Fireworks: Public Sales

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 231147 relating to the sale of fireworks to the public.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The petition calls for a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public and for a move to organised displays only. Numerous petitions about fireworks have been submitted through the Petitions Committee website; if memory serves, this is our third petitions debate about them. Debates on fireworks have also been initiated by hon. Members and numerous parliamentary questions have been asked about related issues. The Facebook page that we set up for comments on this petition has received 956 engagements and been viewed by 4,800 accounts, while more than 61,000 viewed the digital debate. That is a real measure of the public concern about the issue, which the Government ignore at their peril.

Let us be honest: a lot of us look at fireworks through the rosy glow of our childhoods, but we ought to remember that the occasions we look back on usually took place only on 5 November and were very limited in scope—in our case, it was dad letting off a few fireworks, with a packet of sparklers for the kids and a Catherine wheel that never went round properly and burned the shed door. Fireworks are now used on many more occasions. They are common at new year—when I was growing up, the most excitement we got at new year was train drivers sounding their hooters at midnight. Fireworks are also used on other occasions such as Diwali and Chinese new year, understandably, and they are even used on family occasions such as weddings and birthdays. As they have come to be used more frequently, they have grown more powerful and noisier. It was concern about that issue that led to the Fireworks Act 2003.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that at the moment perhaps one of the only things that unites the whole country is our love of animals. As she mentions, we have regulations on when fireworks can be sold but none on when they can be used. Surely, to protect our dear cats—like my beloved Thomas and Serena—from distress, there should be limits on when fireworks can be used throughout the year.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall address later in my speech.

The 2003 Act, which began as a private Member’s Bill but was supported by the then Labour Government, was an enabling Act that allowed Ministers to make regulations to control fireworks and explosives.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions our laws about fireworks. Although those laws are often enforced, cuts to local authority budgets have meant that the staffing levels necessary to enforce them have fallen by more than half in the past few years. Does she agree that that makes it a lot harder to regulate the use of fireworks?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right, and she anticipates a point that I will make later.

The Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a lot of rules about the sale, possession and use of fireworks. They introduced a licensing system for those who sell fireworks all year round, limited the sale by other suppliers to dates around 5 November, new year, Chinese new year and Diwali, imposed a maximum decibel level of 120, and forbade the possession of adult fireworks—those in the F2 and F3 categories—in a public place by anyone under 18. F4 fireworks, which are the most explosive, can be possessed only by fireworks professionals.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

One more time, but then I must make some progress, in fairness to those who want to speak.

[John Howell]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. May I pick up on her point about decibels? There is now a whole generation of almost silent fireworks with a reduced decibel level. Does she welcome their introduction to the market?

[Helen Jones]

“Silent fireworks” is a bit of a misnomer, because they are not entirely silent. Clearly they are welcome, but they do not solve many of the other problems associated with fireworks.

The 2003 Act and the regulations made under it have gone some way towards assuaging public concern about the issue, as have the Explosives Regulations 2014 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, which relate to the safety of fireworks as consumer products. But—and it is a big “but”—public concern seems to have risen again recently. I regularly get letters and emails at certain times of the year, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, from people who are concerned about the noise, pollution and antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Jones]

If hon. Members will forgive me, I need to make some progress, because a lot of Members are waiting to speak.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned, the problem is partly one of enforcement. For instance, an 11 pm curfew on fireworks is in place most of the time, with exceptions for new year and other occasions. Breaching the curfew can result in a fine, imprisonment or, if offenders are over 18, a £90 fixed penalty notice from the police. But the police have to be there to catch the perpetrators, and we have lost so many officers—21,000 since 2010—that chief constables are having to make very difficult decisions about where to deploy their personnel. Likewise, although a fixed penalty notice of £80 can be given to anyone under 18 in possession of adult fireworks, community policing has been so hollowed out that we have lost not only police officers but 40% of the police community support officers who might have been able to catch and report on offenders. It is therefore very difficult to enforce the regulations.

Trading standards officers in local authorities face the same problem. Councils have been hit so hard by cuts that have they have had to pull back and carry out only their statutory duties. Trading standards officers have been cut and cut, which makes it very difficult to enforce the licensing system, prevent the sale of adult fireworks to anyone under 16 or prevent the sale of more powerful fireworks to anyone under 18. Trading standards officers do a great job, but there are simply not enough of them. For the same reason, many councils have cut back on organised displays because they can simply no longer afford to put them on.

The Government need to be very clear about what is happening. In January, the last time we debated the issue, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) that he did not have statistics on the prosecution of fireworks offences because the Home Office did not collect them in that way. We do not know the trends, and we do not know about enforcement or whether it is working. One contributor to our forum wrote:

“So here we are 11 days after the official date and we are still getting fireworks being used.”

Many people have come to believe that the regulations are not being enforced. If the Government contend that the regulations are sufficient, they must ensure that the means to enforce them are in place.

Others have said clearly that they think it is time for greater regulation. One contributor said that the fireworks regulations need to be tightened, as there is enough evidence to prove that fireworks are being used inappropriately by persons willing to cause harm to people.

I have had many emails from people, as well as contributions to our Facebook page. Some have made the point that they use fireworks responsibly and without harm, which is true of many people. Some have told me, “It’s a tradition”—the good old British tradition of burning effigies of Catholics on a bonfire every 5 November, which some of us might find a little problematic, to say the least. We have even had people talking about the nanny state, and the classic, “It’s political correctness gone mad.”

I know the Government do not like regulations. Ministers always tell us how many regulations they have got rid of, but sometimes regulations are necessary for protecting the public. There is a balance to be struck in any society between the right of people to do as they wish and the harm caused to others. Let us be clear: even fireworks on sale to the public can cause significant harm. A fireworks professional said in a Facebook post that he had known even F2 and F3 fireworks to go wrong on displays, and that there would have been a serious injury had he not been wearing protective clothing. There is no such thing as a safe firework. Let us be clear: the harm they cause can be considerable.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I will take one more intervention and then I must press on.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. My constituents the Snell family had a dog, Queenie, who became increasingly sensitive to fireworks. A firework went off right by their house on the Wednesday after bonfire night, and Queenie became so inconsolable that she had to be euthanised. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be licensing individuals to operate fireworks, and that only they should be allowed to buy them?

[Helen Jones]

The effect on animals has been raised with me, and I shall come to that in a moment.

Let us also remember the effect on people. Last year in England alone there were 4,436 visits to A&E by people with firework injuries. That is more than double the figure of 2,141 in 2009-10. There were 168 admissions for firework injuries in 2015-16 and 184 last year. Admissions had been going down but they are now going up again. Let us remember that some of those will be catastrophic, life-changing injuries. The cost to the person concerned is incalculable, but there is also a cost to the NHS, through the strain on our A&E departments as more people are admitted. I know that family members who work in the NHS dread 5 November as much as firefighters do, because they worry about the injuries that they will see. Some are so bad that the British Association of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons has called for fireworks to be sold in boxes displaying pictures of injuries, rather than in what looks like packaging for sweets. It is certainly right about the packaging.

As well as injuring people, fireworks are a problem for animals, as several hon. Members have mentioned. I have been contacted by a number of people who say that their pets have to be sedated when fireworks are going off. They are supported by a number of charities, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. It is fair to say that not all these charities are asking us to move to public displays only. The RSPCA wants the decibel limit reduced to 97 and would like the use of fireworks, not simply their sale, restricted to certain times of the year. It also calls for all public displays to be licensed and for residents to be able to object to the licence—something I will return to later. By contrast, the Dogs Trust would like us to move to public displays only.

Noise has an effect not just on animals, but on people. It particularly has an effect on elderly people and those with mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Shoulder to Soldier is a charity that originated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt), and which also has an office in Howley in my constituency. It has campaigned vigorously to make people aware of the effect on some veterans of having fireworks let off near them and has been supported in that campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

With the noise goes pollution. For the five days around 5 November, particulate pollution was very high in this country. On 5 November itself, towns and cities across Britain, such as Stockton, Leeds and Sheffield, reached level 10, the maximum level of pollution.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I will take one more intervention—the very last one—and then I must finish.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the issue of noise, 584 of my constituents have signed the petition, which is really high for my constituency. A number are concerned about the effect on animals, in particular the effect of the noise. It was also pointed out to me that a number of people will set off large amounts of fireworks at the same time, not for the effect in the sky but for the high decibel level and the noise. Is she aware that that is one of the problems we face?

[Helen Jones]

Yes, I am. My hon. Friend is quite right, and that goes back to the issue not only of regulation, but of enforcing it.

To return to pollution, we know that it has an immediate effect on people with respiratory illnesses—people, like me, who have asthma. We are also becoming increasingly aware that it has a long-term effect on children, particularly on the development of their brains and lungs. Maybe it is time to ask why we are contributing so much extra pollution.

I also want to raise the issue of the demands on emergency services, particularly the fire service. One of the pluses of coming from a very large family is that I have relatives everywhere. I did have relatives in the fire service, and they prayed for rain on some of these occasions because of the stress they put on them. In Greater Manchester this year, calls were running at one a minute at peak times. In Scotland, there were over 700 calls to 338 bonfires. A lot of those might be classified as minor fires—a fire is minor only if it can be controlled—but we should remember that while crews attend those incidents, they are not available for potentially life-threatening incidents elsewhere in their area. That means that fire engines would have to be brought from further away, and minutes count when saving a life.

If that was not bad enough, fire crews are increasingly coming under attack. I have had a number of emails from serving firefighters who raise this with me. They are quite right to do so, because even a cursory trawl through the various websites throws up lots of incidents. Crews had fireworks thrown at them in north Wales. In Manchester, a crew went out to an incident and were immediately attacked by a gang throwing fireworks. The police were called, and it took 90 minutes to bring that incident under control—90 minutes when that appliance was unavailable for a fire elsewhere. That incident also threatened the lives of the crew.

Crews have also been attacked in Scotland. In Glasgow, riot police had to be called because people were throwing fireworks at houses and cars and then at the police who came out. To see how horrific the situation is, I urge the Minister to look at a video that was put online by the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service—a firefighter elsewhere sent me the link. It shows video footage that was taken by a camera on one of their appliances. The crew come out to what looks like a fairly small fire, and they are immediately attacked by a gang of people throwing fireworks at them. It is really horrific. Why are we subjecting our emergency services—not just the fire service, but ambulance crews and the police—to that kind of attack, day in, day out, year after year?

People will say, “Well, fireworks don’t cause antisocial behaviour.” Of course they do not. Knives do not cause knifings and chemicals do not cause blinding, but we regulate them because they can be used to ill effect. The same is true of fireworks. It is time we moved forward with this issue. I love a fireworks display, but I am happy to watch an organised display somewhere where everyone is safe.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I am going to wind up, if my hon. Friend will permit me.

Even organised displays need regulating. I was struck by an email I received from a lady who lives in a small village near a wedding venue, which has had display after display this year. She said that, each time, the residents have to be out with their animals in the fields to stop them from panicking. She told me that she lost a Jacob lamb because the ewe ran away frightened and would not come back. Another person said on our website that, as an agricultural worker, they have seen too many horrific injuries to their horses and other animals. Let us remember that we are talking not simply about pets, but about people’s livelihoods. We ought to bear that in mind.

It is time to act. If the Government are not prepared simply to move to organised displays, there are other things that they could do. They could raise the age for buying fireworks or restrict use, as well as sale, to certain times of the year. They could ensure that the police and local authorities are given the wherewithal to enforce the regulations. If they will the ends, they have got to will the means.

I must confess that I am a reluctant convert to organised displays, but I do not believe that continuing things as they are is worth the NHS admissions, the attacks on emergency service personnel or even one child being seriously burned and blinded. We will have petition after petition and debate after debate until the Government start to take notice. This is becoming a serious issue about public order and antisocial behaviour. It is time that the Government took it seriously and acted on it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) not only for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee but for her thoughtful and informative speech. I also thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate. It is great to see such a highly subscribed Westminster Hall debate. I am also grateful to those who signed the e-petition that has brought us here today.

As has been discussed, a very similar debate took place in January, following a petition that also sought to

“Change the laws governing the use of fireworks to include a ban on public use”.

That debate took place because 113,000 people signed that petition. Today, we are debating a petition that has received over 280,000 signatures. Again, it calls for a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public and for displays at licensed venues only. I am also aware that there are campaigns under way regarding the use of fireworks, such as the one organised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and a further petition, under the change.org banner, has received over 330,000 signatures. The issues have been debated thoroughly, both today and in January.

Let me also offer my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who had a debate on this issue scheduled for tomorrow but who, because of today’s debate, has decided to combine it with this one. I thank her for forfeiting her debate.

I empathise with the concerns that have been raised, and the Government understand the strong feelings that many people have about fireworks. For those reasons, I do not want to simply restate what the law is, although I will do so briefly for the benefit of hon. Members. We have legislation in place to regulate the supply, storage, possession, use and misuse of fireworks, to help to ensure public safety. These powers include powers to prosecute those who use fireworks in a dangerous or antisocial manner. Together, the restrictions set out in the Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 provide the regulatory framework that seeks to support the public’s enjoyment of fireworks while effectively managing the risk of fireworks harming individuals, property or animals.

Retailers may sell fireworks without the need for a specific licence during short windows of time around the traditional fireworks periods of 5 November, new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year. However, if they wish to sell fireworks at other times of the year, they must seek a licence from their local authority. Age restrictions are in place to prevent the sale of fireworks to those under the age of 16 or 18, depending on the classification of the firework. There are further restrictions on the public possession of most fireworks by those under 18. Local authority trading standards officers have the powers to take action against those who sell fireworks illegally, including those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence, outside the normal selling period or to under-age children. Those powers also cover the sale of illegally imported fireworks and internet sales.

I recognise that the noise from fireworks can be distressing to some people and animals, and many Members today have shared their experiences and the concerns of their constituents. That is why there is a noise limit of 120 dB on fireworks available for consumer use. Consumers can also choose to buy from the wide range of low-noise or silent fireworks that are now available, as some hon. Members have highlighted.

I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government continue to take the enforcement of firework safety seriously. Trading standards can order the removal of unsafe products from the market and can take action against retailers who flout the law by selling fireworks to under-age children or who fail to abide by the licensing rules. The police do take action to combat antisocial behaviour and the dangerous use of fireworks by individuals, and many hon. Members today have described the illegal sale and use of fireworks. The hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) described serious criminal activity involving fireworks that has happened within their constituencies. Quite frankly, they outlined some disgusting behaviour by individuals in their use of fireworks. Such incidents are investigated by the police, leading to fines and in some cases imprisonment, so although I recognise hon. Members’ concerns, I do not accept the premise that the police do not investigate what I would call criminal activity.

[Helen Jones]

Can the Minister tell us whether her Department now collects statistics on the number of prosecutions for fireworks offences? If it does, what is the trend? Are prosecutions going up or down?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. As some hon. Members have already outlined, when the last debate on this subject took place in January, we were just setting up the Office for Product Safety and Standards. We talked then about the collection of data, and my Department is working with National Trading Standards to consider ways to collect data to back up any proposed changes.

To recap, criminal events in which people use fireworks are investigated by police, if they are reported. In some cases, they attract fines and, in others, imprisonment.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I would like to refer to the hon. Gentleman’s comment and also to his earlier remark about an incident in which a firework was thrown into a pub. He suggested that it was not investigated—

[Helen Jones]

He did not say that.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what I heard from this end. My suggestion is that the police do take such matters seriously, in any constituency. Regarding any criminal activity that is identified as serious, the police absolutely attend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I take this opportunity to thank all Members who have participated in the debate and made some very useful contributions to it. I would like to be able to thank the Minister, but in 21 years I have seldom heard a response that took so little cognisance of the debate that had just happened.

We have now had three e-petition debates on the issue, yet the Government have taken no account of the public views that have been expressed time and time again. I remind them that the petitions system was set up as a joint system between Parliament and Government in the expectation that Government would take it seriously, and they clearly are not. The Minister has talked about enforcement, but she will not commit more resources to it.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

One moment. The Minister has said—[Interruption.] No, I am not giving way; I have not finished my sentence. She has said she believes that she needs to collect more data and that there has been no unanimity in this debate. This debate was unanimous about wanting more controls on fireworks. She said that she is sorry for our emergency services, but she has put forward no way—

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

I only have two minutes, so I am not giving way. Clear?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Two minutes? You have 10.

[Helen Jones]

I have two minutes to wind up. The Minister has said that she wants to protect our emergency services, but she has come up with no way of doing that. She has said, “We want to work with the industry.” I wonder whether that will be as successful as the Government’s obesity strategy has been in working with the industry concerned.

My constituents and other Members’ constituents are clear that they want action. I know the Minister is a junior Minister and is unable to promise much herself, but the Home Office has to start taking this matter seriously or we will be here debating it time and time again until it does. My Committee will certainly want to look at it again. These are serious issues about people being injured, emergency workers being attacked and people’s lives being made a misery. It is time that the Government started to take it seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 231147 relating to the sale of fireworks to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. The next increase to the national living wage is to be a whopping 4.7%. The introduction of the national living wage was the biggest pay rise for low-paid workers in nearly 20 years. The latest increase will benefit more than 2 million people and is set to cover 3 million by 2020. The average earnings of a 25-plus, full-time worker have increased by £2,000 since 2016.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

When will the Government accept the need to actually prosecute more firms that fail to pay the national minimum wage? Only when people are prosecuted for breaking the law, rather than being issued with warning notices, are they going to take it seriously.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the Government take robust enforcement action against employers who do not pay their staff correctly. We have increased enforcement funding to £25.3 million this year. The total value of penalties has more than quadrupled since 2014-15, and in 2016-17 a record £3.9 million was recovered in penalties, with one penalty of more than £1 million being issued.

BAE Systems Military Air & Information Sites: Job Losses

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

We are right at the start of the process. Indeed, the company was not supposed to make the announcement until tomorrow, as I understand it. We want to have those conversations with the LEP and other employers with the aim of minimising the number of potential job reductions made by the company and maximising the redeployment of those people who have acquired such valuable skills over their time of work.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Those of us with constituents who work in the supply chain for BAE Systems, as well as those who have constituents directly employed by the company, are disappointed to hear the Minister’s statement because she talked about managing decline. The Opposition want to see proper investment in the skills we need and in defence industrial strategy so that we do not have to buy technologies from abroad. We need the Government to bring forward orders in order to protect jobs. They can do that now. Why is the Minister not doing that?

Retail Store Closure: Boxing Day

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 168524 relating to the closure of retail stores on Boxing Day.

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I confess that, being a bit long in the tooth, I can remember when Boxing day closure was the norm; it was a bank holiday, and nobody thought of doing anything other than closing. Certainly all big stores were closed, and people stayed at home with their family. In fact, I am old enough to remember when the new year sales actually began in the new year, after 1 January. People stayed at home, and if they wanted to go to the sales, they went later on—and here’s the thing: nobody starved to death. The world did not run out of cheap televisions. Nor did the country run out of supplies of winter coats and boots at reduced prices.

When I first realised that people were shopping on Boxing day, I would look at people going to the supermarket, and the queues, and would think, “For heaven’s sake, get a life.” However, I have moved from indifference to anger, because all the evidence shows that poorly paid retail workers are being exploited to fuel a national obsession—a debt-fuelled shopping binge that, in the end, does no one any real good. As my family will tell you, Mrs Moon, I can shop with the best of them, but if my shopping on Boxing day is done at the expense of some of the lowest paid workers in the community, something has to give way.

I should declare an interest, because I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, although it is quite a long time since I worked in a shop. When I did, I learned two important things. First, the job is physically exhausting, because workers are on their feet most of the day—and in my day, we worked only 9 till 5. Secondly, shop workers need inexhaustible reserves of patience and self-restraint to deal with the rude, demanding and frequently abusive customers that they have to put up with. Of course, that gets worse in the run-up to Christmas, which is why my union runs its “Keep your cool at Christmas” campaign before the Christmas rush, but for shop workers and those who work in warehouses and distribution—it is not only those on the shop floor who are affected—there is no respite.

The responses to our online consultation were interesting and overwhelming. We had nearly 6,000 responses. Many told us that they were not allowed to take holiday in December. One person working in distribution said that they could not take holiday in November or December. Indeed, in one case, people were not allowed to take holiday from October onwards. That means that people in the sector arrive at Christmas very tired. They now often work late on Christmas eve to prepare for Boxing day. In fact, we heard of one person working until midnight on Christmas eve. They arrive home to their families exhausted, long after the rest of us have begun our celebrations, and are then expected to be in work again on Boxing day.

As we know, Christmas day can be a very nice day, but it is not necessarily very relaxing. It is not relaxing for people with young children who are up as early as possible, or for people who have to cook the Christmas dinner, so many of us—including me—say that Boxing day is our day of rest. That choice is not available to many people in retail—if, indeed, they get Christmas day off. There are constant suggestions that some people are called in on Christmas day to keep preparing for the sales. The British Retail Consortium has said that large retailers are not allowed to open on Christmas day. We know that; it is a prime example of answering a question that was not asked. It also says that most preparation for Boxing day is done by Christmas eve, and that people working on Christmas day is not a problem. I am afraid that it is a problem; it keeps being reported as a problem, and I do not believe that the people who report it are lying to us.

If people get Christmas day off, they often find that they are unable to enjoy it fully, because they must be in work again on Boxing day; many people are expected to be in work by 7 o’clock. There is little public transport, so there are stories of people having to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to get to work. The Minister shakes her head, but those testimonies were given to us online in our consultation.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech that rings true in the light of the many testimonies that I have seen and heard. Christmas is special because people who might not normally be able to spend time with family can do so. Is it not another issue that many people who work in retail do not have the option of travelling to see their family, because now they must travel so early on Boxing day to make it back in time for the sales?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We have heard from people who work from 7 am to 6 pm on Boxing day. We heard from one lady who has to stay in work until 10 o’clock. People are at work not just when the shops are open; they do the restocking afterwards as well. So that lady has to get her partner to come and get her late at night, bringing with him their two small children—there is no one else to mind them—because she cannot afford taxis. Retail wages do not stretch to taxis at the best of times, and certainly not at Boxing day premium rates.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is indeed making a powerful speech. She has talked about families, and I know of families where both partners work in retail and have young children; they have extreme difficulty in getting childcare on Boxing day, because, obviously, childminders also want a break at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We heard from a number of people whose relatives have to look after their children on Boxing day because no childcare is available.

We heard from one lady who described her “nightmare” journey to work. She works in London, but there are no trains from where she lives on Boxing day. She has to get three different buses to work. It takes her a long time. However, she told us that some of her colleagues cannot get home to see their families outside London over Christmas, because they finish too late on Christmas eve and have to get back too early on Boxing day. She described herself as one of the lucky ones. Some luck, I would say.

For all that, many people in the sector now receive no extra pay. It is true, to be fair, that a few people in an online consultation with MoneySavingExpert.com said that they rely on their extra pay on Boxing day to pay for Christmas. I understand that. My answer would be that they should be paid a proper rate of pay throughout the year. Those people are unusual; most companies no longer pay premium rates. They have disappeared, just as the premium rates for Sundays did. The House may remember that we were promised, when Sunday trading was introduced, that people would not have to work on Sundays if they did not want to, and would be paid extra for doing so, but that arrangement disappeared as new people came in, and there were new contracts requiring them to work Sundays and holidays. If they did not sign up for that, they did not get the job. That is how it is for Boxing day as well. It is clear from talking to people in the sector that they can be required to work; an employer has a right to require people to work if it is in their contract, or if it is the usual practice in the industry—and working on Boxing day is increasingly becoming the usual practice. One person said to us, “I don’t get the choice of whether I want to work or not.”

We have been told over and over that people who are sick on Boxing day face disciplinary action, and that a refusal to work means instant dismissal. The worst case we heard of was of a woman who had her drink spiked on Christmas. She was ill and unable to work on Boxing day, and was therefore dismissed. The Government might want to reflect on how difficult it is for those who have the right not to work on Boxing day to enforce that right, given that the Government have extended the time that people have to be employed for before they can claim for unfair dismissal, and have hugely increased employment tribunal fees. Low-paid workers, many of whom are not in unionised workplaces, have very little chance of enforcing their right not to work.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am hugely enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech; she is making a powerful case. Some 181 people in Kettering signed the petition. The Library briefing for the debate says:

“Under the relevant legislation…workers do not have a statutory entitlement to time off on Bank Holidays”,

which includes Boxing day. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but is it the hon. Lady’s wish that employees be statutorily entitled to have Boxing day off?

[Helen Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is right about the law as it stands; if he will forgive me, I will come to that in a moment.

Retailers say that Boxing day trading is important to them. The British Retail Consortium declined to give written evidence to my Committee before the debate, but in the past it has said that last year’s sales were up 0.7% on the year before. However, it is important to remember that those sales did not reach the December peak, which last year was on 23 December, or the November peak, which last year was on the day after that appalling American import, Black Friday.

The director of retail intelligence at Ipsos Retail Performance said:

“Boxing Day has grown in significance as a shopping day over the last 5 years, as increasingly more retailers have started their Sales immediately after Christmas.”

I say two things to that: first, sales are on now, as anybody who has looked around knows; secondly, I have not seen any evidence that Boxing day opening generates more trade, rather than moving it about between days. If retailers were closed on Boxing day, there might well be more trade on 27 December—or, more likely, the Saturday following Christmas, when most people are off work.

However, we have had evidence that some stores may not even be that busy; I accept that some are, but some are certainly not. One store manager told us that his store was less busy than on a usual Sunday. Other people working in retail have told me that they are not busy, and that they do not accept returns on Boxing day because that would make the sales figures look worse. There are differences across the sector, and it seems that many shops open simply because others do; staff and store managers in my constituency say that that is often the case. As someone said in our consultation, retailers are great followers. Many in the sector would like Boxing day to be treated like Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. In fact, 92% of respondents to an USDAW consultation did not want to work on Boxing day, but 78% felt that they were pressured to.

The opening of the stores has a price for our communities, for families and for individuals; nothing in life is for free. If more shops open on Boxing day, there needs to be more of other services, such as waste collection; emergency services must be on duty; and there is more pressure on transport to run as normal. There is a spiral effect when more and more people are made to work the bank holiday. As I said, there is a price for families. People lose the time with their children or their parents, and other members of the family are very often pressed into service looking after children, meaning that they cannot make plans for the day. The real impact is on the poorly paid retail workers and their families, and from the comments that we have received, it is clear that most people would rather have that day off.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I will put on the record another thing that, like childcare, is not generally available on Boxing day: the usual support for those whose family members require care. There is testimony from retail workers who are in the difficult position of both having to care for their family and being forced to go to work or ultimately risk not being able to bring the bread home.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. That is an example of the pressures that those retail workers come under, many of whom are women and have caring or childcare responsibilities. I doubt that much would change if store openings began on 27 December. As one of the contributors to the consultation said about stores, “They will make their money back, but we will never get our time back.”

What is the purpose of all this? Does anyone actually gain? As another person said to us in the consultation, “I should like to think that the keen shoppers of the UK could wait one more day to grab a juicy bargain”—or, as staff call it, stock that has been gathering dust in the stockroom since 1993. Another person said, “Isn’t seven-day trading and numerous late nights enough?” I think it is.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am even more impressed by the hon. Lady’s speech as it goes on; she is making an extremely powerful case. However supportive I might be of her argument, one of the difficulties is that if people cannot physically go to a high street or out-of-town shop, they will shop online on Christmas day or Boxing day. That will ultimately take business away from the very shop workers whose livelihoods we are seeking to protect.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. My view is that, if people are going to shop online rather than go to the shops, they are going to do that anyway. For instance, it was put to me that many people receive vouchers for Christmas, particularly children, and that they enjoy spending them. Yes, they do, and I suspect they would enjoy spending them just as much on 27 December.

We need to find a balance. If my right to shop is being exercised at the expense of some of the poorest-paid people in our community, their time with their family should take precedence. It is a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want a society in which people are able to spend time with their family—their children or parents—or maybe even invite in an elderly neighbour who is on their own, or do we want a society that is a free-for-all, and in which the weakest go to the wall?

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

No I will not, because the hon. Lady has just walked in; she was not here from the beginning of the debate.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the responses to the consultations have been heartbreaking? For most of us, Christmas is about the memories that we have had over the years with our family and friends. I will read a response to the USDAW consultation from a man who says he has to work the nights between 23 and 24 December, 24 and 25 December, and 26 and 27 December. He has limited time with his wife and 10-month-old son, and is majorly fatigued due to the hours he spends working. He said:

“I'm unable to enjoy our festive time together. I will never forget losing my son's first Xmas.”

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the testimony is heartbreaking. I come at this from this direction: if I deserve time with my family over Christmas, other people do, too.

Of course, there are exceptions. A number of workers in the emergency services—nurses, paramedics and police—have responded to our consultation, and they all accept that they may have to work on Boxing day because it is a matter of life and death. Shopping is not. Politicians are often quick to jump in if they think Christmas is being downgraded. People respond to spurious stories about Christmas being renamed; they say, quite rightly, that they do not want to see a Christian festival downgraded. Here is the news: it has been already. Contrary to what we might think, Christmas does not begin the day after bonfire night, or whenever the commercial frenzy sets off. It begins on the 25th. The 26th is the second day of Christmas—St. Stephen’s day. Boxing day is originally when servants were given their presents and time off. It is coming to something when in 21st-century Britain, we cannot give people the rights that indentured servants had hundreds of years ago. The situation could be vastly improved by a simple amendment to legislation to put Boxing day on the same footing as Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. We could do that.

The Prime Minister says that she wants a country that works for everyone. I have to say that it is not working for the retail trade at the moment. She also said quite recently:

“our Christian heritage is something we can all be proud of.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1515.]

I agree. That heritage has shaped our country and how it works. That is why I get Christmas cards from my Jewish colleagues, my Muslim colleagues and people of no faith at all. They recognise the importance of Christmas. If, as I have heard many people say, we want to preserve this country’s Christian heritage, we should preserve it and give people some time off at Christmas. Good King Wenceslas did not look out and see the queue for the next sale. As someone said in response to our consultation —forgive me for the language—“Christmas is about spending time with your family, not sodding shops!” I could not agree more.

It is about time we did something about this. In the end, a civilised society is judged by how it treats not the most powerful people in it, but those without power. Boxing day and bank holidays were introduced to ensure that workers got time off. We have moved away from that. We could at least move back a little bit by ensuring that large retail stores had to close on Boxing day.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, because she is making a brilliant speech. Who has less power in this world than children? It means everything to them to spend Christmas with their family. One retail worker said in testimony:

“I’ve got a little girl and these early years are such a magical time for her. I feel that I miss out on her enthusiasm and wonder by having to work over Christmas.”

That says it all.

[Helen Jones]

It does. We hear much from the Government about supporting families and the family being very important. We show how important it is by our deeds, not just by words. It is time we gave these lowest paid workers the right that we all take for granted—the right to have a day off on Boxing day.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

May I ask Members who wish to speak to stand, as I have not received notifications from any speakers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mrs Moon. In truth, I had not intended to speak, but I was so moved by the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) that I felt inclined to do so on behalf of my 181 constituents who signed the petition.

I find myself in the awkward position of seeing both sides of the argument. My instinctive sympathy is for retail workers who are forced to work on Boxing day, when they feel they should not have to do so. I feel for them, as I would anyone who was forced to work on Christmas day, which of course has statutory protection. My solution to this dilemma is for the Government to enact the relevant legislation, such that it would not be compulsory for retail workers to work on Boxing day if they did not wish to do so. I do not see why that would be difficult for the Government to do. There would be retail workers who were prepared to work on Boxing day if they had, to their mind, the requisite recompense to do so.

The reason I come to that compromise is that we now live, rightly or wrongly, in the age of the internet. Whether physical shops are open or closed on whatever day of the week, internet shopping will always be available. The bald, bold truth is that many retail workers will have signed this petition who will themselves go online on Boxing day to shop for items they want. While that is a digital choice, at the end of the day that digital request goes through to a warehouse—perhaps one of the warehouses in Kettering—where an employee is given an instruction to get that item from a shelf and put it on a pallet to go into a lorry for delivery to that consumer.

We are talking today—I recognise that it is with the best of intentions—about retail workers in physical shops on the high street or in our retail parks. However, they are in competition with real human beings who are employed in warehouses to respond to digital requests for consumer goods. Those digital requests are being posted online 24/7. People are shopping on the internet at times when you and I, Mrs Moon, may not think about shopping. Those retail requests go through to employees in warehouses who physically have to get those items off shelves and put them on pallets to go into lorries. The difficulty that I have—I am sure other Members have the same difficulty, if they are really honest about it—in responding to this petition is that we have to make a choice between retail workers on our local high street and employees in our local warehouses. It is a difficult choice that we, as parliamentarians, have to be honest about.

A fair compromise would be for the Government to say that no one should be required to work on Boxing day. That would give an element of statutory protection, recognising that Boxing day is the day after Christmas and has special meaning in our country. As the hon. Lady said, it goes back to giving servants boxes to thank them for their service over the previous year. We would then recognise the contribution that retail employees make and say to them that they do not have to work on Boxing day if they do not want to. There would be no downside for them—no loss of pay, pension or holiday entitlement—if they decided they did not want to work on Boxing day, but someone who wanted to would have every right to do so.

[Helen Jones]

I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but does he not recognise that, even with the right he suggests, many low-paid workers in this sector are and would be pressured into giving up their Boxing day? There is little to prevent that because, with low-paid workers often in non-unionised workplaces, there is not an equal balance of power here.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Lady, following on from her good-natured speech, makes a characteristically powerful point. I recognise that, but the brutal, honest, bald, bold truth is that if we said that shops were not allowed to open on Boxing day, millions of our fellow citizens would shop online. Instead of talking about human beings in high street shops, we would be talking about more of our fellow human beings in our local warehouses responding to people shopping online. That is the reality.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Surely his argument is one for 24-hour shop opening. People can shop online at any time. Is there not some place where we just have to draw a line?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am very sympathetic indeed to the hon. Lady’s cause. I voted against extending shop opening hours during the Olympics, and I voted against liberalising Sunday trading, but I recognise that I am probably on the wrong side of history in this debate because of the influence of internet shopping. I am trying to be honest with the hon. Lady and the Chamber. Ultimately, we are here to represent the citizens in our communities. Some of those citizens will work very hard in our local high street shops and some will work very hard in a local warehouse, especially in Kettering, just down road responding to digital requests. If I supported the thrust of the debate and said we should ban retail sales on Boxing day, I would be saying that that local high street employees were not allowed to work on Boxing day, but employees in the warehouse down the road could work and would be working harder, because they would be responding to online digital requests from our fellow citizens who decided to shop on Christmas day and Boxing day.

Do I think there should be 24/7 shopping? No, I do not. Do I think we should recognise what is left of our Christian heritage? Yes, I do. Do I think this request for a special exemption for Boxing day is religiously driven? No, I do not. I think that whatever Christian meaning there was in Boxing day has probably long departed us, unfortunately. Do I recognise there is still a religious and cultural significance to Christmas in our country? Absolutely, I do.

That is why I suggest what I hope is a reasonable compromise: employees should not be required to work on Boxing day and there would be no redress against them if they decided not to do so. I recognise absolutely what the hon. Lady is saying about hidden pressures, or sometimes overt pressures, on employees who do not wish to work on Boxing day, but I hope Her Majesty’s Government could establish a system that was fair enough and understood by enough people for it to be accepted in this country that if people did not want to work on Boxing day, that would be fine.

That would probably mean that employees who wanted to work on Boxing day would have to be paid more. In many ways that is not a bad thing, but it would have to be accepted by employees who chose not to work on Boxing day that they would not be entitled to that double or triple pay. They would have to make a choice. If we are honest, many employees who do not want to work on Boxing day now might want to if they were offered double or triple time. I am not saying that is a satisfactory choice. I am just saying it is probably a realistic one that would result from such a system.

With that compromise, I think we would end up with a smaller number of people who were dissatisfied and a larger number who were happy to accept the end result. I cannot see any other way of solving the problem and cracking the nut. That is difficult because we now live in an online world. If we were having this debate 20 years ago, I would have agreed absolutely with the hon. Lady that retail shopping on Boxing day should be banned, but in 2016-17 it is almost impossible to do that because of the internet. I do not like it; I am not advocating it. I am just saying that is the way it is.

My solution and my humble petition to the Chamber in response to this excellent petition signed by so many people is that Her Majesty’s Government should make a sensible compromise and tell retail workers they do not have to work on Boxing day if they do not want to, but if they do, they have every right to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Sorry, not at the moment; I will come back to you. So many times when I was working on those Boxing days, new year’s days and so on, colleagues who had the day off would come in and see us because they were out shopping with their families. You are talking about giving people time off, but I saw that a lot of my colleagues were out shopping anyway. Times have changed.

The retail sector has Christmas day and Easter Sunday off, but it is not just about the Christian side of things. We live in a multicultural society, so this is not about any particular religion, really. I would like to put forward the other view, which is that of retailers. Retail is in my blood, as I said. High street retailers have found things so hard over the last decade, because of the internet. I have seen so many businesses close down. I used to work for Comet. It had been around for more than 100 years. Look at what happened to Comet; look at what happened to Woolworths. I also used to work for Allsports. All of those went bust after decades.

Boxing day was the busiest day of the whole year for us in retail. I remember that in one Comet store, we took more than £100,000 in one day. Normally, on the busiest Saturday, we would be lucky if we took £15,000, so to me, we are biting the hand that feeds us. Retail is struggling. The high street is dwindling; the internet is killing the high street. More and more people are shopping online, and that is just an inevitable aspect of the internet; I am not saying anything against it. However, if Boxing day is the busiest day of the year and we stop the ability to trade on that day, what will happen to the job security of these low-paid workers?

[Helen Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I will give way to you even though you did not to me.

[Helen Jones]

That is because the hon. Lady did not come in for the beginning of the speech. It is rude for someone to try to intervene when they were not here for the beginning of the speech. The hon. Lady is wrong: Boxing day is not the busiest day of the year overall. It may well have been where she worked, but it simply is not—

[Andrea Jenkyns]

In retail, it is.

[Helen Jones]

That is not the case. Figures from the Library show that, overall, Boxing day sales are not as high as those for the peak day in December or the peak day in November.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

With respect, in all the years that I worked in retail—you have not worked in retail like I have—it was the busiest day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on making a comprehensive, passionate plea to support working people in the retail sector. That was supported by nearly everybody who spoke, and the contributions made by hon. Members around the Chamber were entirely consistent with what she said. The hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) were entirely sympathetic, as were my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in their interventions. The one discordant note came from the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), who frankly gave a description of retail that many workers in the retail sector would not recognise.

On Christmas day, my children will wake my wife and me early—we are still in that stage of family life. We will go and visit other family members, and we are lucky to be able to do so, but such a happy family scenario is not available to everybody in this country. As other hon. Members have mentioned, many workers in sectors beyond retail have to work over the festive period, for very good reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North said that shopping is not a matter of life and death, but for key workers in the NHS, the care sector and in our police and fire services, working is a matter of protecting life and sometimes dealing with death. Sadly, that includes on Christmas day and Boxing day. We can take this opportunity to thank everybody who works in the emergency services and the care sector for the contribution that they make every day of the year, and especially at the festive time, when most of us are able to take time to be with family and friends.

Many people have to work in the hospitality sector over Christmas, as has been mentioned, and it is right to recognise the realities for such people. There are also some in retail, in small shops, who work on Christmas day and sometimes Boxing day—typically shop owners. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that smaller shops tend not to want what it describes as “paid staff” working—staff who are not owners or family members—because of the costs. However, it recognises as part of that equation the desirability of paid staff—again, the ACS’s term, not time—being able to have time off to spend with their families.

That leaves us with the large stores. The successful USDAW campaign saw the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) become law in the Christmas Day (Trading) Act 2004. At the time, the internet was not as advanced as it is now—I will come to some points made about online trading later. What happens to staff on Boxing day is increasingly a concern, and it has led to this petition, which has been signed by a very large number of people. The petition was the result of an increasing number of large retailers opening on Boxing day—and opening earlier and for longer.

As we have heard—I have heard this from constituents of mine—people are finishing later and later on Christmas eve. They still have to prepare for Boxing day, sometimes on Christmas eve, and sometimes on Christmas day itself. I heard a story about a major high street retail name that opens at 5 am on Boxing day, and staff have to be there at 3 am or 3.30 am. They have to travel—what time do they get up? Are some of them even starting on Christmas day? What kind of a Christmas is it for someone who knows they have to be at work at 3 am or 3.30 am on Boxing day? I cannot even begin to think what that must be like. However, that is where some large retailers are headed—that is the reality—and why there has been this petition. When we look at the consequences for family life, I think we can all understand and share people’s concerns—as everybody in the Chamber did, with one sad exception so far, although we have yet to hear from the Minister.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, I am a very proud member of USDAW. Its survey said that 16% of workers say that they face working longer hours this year, 7% say the hours will be shorter and 77% say the number of hours will be much the same. The number of hours that staff are being asked to work is therefore increasing. We have heard about the impact of long hours in the run-up to Christmas and about the inability of most staff to take time off for a considerable time—time off that would enable them to recuperate—and about the impact on families, especially those with children. Parents who finish late on Christmas eve then have to come back and put the stockings together.

[Helen Jones]

Put the toys together.

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, and the toys—I thank my hon. Friend. They also have to prepare the food for Christmas day with very little time to enjoy themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I have no suggestions at the moment to put to the hon. Gentleman, and I would not like to give the impression that the Government are exploring that. We are opposed to a ban on retail trading on Sundays. More generally, Boxing day is a day on which some people like to get out of the house. It has long been a major day for shopping and other events, and I have covered the point that an increasing number of workers in other sectors are busy at work.

Another argument against banning offline retail—that is what it is now—from opening on Boxing day is that many other workers would want to know why we were making an exception for the offline retail trade when employees in other sectors work on Boxing day. There are many aspects to the issue other than the threat posed to retailers by an outright ban, particularly, as I have mentioned, to retailers without a strong online presence.

May I respond to a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington North in her interesting and well researched speech? Workers have many protections under the working time regulations, including entitlements to rest breaks, daily and weekly rest periods, and a maximum working week of 48 hours, normally averaged over 17 weeks. However, workers can choose to opt out of the 48-hour limit, and I accept that some jobs are more or less conditional on their exercising that opt-out. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal, which the hon. Lady also mentioned, is intended to strike the right balance between fairness for employees and flexibility for employers.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister mentioned the working time directive, but the problem in retail is that many workers work flexible hours, so it is difficult for them to enforce that provision.

Also, the Government often miss the point about unfair dismissal and the balance between employers and employees. The law does not say that employers cannot dismiss people; it says that they cannot dismiss them unfairly. That is the key point. Because the time has been extended, those who are forced to work on bank holidays find it difficult to enforce their rights without being dismissed, so they simply cannot make a claim.

[Margot James]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. It is true that employers can dismiss people, as long as they are not unfair about it and they go through proper consultation and so forth. The flexibility cuts both ways. People increasingly want to work flexibly, especially if they have caring responsibilities and suchlike; likewise, employers, certainly in the fast-changing world of retail, require some groups of workers to work flexibly.

I will finish by reaffirming that we do not believe that it is for the Government to tell businesses how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers. Notwithstanding the many very good arguments that I have heard this afternoon in favour of giving employees greater freedoms on bank holiday periods, particularly around the family-associated festive season, we believe that the current legislation provides the right balance between the interests of employers and workers, and at least provides workers with a generous leave entitlement. The Government therefore do not propose to ban shops from opening on Boxing day.

[Helen Jones]

I shall be brief. This has been a very interesting debate, with thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). The last named, whose constituency is in a beautiful part of the world but has a very long name, has at least tried to propose some ways to solve this dilemma, but I must pick up on something he said. No doubt he was a compassionate manager, but we do not legislate for the good; we legislate for the worst.

As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) both acknowledged, there is a problem with workers being forced to work on Boxing day when they do not want to. The Government really have to take on board the opinions of most Members who contributed today and look seriously at the issue, because it is the Government’s responsibility to regulate. I know many members of the Government do not like doing that, but if they did not we would still be sending children up chimneys and people would still be working long days in factories, as my hon. Friend said.

We need to find a way out of this dilemma. It is clear from the debate that the current situation is not fair to workers in retail or to their families. It is not even terribly fair to employers, because workers who are treated well are more productive. There is an issue with people working in warehouses, as the hon. Member for Kettering said, but there are ways to deal with that and with internet shopping without doing so on the backs of retail workers. Of course some people have always worked on bank holidays—hospitality workers have to do so, and so do people who work at sporting fixtures—but those in retail are in a particularly difficult position: having had an exhausting time in the run-up to Christmas, they then do not get a proper Christmas break.

I hope that the Minister will go back to the Department, think very seriously and discuss with her colleagues what can be done to resolve the situation. It is clear that at the moment it is really unfair on those in retail.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 168524 relating to the closure of retail stores on Boxing Day.

Student Loans Agreement

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 131167 relating to changes to the student loans agreement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, this afternoon. It may come as a surprise to some people that we are debating this issue in July 2016, as the decision was taken last autumn, but the reason is very simple: it took students some time to realise what decision the Government had made. Those of us who have been in the House for a while know that whenever the former Chancellor spoke, it was wise not just to listen to what he said, whether that was in the autumn statement or the Budget, but to look at the small print. And so it was last year: buried on page 126 of the Budget papers was the Government’s decision to freeze the repayment threshold for student loans at £21,000. Not unreasonably, it took students some time to realise what was happening. That decision was and is a real breach of faith on the Government’s part.

This is the second Parliament in succession in which students have been massively let down. Under the coalition, the Liberal Democrats promised to freeze, or in some cases abolish, tuition fees—as usual with the Liberal Democrats, it depended which part of the country people were in—and then the Government trebled them. This time, when the Government introduced the new student loans system, they promised that the threshold for making repayments would be updated from April 2017 in line with average earnings, but then they chose to freeze it until at least April 2021. The worst thing about that decision is that it is retrospective, so that students who took out a loan at the beginning of this process—let us remember that some of them were only 18 when they did so—have found the conditions of that loan changed, without any right of appeal or recourse to any other relief. People have said, quite rightly, that in a commercial organisation that would not be allowed, but it seems that the Government are not prepared to adhere to the standards that they impose on others.

Why have they done it? The late and fairly unlamented Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which had some claim to being probably the most unskilled Department in Whitehall, said in 2015:

“We consulted on freezing the repayment threshold”.

So it did. The problem was that the responses were overwhelmingly against a freeze: 84% of respondents were against freezing the threshold and only 5% were in favour. When a Government conduct such a consultation, get a massive thumbs-down and still go ahead, we know that they are on very shaky ground, so we have to dig a little deeper to find out what was really going on. The answer is in another announcement from the Department:

“This increases the financial commitment of borrowers to repaying their loans.”

It added that it expected such a move to generate an extra

“£3.2 billion over the lifetime of the loans”.

There we have it. The Government were not getting enough money in, so they resorted to that rather underhand tactic to get more. There are two simple reasons why they are not getting enough money. First, they have failed to create enough highly skilled jobs in the economy, so many graduates are working in low-paid, low-skilled jobs, often in insecure unemployment, like many other people in the country. In fact, so committed are the Government to the notion of insecurity and low pay in employment that it was possible for them to have a candidate for the leadership of their own party, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who wanted to get rid of all restrictions on small firms—that was before she was given the revolver and the bottle of whisky. In 2012, she said:

“I envisage there being absolutely no regulation whatsoever—no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, no pension rights—for the smallest companies”.—[Official Report, 10 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 209.]

It is not surprising that the Government have failed to create more skilled jobs. In fact, the Higher Education Statistics Agency pointed out last year that a third of graduates were working in low-skilled jobs six months after they graduated and that more than 16,700 graduates were unemployed. They worked as cleaners, office juniors and road sweepers. I am old enough to remember when graduates and students used to take those jobs in their holidays, or sometimes even in the summer after they had finished studying, while they looked for a permanent job and somewhere to live. We were told at the time that it was character-building for us, and it made us realise how lucky we were. Well, the luck has run out for many of today’s graduates. They are not doing those jobs for a few weeks; they are doing them for months, sometimes years, without reaching the level of wages that mean they can pay back their loans. No wonder the system is in chaos.

Secondly, the Government are failing to get this money in because the whole student loan system itself is in chaos. In 2013, the National Audit Office warned BIS that it was in danger of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds because it did not have enough information on the recipients of its loans. In fact, it had no employment information at all for 368,000 people, so it did not know whether they should be paying back or not. The NAO also said that

“BIS…consistently over-forecasts how much it expects to collect annually”.

Presumably, they were too frightened of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) to tell him the truth.

At the time, the NAO estimated that a third of loans would not be paid back. The Library forecast a £3.2 billion shortfall, in this Parliament alone, between what the Government expected to collect and what they would actually collect. The former Business, Innovation and Skills Committee went further: in 2014, it suggested that almost half the loans would never be repaid. The Government’s own estimate was that 45% would not be repaid. That is perilously close to the 46.8% threshold at which the Government cease to get back as much as they are paying out.

What did the Government do in response? They did not think, “Well, perhaps the economic model we’re pursuing isn’t quite right.” They did not think to end the chaos in the Department. Instead, they sold off a bit of the student loan book—mostly old loans from the ’90s—and they used this back-door method of collecting more money, adding another flaw to an already flawed system.

Students are clocking up interest at such a rate that it is almost impossible for them to get a grip on what they owe. While they are university, interest is charged at the rate of the retail prices index plus 3%. One student recently posted online his statement from the Student Loans Company, which showed how much interest he was clocking up, sometimes at the rate of £180 each month. For someone earning under £21,000, interest clocks up at the rate of RPI. For someone earning more than that, it is on a sliding scale, so that when they earn £41,000 they are charged interest at the rate of RPI plus 3%.

Two things about that strike me as very interesting. First, the Government use the measure of RPI, when the rest of the time they tell us that the consumer prices index is the correct measure of inflation. They seem to hold two contradictory positions: when they are paying money out to their citizens—in the form of benefits, for example—they say that CPI is the correct measure of inflation, but when they are collecting money, they say that RPI is the correct measure. Holding two contradictory positions at the same time is what George Orwell called “doublethink”. The Government seem to believe in both.

Secondly, by freezing the earnings threshold at £21,000, the Government are ensuring not only that more people are on the wage level at which they start to pay back loans, but that they pay them back with a higher rate of interest. It is a double whammy. Such a piece of chicanery really should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It matters, because it is important that students have faith in the system. Changing that system destroys that faith, particularly among those from the poorest families or those who are the first in their family to go to university.

Let me tell the Minister what it is like to be the first person in a family to go to university—it was like this even under the old grant system. Such a person wants certainty. They calculate to the last penny what they are getting in and what they have to pay out. They want to know that when they leave university, they will get a decent job. That implied promise that if someone went to university, worked hard and got a good degree, they would get a decent job at the end, has now been abandoned.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to choose to introduce the debate on this particular petition. I hope she has more success in getting answers from the Minister than I did in my Adjournment debate on 27 June. She is making a powerful case. According to the Government’s own figures, graduates on a salary between £21,000 and £30,000 will have to pay back £6,100, whereas those on a salary of £40,000 will pay only £400 extra. Those on an even higher salary pay even less. The system disproportionately affects people who are worse off, including women and people from ethnic minorities.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. This system is flawed all the way through. Trying to fix it by making it more flawed is not going to work. Today’s students do not have the assurance, which we had in the past, that they will get a decent job. Many graduates are doing low-paid, low-skilled jobs that are perfectly useful but not commensurate with their qualifications. They often move from job to job, with nothing that could be described as a career. The doors of their chosen professions are frequently closed to them because they cannot afford to do the unpaid internships that are currently the way into many jobs.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this debate. I declare an interest: I have two sons, both of whom will have to pay loans back at the higher rate, and both of them have paid fees of more than £9,000 a year. My hon. Friend might also have mentioned graduates like my elder son. He has chosen to work abroad for two years, on a low wage, to get an interesting experience of the world. He is not fully aware of the implications for what he is going to have to pay or how the repayment rates are rolling up year after year.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend is right. When students took out loans at the start of university—this was as true under the old system as it is under the new one—many were not really aware of the full implications: when they would have to start to pay them back, how interest accumulates and so on. We would be foolish to expect many of them to be aware of those things at the age of 18. I do not think I or many other Members would have been.

The problems faced by many young graduates are simple. They have little hope of getting into decent jobs and no hope of getting on the housing ladder. Many of them are stuck in rented accommodation, with rents rising every year, meaning that they cannot save for a deposit on a house. Recently released statistics show that this will be the first generation to earn less than the one before. The assumption we always made, certainly when I was growing up, was that each generation would do better than the one before, but that no longer holds good. That is a real betrayal of our young people. What the Government have done with student loans adds to that betrayal. They have failed to understand the implications for young people and to get a grip on the system.

As in so many other matters these days, the Government are making young people pay the price for their failure. The Minister should really think again. With a new Chancellor in place, there is a chance to revisit this matter and get the student loans system on a sensible and sustainable footing. I urge the Minister to take this chance, because what is happening at the moment is totally wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, as colleagues will know, changes made in this Parliament to the Standing Orders allow the mover of a motion to speak for two or three minutes after the Minister has sat down. Helen Jones, would you like to do that?

[Helen Jones]

indicated assent.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You would. I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

Thank you for your excellent chairing of this debate, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership. I am glad to have been reappointed in time to take part in this important debate and discuss the matter with the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

I recognise the sincerity and strength of feeling about this question among hon. Members and members of the taskforce that advised the previous Government, but I am sure they understand that my challenge as a Minister in the Department responsible for student and university finance is to ensure that our higher education system remains open to all and that our universities remain well funded. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who made an excellent opening speech, and other hon. Members have asked several important questions, which I will attempt to answer. However, I will first provide some strategic context to the decisions that the Government took in 2015.

When we reformed student finance in 2011, we put in place a progressive student loans system. Higher education is therefore accessible to all who have the potential to benefit from it, irrespective of their ability to pay. The system is working well and this Government have done more than any other to put higher education financing on a secure and sustainable footing. England has some of the finest universities in the world, and it is vital for our future economic prospects that they remain well funded. Total funding for the sector increased from £22 billion in 2009-10 to £28 billion in 2014-15, and it is forecast to reach £31 billion by 2017-18. We must ensure that our universities have the resources they need and every student has a high-quality experience during their time in higher education.

As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) acknowledged, the warnings in the last Parliament that there would be a deterrent effect on student applications proved wrong. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university at a record rate—up from 13.6% in 2009 to around 18.5% in 2015. People from disadvantaged backgrounds are now 36% more likely to go to university than they were under the previous Labour Government.

[Helen Jones]

Can the Minister enlighten us about the position with the Russell Group universities?

[Joseph Johnson]

It is important that we make progress across our system. In the guidance that I sent to Les Ebdon, the director of fair access, in February this year—by the way, that was the first guidance that he had had in more than five years—I explicitly gave him strong political support to ensure that all institutions, including those that see themselves as the elite institutions in this country, do the heavy lifting on access and that people who have the capacity to benefit from education at Russell Group institutions get the chance to.

In Scotland, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) may be aware, controls on student numbers continue to stifle aspiration and opportunity in a way that is simply no longer the case in England because of the way that we have put our student finance system on a sustainable footing. He made several points in this respect. I steer him towards a recent statement by the Sutton Trust that

“Scottish 18 year olds from the most advantaged areas are still more than four times more likely to go straight to university than those from the least advantaged areas.”

By contrast, the figure in England is 2.4 times. I also point him to a statement by Audit Scotland, which says:

“It has become more difficult in recent years for Scottish students to gain a place at a Scottish university as applications have increased more than the number of offers made by universities.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I had hoped for a more encouraging reply from the Minister, because he is generally a decent soul, but his reply showed that he just does not get it. We have heard about the impact on poorer students, on women and on those from ethnic minorities. Most of all, we have heard about the impact on trust in politics and the Government. The Minister has told us that the Government have not changed the terms and conditions, and that is absolutely true; but the Government have gone back on what they told students. He says we want a system that is open for all, but at the moment our most prestigious universities are open to all in the same way that the Ritz hotel is. He has not tackled that. He will not give us the figures for poorer students going to the most prestigious universities. He has admitted that the Government got themselves into trouble on this issue, because average earnings did not rise as much as they hoped they would. In other words, their economic policy is at fault.

As for the system being sustainable, all the evidence shows that it is in real trouble. It is not going to be sustainable in the long term or deliver what students want, or what the country wants, which is an opportunity for every young person, wherever they come from, to go to the university that is right for them—not the cheapest or the nearest—and for universities to admit them. Despite the talk of meritocracy, we do not have a meritocracy—unless we believe that those who are better off are automatically cleverer than other people; because in our system at the moment, people are less likely to go to a prestigious university if they are poor. I hoped that the Minister would be able to respond to those concerns today. Sadly, he has not. Students and their parents will note that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 131167 relating to changes to the student loans agreement.