Rolls-Royce Redundancies

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that aerospace is one of the sectors in which our already strong reputation is growing. Through the industrial strategy, we are making a big investment in research and development and also in training, including retraining, so that an expanding industry can have access to the skills that it needs in the future. This will benefit her constituents and those of many others around the country.

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

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for securing this important urgent question. This is deeply disturbing news, not just for the city of Derby, which relies heavily on Rolls-Royce for local employment, but for the sector as a whole. Despite Rolls-Royce making a substantial profit of £4.9 billion last year, this recent restructuring means that more than 4,000 workers will lose their jobs. This is on top of 5,000 job cuts already announced by the company after a series of rationalisation programmes. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the company to ensure that it will honour previous commitments that there will be no compulsory redundancies?

Will the Secretary of State also outline what assessment the Government have made of the economic impact on local communities that are reliant on Rolls-Royce jobs? There is a real risk that redundancies of this scale will have a detrimental effect on the future of skills in a sector with a substantial skills gap. What action will he take to ensure that these vital skills are not lost? What measures will the Government take to directly support a reinvigorated local industrial strategy? Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he has made any assessment of the causes and of the potential knock-on effect on jobs in the supply chain, and what steps he is taking to support the automotive and aerospace sector more generally?

Draft Package Travel and linked travel arrangements regulations 2018

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 General Committees

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

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

Consumers often buy package holidays a long time in advance. They often spend a considerable amount of money on a holiday, including flights and hotels, and sometimes more, such as car rentals. According to the data in the impact assessment for the draft regulations:

“Households spend on average £22.10 per week on package holidays which constitutes 33% of total spending on recreation and culture.”

Indeed, with the rise of the internet and the boom in low-cost airlines, the way we book our holidays has changed significantly since the original package travel directive was introduced in 1990.

However, the risks involved are ever present, including the risk of insolvency of the trader, leaving consumers stranded; accommodation providers going bust; and difficulty accessing information, help or redress, to name but a few. It is therefore fitting that the law should change and modernise, to catch up with the changes in technology and in the attitudes and habits of consumers, so that they are protected from such risks.

In a nutshell, the draft regulations will widen the definition of a package holiday to encompass modern methods of purchasing package holidays, particularly online. They will create a new concept of linked travel arrangements, which are looser combinations of travel services, and introduce limited protection for consumers who purchase them. Bookings defined as limited travel arrangements will require financial protection against the risk of a company going into insolvency but will not carry the liabilities of a package.

An important element of the draft regulations is the mutual recognition of insolvency protection. Insolvency protection was an important feature of the 1990 directive and the 1992 regulations. It remains an important feature of the PTD 2015, but has now been overhauled to provide for mutual recognition of insolvency protection schemes between member states. The 1990 directive required only that member states have an insolvency protection regime. As a result, implementation across the EU was inconsistent. The PTD 2015 requires member states to recognise each other’s insolvency protection schemes and prohibits the imposition of additional requirements on foreign organisers. That means that organisers will be required only to comply with the insolvency protection scheme in the member state in which they are established, and in doing so will be deemed to be compliant across the EU.

However, the effect that mutual recognition of insolvency protection will have on regulatory behaviour is unclear. Fears have been raised that member states will engage in a deregulation arms race to attract business, to the detriment of consumers. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of mutual recognition on regulatory behaviour? How can he assure us that this will not in any way hamper consumer choice and protection?

As the impact assessment outlines, businesses will have to become familiar with the changes in PTD 2015 to comply with the regulations. It also estimates that

“businesses offering packages that would be new in scope of PTD 2015 would face costs of £20.88 million for ensuring proper performance of a package.”

I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will develop guidance to inform stakeholders and businesses.

During the scandal that resulted in the cancellation of thousands of flights by Ryanair and Monarch Airlines in 2017, an undercover Which? investigation discovered that vital ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—protection is misunderstood at some travel companies, including Thomas Cook, one of Britain’s best-known agents. At the time, Which? travel editor, Rory Boland, said:

“Atol registered companies need to improve the accuracy of the information they are providing to their customers, and companies registered abroad must do more to inform customers in the UK about what protections they will be covered by.”

How will the Minister ensure and enforce the policy, so that companies are providing up-to-date and accurate information to consumers? What steps will he take to check whether these standards are being upheld? If they are not, what action will he take against companies that do not provide accurate and correct information?

Part 7 of the draft statutory instrument deals with the enforcement of the regulations. Under this provision, trading standards will be responsible for the enforcement of the following provisions of information: content of package, insolvency protection and offence arising from breach of regulation. The regulations contain a number of criminal offences in relation to failure to provide, and the authority to enforce the regulation falls largely on local authority trading standards departments. Local trading bodies, however, have particularly suffered severe cuts since 2010, when this Government came to power. The Government’s own consumer Green Paper admitted that this has diminished their ability to enforce consumer rights adequately. On page 57 it says that

“the capacity of Local Authorities to take national cases has reduced. Two-thirds of English local authorities have reported not having the expertise to cover fully the range of statutory duties required of trading standards teams.”

Will the Minister announce further funding specifically for trading standards bodies, so that the regulation is properly enforced? If not, the implication is that it might not be adequately monitored and enforced.

As the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, what will this mean for such legislation? Will the Minister outline what representation he is making to the member of the Cabinet negotiating on Brexit with regard to such vital consumer protections? How will they be enforced following our departure? While Labour Members support the objectives and content of the measure, I would be grateful if the Minister responded to the questions I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady will know that, way above my paygrade, detailed negotiations are taking place. She will also know the phrase, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” which I must repeat. I reassure her that the UK has a great reputation and tradition of being at the forefront of protecting consumer rights. We do not need the EU to tell us how to protect the rights of our citizens and our consumers. We were at the forefront of the free market and of bringing in these protections.

I reassure the hon. Lady not only that these regulations will be copied across, as it were, on the day that we leave the European Union, but that ongoing and positive discussions are taking place to ensure that our consumers are protected when travelling abroad and buying packages or linked travel arrangements across the EU, and that European tourists can have confidence in buying packages from UK operators in future, knowing that their rights will be protected. UK consumer protection rights are based on EU law and they will be retained wherever practical.

There were a number of questions in relation to trading standards departments and their adequacy in providing the resources to support consumers in future. The hon. Lady will know that, through my Department, trading standards receives an annual budget of approximately £40 million, which has been pretty static in recent years. I agree that there are increasing demands on trading standards in a more complex world, in relation to package travel as well as consumer protections and safety. That is why the Government took the bold decision to set up the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which we debated last week, to give extra resource to trading standards across the country and act as a repository of information and expert advice. This year, the Government are putting an additional £9 million into that office and, in future, that budget will be £12 million. I reassure the Committee that the Government are putting extra resources into supporting our trading standards officers across the country.

[Gill Furniss]

I would like to ask the Minister what I probably asked him last week when we debated product safety. Clearly, the £9 million is intended to support the functions of the new office, not the functions of the thing that we are actually debating.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is, yet again, a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir David, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important and extremely topical debate. I also thank the all-party group on home electrical safety, Which?, Electrical Safety First, and the BBC’s “Watchdog”—I apologise to anyone who I may have missed, because many people are interested in this issue.

The safety and security of their citizens must be the No. 1 priority for all Governments, but in recent years we have witnessed a series of fires that have haunted the nation. The Grenfell tragedy is suspected to have been caused by a faulty fridge freezer, although, as several hon. Members have said, we are still waiting for the independent inquiry to verify that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised with Ministers the tragic case of the Wilson family in her constituency. John Wilson was killed, and his wife and daughter seriously injured, in a house fire and explosion caused by a faulty fridge freezer. The model in question was known to be a fire hazard and was subject to a product safety notice. However, the family had not been informed, and the coroner found that the manufacturer had not taken sufficient steps to warn customers. Those are just some of the tragic stories.

After years of reviews and consultations, in January the Government finally announced the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, a new body that will

“enhance protection for consumers and the environment”.

Given its name, I was somewhat surprised when I checked its website and found that “product safety” featured at the end of its list of priorities. Indeed, when scrolling through OPSS’s social media account, there is little mention of the steps that it is taking to enhance product safety, or how it is tackling current product safety issues. I am therefore delighted to join other Members in seeking clarification from the Minister about what the scope and nature of the OPSS will be.

That the product safety regime is out of date and not fit for purpose has been evident for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, only a couple of weeks ago after a widespread investigation by Which?, it was revealed that, further to previous investigations, companies such as Whirlpool are

“failing to give full and appropriate safety advice when contacted about fire-risk tumble dryer models”.

That is a clear breach of Whirlpool’s legal obligations under the safety notice and could mean that it is breaking product safety law.

That investigation is part of an ongoing two-year campaign that calls for a full recall of those unsafe products. The fact that the matter has not yet been properly resolved represents an abdication of the manufacturers’ and the Government’s duties to consumers. The OPSS presents an initial opportunity to ensure that that is dealt with, but despite the Minister’s promise to get to work right away, there has been no response. I understand that the body is still new, but if that reflects how it will operate in future, that is disappointing and a far cry from what consumers need to protect themselves against faulty goods. Shockingly, 1 million Whirlpool tumble dryers subject to a safety notice are still in the homes of consumers, and I fear it is only a matter of time before the next tragedy.

I have some pressing questions for the Minister. Is the OPSS looking into the claims made by the Which? investigation, and, if so, what steps is it taking to respond to that urgent investigation? Will the Minister set out clearly the process through which this body will deal with any future investigations? I am pleased that the Government are soon expected to launch their strategy for the OPSS—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith strongly expressed his views on that. Will the Minister confirm the timeline for the publication of the strategy and outline its key priorities?

Given the shambles around the product recall system, I urge the Minister to ensure that part of the OPSS’s remit is playing a key role in dealing with product recalls swiftly. More broadly, the strategy must also address how the body will work with local authorities on the ground. Since 2010, they have suffered severe cuts, as the Government’s consumer Green Paper admits. On page 57, it says that,

“the capacity of Local Authorities to take national cases has reduced. Two-thirds of English local authorities have reported not having the expertise to cover fully the range of statutory duties required of trading standards teams. For example, only half of authorities now have specialist skills in e-crime, a national priority area.”

So the Government openly admit that they are letting consumers down.

Undoubtedly, the lack of resources has left trade bodies bereft of the crucial expertise they require to deal with such cases, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). The Government’s strategy should set out how they will close the gap in the enforcement mechanisms, so that trading bodies are sufficiently supported to enforce consumer law.

I understand that work has already begun on a database of unsafe products, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) eloquently drew attention. However, there is little detail about it. How are the Government conducting the database? Will we be able to see which goods have been recalled? Who will have access to the data? How will third parties be able to access the data in a responsible manner? I hope the Minister will answer those questions in his response. Furthermore, the database needs to be in place by 29 March 2019 in preparation for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be in place by then?

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), raised the issue of second-hand goods and online purchases. How will the Government address that important issue?

The OPSS is a step in the right direction but it does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental issue of the product safety regime. Clearly, the current policy is out of date and not fit for purpose. If we are to keep citizens safe, the Government must take firmer action now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I confirm that there is an obligation in place for manufacturers to notify the Office for Product Safety and Standards. I will come on to how the database will work further on in my speech.[Official Report, 15 May 2018, Vol. 641, c. 2MC.]

Within the office, we are applying lessons from regulators such as the Food Standards Agency, which is a national regulator that deals with significant volumes of product incidents and provides national scientific expertise to local authorities. So we are not creating something new; we are learning the lessons from previous regulators to ensure that the office works properly. We are also applying the lessons learned from international comparators—the OECD and American counterparts—and we are in the process of building national capacity.

Through the OPSS, the Government have already led the development of a code of practice for product recalls and corrective actions, working with the British Standards Institution. The code provides greater clarity for businesses on what they should do in such cases. It also provides a framework for local authorities when they engage with businesses to support and enforce programmes of corrective action.

There was a question about how the OPSS will support trading standards officers. I can confirm that so far, more than 250 local authority officers have received training on the new code and as a result they are now better equipped to deal with incidents.

[Gill Furniss]

Although the Minister said earlier that there are 290 posts at the OPSS, it looks as though there is little resource in terms of extra staffing or extra funding for local trading standards officers. Is that correct?

[Andrew Griffiths]

To clarify, as I said before, there are 110 new posts at the OPSS, with an additional resource of £12 million; I think that is a substantial amount of money. The Government are properly resourcing what we accept is a vital facility.

As we build the office over the coming year, the Government will continue to consult on aspects of its functions and on its long-term scope. I think there has been some question about whether it should remain in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or be an independent body. We will consult on that and on the case for changes to its legal powers.

The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned the work of the all-party parliamentary group on home electrical safety, and I commend that work. I have read a number of the reports and documents that it has produced, and they were helpful to me. I also pay tribute to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for the work that she has done. That work demonstrates the desire to work across parties and to ensure that we get this matter right for all our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I remember with great pleasure visiting a small dairy business—a milk business—with my hon. Friend. I hope that it is thriving. Since that visit, I am delighted to say that a number of loans from the Start Up Loans Company, totalling about £800,000, have benefited businesses in Southport. The Liverpool city region growth hub has been established to give advice and support to small businesses, too.

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

I welcome this morning’s news that the EU has secured a further 30-day exemption from the US’s steel tariffs. However, that merely prolongs the uncertainty facing the sector. What steps is the Secretary of State currently taking to secure a full UK exemption when the temporary one ends on 1 June, and when will his Department respond to the steel sector deal, a proposal crucial to the long-term sustainability of the sector?

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

I can reassure the hon. Lady that there have been full negotiations between us, the Americans and the European Union from the day that this started, and I have briefed her regularly. I have a call on Thursday morning with the chief executive officers of all the steel companies, which she is very welcome to join. I assure her and everyone else in this House that every effort is being made to help the steel industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I regularly meet with chief executives of car companies, including Mr Tavares. It is very clear that we are determined, as the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, to make sure that this very important integrated supply chain is able to continue to operate. It is worth bearing in mind that since my team have been in the Department every single major new model decision has gone our way. I am determined to keep up that advocacy.

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

The automotive sector is crucial to UK industry. It employs 814,000 people and we are all proud of British car manufacturers, including the iconic Rolls-Royce and Jaguar. In recent weeks, however, President Trump has revealed an appetite for a trade war that began with the announcement of steel tariffs and now includes threats to put tariffs on EU cars, which could hit our industry hard. Will the Secretary of State tell this House what he is doing to avoid a trade war with the US? Should such tariffs come into play, what will he do to protect our steel and automotive sector?

[Greg Clark]

I am sure the hon. Lady was in her place yesterday when the Trade Secretary gave a very comprehensive statement. There was some welcome for the cross-party approach that went into defending the international system of free trade. It does no one any good if we have tariffs in place that impede trade. Her endorsement of the approach being taken by the Trade Secretary would be welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

Absolutely. I do agree that consumer choice is important. Many suppliers offer paper bills, but they are not cost-free. It is important to recognise that at a time when we are seeking to boost productivity, it is not unreasonable for businesses to incentivise more efficient billing processes. The regulatory framework varies by sector. Where charging differentials exist, we would look at that. I am happy to look at it across the whole United Kingdom.

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

While recognising the gradual shift away from paper statements and bills as they go online, it must be acknowledged that 16 million people over 15 years old still do not have basic online skills and 5.2 million households still do not have access to the internet at home, and they may face penalisation for requesting a paper bill or statement. What action, exactly, will the Minister take to ensure that people are not penalised for making what should be a legitimate consumer choice? What strategy will he put in place to make sure that people who do not have these skills at the moment can develop them in future?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady makes the very important point that we should make sure that those who need paper bills do receive them and are not unfairly penalised. Any discount made for paperless bills, or charge for paper bills, in sectors where this is allowed must be justified in relation to the relevant administration costs. We do not believe that the Government should intervene to make other customers for whom online billing and payment is perfectly acceptable bear the costs of providing a paper billing service.

Fireworks

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on her eloquent and balanced introduction to this important debate.

We, too, should approach the debate in a balanced way. I sympathise with the backers of the campaign in that I recognise the stress and anxiety that fireworks can cause to vulnerable people, including children and people with certain mental health issues, and to pets and livestock. There is a particular issue for animals because of the unannounced nature of fireworks, which can leave animals vulnerable. Dogs often stop eating or self-harm to avoid the perceived threat of the noise.

I also recognise that most fireworks are used responsibly and provide great enjoyment for many people. Fireworks at special festive events such as Diwali, Chinese new year and new year’s eve are seen as a crucial part of cultural celebrations.

As other hon. Members have noted, the legislation is 13 years old. It is important to have this debate and see if the legislation is up to date and fit for purpose. Strict rules about the quality, quantity and sale of fireworks are relevant to this debate, such as the Fireworks Regulations 2004 as amended by the Fireworks (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were designed to tackle the anti- social use of fireworks.

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 and on the preceding three days, for Diwali and on the preceding three days, for bonfire night celebrations between 15 October and 10 November, and for new year celebrations between 26 and 31 December. That period around bonfire night is rather long. Will the Minister consult on that and whether it should be reduced?

Under the 2004 regulations, it is an offence to use fireworks after 11 pm and before 7 am without permission, except on permitted fireworks nights when the times are extended. The regulations allow fireworks to be used by a person employed by a local authority to put on a display that the local authority has permitted, or for a national public celebration.

Other relevant legislation includes the Explosives Regulations 2014, which relate to the storage of fireworks; the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, which deal with the safety of fireworks as a consumer product; the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause suffering to animals; the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which gives local authorities the power to investigate a complaint about excessive noise and to take necessary action; and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which tackles noise coming from homes or gardens between 11 pm and 7 am.

On the whole, I am satisfied that there is a significant amount of regulation around fireworks, and that for the large part, people buy and use fireworks responsibly. However, I wish to press the Minister on a couple of issues. First, local trading standards bodies tend to enforce the laws surrounding fireworks, but deep Government cuts to local authority budgets have reduced their staffing by up to 56% since 2009, according to National Audit Office figures published in 2016. In this case, and in other areas of consumer protection, it is difficult to imagine that their reduced resource capacity is not having a direct effect on their ability to properly enforce the laws already in place. I ask the Minister how his Department can ensure that trading standards bodies are sufficiently resourced.

Secondly, much of the law, particularly around the quality of fireworks, derives from European directives. Much of the consumer protection framework comes from the EU and we rely on EU bodies for many enforcement mechanisms, including, crucially, cross-border consumer protections. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, what enforcement mechanisms will be in place to ensure that UK consumers can be confident that they are buying safe goods?

Although we do not support a change in the law at this time, I agree that the Government should gather statistics on the sale and use of fireworks, and on complaints made about their public use, so that we can better understand whether more needs to be done to restrict fireworks in future. The statistics are not centrally gathered, but it is important to ensure that we have that data about the use of fireworks so that we are better informed. It would also be useful for people working in trading standards, the police, and enforcement. Does the Minister recognise the importance of centrally monitoring that data?

We know one set of statistics, however. In 2016-17, hospital admissions due to the discharge of fireworks were at their highest since 2006, with 184 recorded instances. Since we do not have the data on the sale of fireworks, we cannot make a direct assumption, but there may be a link between firework sales and the reduction in enforcement capability.

One way to mitigate the disturbance of fireworks is through communication, which could encourage people who wish to use fireworks to make their neighbours aware well in advance to give them time to prepare for any disturbance. Equally, fireworks exceeding 120 dB should not be sold to consumers. Many consumers may not know that low-noise fireworks are available, and perhaps there should be greater encouragement of the use of such fireworks.

Animal charities such as Blue Cross already produce information on animals and fireworks, with advice on the best ways of reducing stress for animals when fireworks are set off. The RSPCA and the Kennel Club also do a great deal of work to communicate how best to reduce the impact of fireworks on animals.

Has the Minister considered bringing together concerned groups and charities for a public awareness campaign to raise awareness about the danger of fireworks and ways of dealing with them, in particular at times of steep use such as on new year’s eve or during other festivals? Greater communication is important to allow those who enjoy fireworks to do so responsibly. It would also give greater assurance to those who are concerned about the impact of fireworks on the vulnerable.

Delivery Charges (Scotland)

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I will be brief, because we have all had a long week. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on securing this debate on a very important issue for his constituents, and I applaud his eloquent speech. The residents and businesses who have campaigned against huge and often arbitrary surcharges and delivery delays deserve much praise for bringing the issue to public attention and forcing the Government to respond. Much credit is also due to the research done by Citizens Advice to draw together evidence of the very patchy picture.

This is not simply an issue that affects a few people on remote islands. According to a Citizens Advice Scotland report, the average delivery charges for customers are at least 40% higher in the highlands than in the rest of the UK, and in the Scottish islands and Northern Ireland they are approximately 50% higher. One million people live in the affected areas in Scotland, despite often living in sizable cities and towns. Being charged up to five times the standard delivery cost is a huge issue, especially for businesses with frequent orders and low-income residents.

It is very welcome that the Government are finally investigating the issue, but Ofcom needs to be empowered to clamp down on geographic discrimination in the provision of deliveries. Ministers would not tolerate it for a minute if delivery charges were higher in their country piles than in inner-city locations, so why should they tolerate it for Scottish families, who are as much a part of the UK as people living at any other address?

Citizens Advice Scotland has recommended that the public and private sectors co-operate to reduce costs. It suggests exploring the possibility of extending Scotland’s network of pick-up and drop-off locations in places such as parcel lockers, convenience stores and post offices, which can reduce costs for delivery companies. Has the Minister considered Citizens Advice Scotland’s recommendations? If so, will she give us a timeframe for responding to them? I would also welcome her response to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who has had an extensive career in the postal service, that Ofcom could be given the power to cap surcharges.

I look forward to swift recommendations from Ofcom for protecting Scottish customers and businesses from higher charges and slower services. Labour is committed to a high-quality delivery network that provides a timely and cost-effective service for all customers. I conclude by expressing my support for Royal Mail and its deliverers at this busy time, and wishing them all a happy Christmas and new year.

Sector Deal for Steel

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship today, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this timely debate and on his continued commitment and passion in advocating for the steel industry. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), whose passion and commitment would definitely have given her a lot to say in the debate, but who cannot be with us today.

The steel industry has gone through a tumultuous few years, but the sector has successfully managed to navigate its way back to a more stable position as it heads into 2018, although it is by no means out of the woods. I join other hon. Members in highlighting the industry’s positive economic and social impact. The sector provides well-paid, skilled jobs in areas such as south Yorkshire, where the average steelworker is paid 40% more than the local average wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) set out, it is crucial to the social fabric of communities such as those in Wales or south Yorkshire. Indeed, the case for supporting and backing our steel sector in particular and manufacturing more broadly is more acute today than ever. A post-Brexit Britain will require rebalancing the economy, both by sector and by geography, if we are to embrace the opportunities of the future.

This is indeed a timely debate. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State issued an open-door challenge to industry to approach the Government with proposals to transform sectors through a series of sector deals. In September, the steel sector met that challenge when six chief executive officers of steel companies and all three relevant unions—Community, Unite and GMB—addressed key issues facing industry with a comprehensive plan and tangible solutions. Each company detailed the specific investment, jobs and research and development commitments that it could make. In turn, the sector made requests of the Government, notably to eliminate the electricity price disparity and establish a future steel fund with match funding of £30 million a year.

Unfortunately, the Government have failed at every opportunity to respond to the sector deal. On Friday, they finally published a report, “Future capacities and capabilities of the UK steel industry”, which revealed that the demand for finished steel products in the UK will increase from 9.4 million to 10.9 million tonnes by 2030, opening up an opportunity of £3.8 billion per annum. That is welcome news.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) made it clear that those opportunities can only be harnessed with full Government backing and support, which makes a steel sector deal more necessary than ever. However, for too long the UK steel industry has been neglected by the Government. Their industrial strategy merely paid lip service to the industry while failing to provide any tangible solutions and failing to respond to the steel sector deal proposal at all.

As I have mentioned, the industry is not out of the woods. There are fundamental issues hampering its competitiveness and innovation capability, and it is down to both Government and industry to work together to create a level playing field for steel. The UK steel sector faces excruciatingly high electricity costs compared with its EU counterparts, with an average electricity price disparity between the UK and Germany standing at £18 per megawatt-hour, which translates into a total additional cost for UK steel producers of around £43 million per year. The Helm review was published recently and it made some welcome recommendations, but the steel industry needs urgent action now if it is to be sustainable in the years ahead.

Furthermore, the industry is lagging behind in research and development spending, which is crucial to the growth and innovation of the sector. I am proud that the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is very familiar with, is a world-renowned R and D centre. It is located in south Yorkshire, near my constituency. However, despite such pockets of excellence, the number of people employed in R and D in the steel sector in the UK have declined from around 900 to around 95 today—a 90% reduction—with closure or divestment of UK technology centres at Port Talbot, Rotherham and Teesside. The loss of locally based expertise and knowledge limits productivity development and innovation in the UK industry.

If the Government’s rhetoric on productivity is to be believed, why are we in a dire position when it comes to R and D funding? Last month, the Government committed £2.3 billion for R and D in 2021-22, but they failed to respond to a parliamentary question when I asked, “What proportion of the funding will be allocated to the steel sector?” Can I get an answer from the Minister today?

Beyond electricity prices and R and D, it is clear that there needs to be more proactive engagement with the supply chain if the sector is to capture the opportunities I have outlined, particularly in the construction and automotive sectors, where the big opportunities lie. As the report notes, these opportunities can only be captured

“if a comprehensive strategy and policy to reshore supply chains back to the UK is pursued.”

Given the strategic importance of the sector, it is absolutely vital that the Government, the steel industries, the trade unions and the workforce continue to work to resolve some of these key issues. Disappointingly, we have seen very little action to alleviate these issues. First, in the autumn Budget there was no mention of energy prices or an energy efficiency fund for industry. Although there was some money for R and D, as I have pointed out, there has been no detail about whether the steel sector can expect to benefit.

The Government’s recently published industrial strategy set back many hopes of capitalising on the opportunities ahead. It did not include any detail or offer any tangible solutions to the steel sector. What detail there was focused on a handful of elite sectors, in which the UK already has a competitive advantage. It also provided very little to those who do not live in the golden triangle made up by London, Cambridge and Oxford. The absence of the sector is telling. Months after the steel sector deal had been proposed, it appears that the Government have made no effort to ensure that there is progress on it. In essence, the industrial strategy dashed any hope of the Government and industry ever delivering a deal.

In what little mention of the sector there was in the strategy, on page 239 the Government said that they would develop a “commercially sustainable proposition” for the steel sector, but there were no other details. Can the Minister explain what a “commercially sustainable proposition” means? What progress has she made on developing such a proposition, and what is the timetable to achieve that?

I accept that we are short of time today, so I will conclude. It is clear that our steel industry is at the cutting edge of UK manufacturing, producing some of the best-quality products. The future of the industry should see it playing a central role in the transition to a low-carbon economy; continuing to lead the world in quality and innovation; and capturing huge opportunities to the tune of £3.8 billion annually.

However, that is only deliverable if there is a strategic and comprehensive sector deal to deliver on issues such as dealing with electricity price disparities, reviewing business rates, increasing spending on R and D, and ensuring that we have a robust procurement strategy that works for the steel industry. A post-Brexit trade deal and strategy are absolutely essential if the future of the steel industry is to be secure and bright.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. Royal Mail is regulated by Ofcom, which benefits everyone involved in the service. The universal postal service includes a parcel service. Companies must have regard to fairness in setting delivery charges, and any failure to be clear to customers before bookings breaches consumer protection law.

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

Today marks postal workers day, when we thank our posties for their hard work and determination in providing a key public service—not that the Conservatives will take any notice. In a privatised Royal Mail, we have seen 12,000 job losses and proposals to slash pensions by 45%. It is a classic case of “one rule for the rich and another for the rest”. Royal Mail has paid out £70 million in dividends to private shareholders, and that is only in the last six months. Does the Minister still stand by the Government’s decision to privatise Royal Mail?

[Margot James]

I stand by it 100%. Royal Mail would have had no future had it not been privatised.