. The whole area is very lucky to have the MPs that it does—the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and the other MPs who have spoken today. It is also lucky to have the Mayor, Ben Houchen.

There is a bit of an undertone of “who said what where”. That is not for me to go into, but I make a plea to all parties, including those not in the room, that these matters are much better dealt with on a consensual, cross-party basis. If anybody feels that I and my office can help in that, I am very pleased to offer that help.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Realising the full economic and social benefits of the excellent research at our universities is at the heart of our industrial strategy. Through United Kingdom Research and Innovation, our industrial strategy challenge fund and the higher education innovation fund, excellent research can be commercialised and translated into businesses that create jobs and growth.

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

Only last week, the publicly owned Post Office announced the closure of a further 74 Crown post offices. Although the Post Office has not disclosed all its spending for its franchising programme, the Communication Workers Union estimates that up to £30 million of public money will be spent on compromise agreements, with staff being paid to leave, as customers, local high streets and the jobs market suffer. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Post Office must be transparent about how much its franchising programme is costing the public purse?

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

On 11 October, the Post Office announced a plan to relocate 40 post offices in WHSmith stores. The overall number of post offices will not be reduced. WHSmith will also reach a franchise agreement for the 33 post offices that are already in its stores, so the total number of post offices operated by WHSmith in its stores is planned to rise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I have met my hon. Friend to discuss his Bill, and we fully understand that the practice of retention has caused problems for the construction industry supply chain. We are fully committed to tackling the issue, but any action we take needs to be robust, proportionate and evidence-based. We have listened and consulted, and we will shortly be publishing the response to a public consultation considering several options including a retention deposit scheme.

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

UK steelmakers are paying up to 50% more for their electricity than their European counterparts, which is reducing their competitiveness on the global stage. Ofgem’s targeted charging review is set to exacerbate the situation. What representation has the Minister made to Ofgem regarding its review and the effect of that review on both the steel sector and energy-intensive industries in the UK?

[Richard Harrington]

We meet Ofgem very regularly to discuss this and other matters, and we are very aware of the situation. As the hon. Lady knows, I have met many companies in the steel industry and discussed this, and it is very much part of our discussions with Ofgem and others.