Future of Postal Services

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

First, I want to pay tribute to my local posties, Wayne and Mark, who are incredible. Wayne, in particular, went absolutely over and above when I was heavily pregnant and then had a newborn. He always did everything he could not to generate extra journeys for me, knowing how difficult that can be with a newborn. That is the value of local posties who care. We are so grateful for the service that they provide, but we stand to lose it if we are not careful.

I tabled written parliamentary questions to the Minister at the end of November, asking what discussions his Department had had with Royal Mail Group on six-day letter deliveries and the future of the universal service obligation. I was reassured that the Government said they had no current plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of the universal postal service. However, in a statement on 17 November, Royal Mail said:

“A sustainable future must also include urgent reform of the Universal Service. Government has now been approached to seek an early move to five day letter delivery, whilst we continue to improve parcel services.”

We are clear in our understanding that what is going on at Royal Mail is a real prioritisation of parcels over letters. The only difference between a letter and a parcel might be the cost to send, rather than the value of the content. Is that not what the universal service obligation is there to recognise and protect? I simply ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to ensure that Ofcom is playing its role in holding Royal Mail to account on its service obligations, and what is he doing to make sure that we look after postal workers into the future?

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Businesses in my home town of Halifax have acutely felt the culmination of factors that has created such a tough operating environment in recent months. Halifax had a lot to boast about going into the pandemic, and while the prevalence of independent businesses in Halifax, alongside our financial and manufacturing sectors, gives us a strong offer as a town, it also brings with it a certain vulnerability when faced with the challenges we have endured. We know that business rates have become a weight around the neck of businesses, choking off growth. I hear that time and time again.

Harveys is an independent department store that first opened its doors in 1950. It is an institution in Halifax, but like others, it was forced to close during the pandemic for eight months in total. Naturally, this has had a significant impact on its finances and resilience. Harveys has contacted me with concerns that putting business rates back to pre-pandemic levels before footfall and takings are anywhere near back to pre-pandemic levels could be the difference between survival and failure for it and so many other businesses. We have been clear that we would immediately reduce business rates before scrapping them entirely within the first term of a Labour Government.

There is not time in today’s debate to cover every business sector in need of further consideration and support, but alongside travel and the night-time economy, I will single out children’s soft play as being among those hardest hit. I have several soft play centres in my constituency, and they are required to adhere to the strictest of measures, given the nature of their business as well as the tiered system that affected West Yorkshire for prolonged periods of time. One such business is Play Palace in central Halifax. It was able to benefit from a bounce back loan but sadly it has not bounced back as a business, given the variant and the inevitable time required to rebuild consumer confidence in the activities that it offers. Like other businesses that took up the loans on offer to get them through, it is now carrying debts that only add to the pressures it is facing here and now.

Beyond the pandemic, it comes as a surprise to precisely no one that Brexit was not the bonfire of barriers to trading promised by some. I have heard from 4x4 Overlander Ltd in my constituency just this week. Its costs have already gone up by 10%, and it is seeing rising shipping costs, custom clearances and a whole host of fees and tariffs. The company worries that it will have no option but to pass those costs on to the customer. I have also written to the Government on behalf of the Leo Group and others in my constituency about the skills shortages that are crippling their sector. The rush to end free movement had no accompanying skills plan whatsoever, and those businesses really are feeling it. There are a number of other issues. Crime is affecting businesses in my constituency, and the criminal justice system is collapsing on this Government’s watch. We on this side of the House are listening to businesses. I hope the Government are doing the same.

Office for Product Safety and Standards

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

In the spirit of cross-party working, the Minister might remember that on 29 January he responded to a Westminster Hall debate on a petition calling for greater regulation of the sale of fireworks. In response to an inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), he said that, regarding the sale and regulation of fireworks, “this new body” would

“—where necessary—come forward with suggestions and advice to Government.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 261WH.]

He also committed to arranging a meeting with all those Members who were interested in the regulation and sale of fireworks. Has there been any progress on that particular issue?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She has reminded the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who said that this debate was the first time that he had heard me speak as the Minister, that this is actually the second time that he has done so; that was a very useful debate. My understanding—I look to my right, at my officials—is that officials were in the process of setting up that meeting. If they have not done so, I will chase that up; it should take place, because it is an important meeting and I want it to happen.

The hon. Member for Swansea East asked what the OPSS was doing to discuss electrical fire safety with the Home Office; that is important. The OPSS is building up its intelligence-gathering capability and will use a database and evidence to help to identify and prioritise products that pose higher safety risks to consumers. The OPSS is also represented on the Home Office’s fire statistics users group and we are in regular—almost daily—contact across Government to ensure that these activities are properly joined up.

The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned online selling, which is very important. Action is being taken by law enforcement agencies against the sale of counterfeit goods at local markets and car boot sales, through social media channels such as Facebook and facilitated by fulfilment houses.

The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of Amazon giving evidence to her all-party parliamentary group. I put on the record that I understand the point she made, and I agree with her that it would be valuable for the APPG to engage constructively with Amazon. I am sure that others outside this place have heard her comment and will respond to her in the near future; she should let me know if they do not.

Existing legislation applies to online retailers and they have a responsibility for the products they sell. As we have heard, the Intellectual Property Office works closely with Electrical Safety First; I commend the work that that charity does to highlight how to identify fake electrical goods that are being sold online.

One of the reasons for creating the OPSS is to enable the UK to meet the evolving challenges of product safety by responding to the increasing rate of product innovation, the growth of online shopping and trading portals, and expanding international trade.

I was asked whether private sales—consumer to consumer, on websites such as eBay—are regulated. Consumer-to-consumer sales are not covered by the Consumer Rights Act, other than in relation to things such as secondary ticketing. However, as we have heard today, there is a current consultation—a Green Paper—that I have launched, which specifically asks whether more protection is needed in this area. If the hon. Lady would like to contribute to that consultation, I would certainly be interested in hearing her views.

Over the past three years, National Trading Standards has had a core budget of £40 million to work with local authorities to tackle harm in this area. There was also a question in relation to the injury database. The injury database was scrapped in 2002, and at present there are no plans to reinstate it. However, the OPSS is considering how to ensure that it has access to the best information, and we always keep abreast of these things and will consider the future as we go forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised the issue of regulators and their powers. The White Paper specifically asks whether regulators need more powers, so he might want to have a look at it.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked whether businesses will be required to notify the OPSS; I think that I have already confirmed to him that they will absolutely be required to do so.

Then there is the issue of selling second-hand goods subject to recall. Under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, there is a requirement for sellers of second-hand goods not to sell goods that they know are unsafe.

I was asked what will happen on our exit from the EU. Of course, unsafe products will remain a serious risk. UK enforcement authorities are currently reliant on EU systems, such as Rapex, as the hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned. However, BEIS is developing new systems to enable regulators to identify new threats quickly, to mount co-ordinated and rapid responses, and to target and intercept products, including imports.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) raised the issue of boots. I can tell her that safety boots are regulated under the personal protective equipment regulations. Manufacturers have a legal obligation to ensure that they are safe, and trading standards officers have the powers to act if necessary. If the hon. Lady provides me with the details, I will ask the OPSS to work with trading standards officers to look into the case for her.

What else have we had? I think that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has pointed out that we intend to undertake a further upgrade of the Government’s product recall website; that issue was raised earlier. We recognise that this website is important and we will put extra work into it. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). She mentions that mums are concerned about bottle warmers and baby seats. I would say that it is not only mums who are concerned; as a new dad myself, I know that dads are also concerned. I can correct her by saying that they are no longer called baby seats; I think they are now called travel systems. That was news to me, but we are always learning as we go, are we not?

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some very important points. I commend him on the fact that he has spoken in some 379 debates in the last year. If only our products were as reliable as he is, we would not need this new office. However, I point out to him that currently the number of questions that he has asked stands at 666, so he might want to ask another question shortly.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned Which? I think we all recognise the important role that Which? plays in consumer protection. I can confirm to her that I am meeting its managing director next week and I can also confirm that the OPSS is working closely with Which? in a number of areas and has had regular meetings with it. I hope that reassures her.

I was also asked about the Grenfell fridge. Clearly, that issue is a priority. A thorough safety investigation has taken place and I hope to be able to come forward with information for the House in the very near future.

In closing, I reassure the House that this Government take the issue of product safety incredibly seriously. We have to get this matter right for all of our constituents. As the Minister responsible, I confirm that the Department and the new OPSS will continue to engage with parliamentarians to ensure that we get it right. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of the Office for Product Safety and Standards.

Fireworks

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is that you have joined us and taken over in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hanson? I also join hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for opening this important debate with a characteristically insightful and balanced speech on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Much like my hon. Friend and colleagues across these Benches, I want to stress that I have fond memories of growing up and spending time with my family setting off fireworks in the back garden over the course of bonfire night. So it is with great sadness that the instances of irresponsible, antisocial and at times dangerous misuse of fireworks have brought me here today to call for much tighter regulation around the sale and use of fireworks.

There has been a long-running problem with fireworks being used at all times of the day and night in my constituency and causing tensions within communities, as I will return to later in my speech. However, as predicted by my hon. Friend, my greatest cause for concern is the way in which fireworks were used to attack the emergency services over bonfire weekend. I saw that for myself when I went out with West Yorkshire fire and rescue and West Yorkshire police on Saturday 4 November last year. Both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who wanted to be here for this debate but is otherwise detained owing to her responsibilities on the Trade Bill, spent time with the emergency services on the frontline in Bradford.

Several crews working out of fire appliances and fire cars as part of the joint fire and police operation across West Yorkshire that night were subject to attacks involving fireworks. The crew of one of the fire appliances based at the station I was attached to had fireworks aimed at them that exploded just inches away from their faces and where they were working. The fire car in which my hon. Friend was shadowing officers and firefighters also had missiles and fireworks thrown at it.

I launched the “Protect the Protectors” campaign, which I am pleased to say the Government are supporting, having seen and heard too many harrowing incidents of emergency service workers coming under attack. Yet even I was surprised to learn that every instance of fire resources being deployed to calls over that bonfire weekend in Bradford had police officers co-deployed alongside them, as the risk of fire crews being attacked was so high.

We had anticipated that the Saturday night would be the busiest of the weekend; however, bonfire night on the Sunday evening proved to be worse. There were 18 attacks on fire crews over the bonfire weekend in West Yorkshire alone, with the vast majority involving fireworks. That was twice as many as the year before. So we know that the current rules and regulations simply are not effective, as the situation has deteriorated.

In Leeds, gangs barricaded streets in Harehills and Hyde Park, setting fire to bins and anything else they could find. When the emergency services arrived to put out the fires, they were met with fireworks fired at them. Youths were putting fireworks in drain pipes, which they used as rocket launchers to aim and fire at firefighters and police officers. Those incidents were deliberately orchestrated to lure emergency service workers into an area in order to be attacked, with the weapon of choice being fireworks, which made the attacks particularly sinister. In those instances, the police were left with no choice but to wear full protective equipment, including shields and helmets, in order to secure the area so that fire crews could tackle the blazes.

Chief Superintendent Mabs Hussain of West Yorkshire police hit the nail on the head when he was quoted in The Yorkshire Post as saying:

“Over the weekend, we had reports of fireworks being directed at moving vehicles, properties and emergency service crews…Many of the people doing this wouldn’t arm themselves with a knife or a gun, but don’t realise that using a firework as a weapon isn’t mischievous, it is highly dangerous.”

He was exactly right.

While I sincerely hope that the “Protect the Protectors” Bill being championed through Parliament as a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will make a difference by being a tough deterrent against such attacks, I hope that when considering the merits of further restrictions the Minister will reflect on the role of fireworks as a deliberate weapon of choice used by certain individuals specifically to attack emergency service workers at seasonal times of the year.

In Halifax, we have increasingly seen fireworks used as a means of celebrating weddings, making them a year-round occurrence. The geography of the area worsens the problem, as loud explosions echo around the valleys. Last summer, one single explosion at 1 am woke residents up to 4 miles away. I can confirm that, as I was one of those residents woken around 4 miles away from the source of the initial firework. It was not until the following morning, having returned to my office to see many emails in my inbox giving me an indication of the epicentre of the activity, that I realised the noise had travelled so far.

I wish that was an isolated incident; however, I regularly receive emails from tired and frustrated constituents on this issue. Those demonstrate that literally thousands of people are being affected, often in the middle of the night, by the actions of a few individuals, whose purpose for using fireworks is specifically to let everyone know that their fireworks are bigger and louder than everybody else’s.

One constituent contacted me last April to say that fireworks had started just past midnight on a Sunday night and continued non-stop until 2.30 am. The fireworks were not part of a seasonal celebration, and that highlights how, for many people, this is now a year-round problem. The constituent was rightly concerned about the impact of the sleepless nights on people’s health. During the same incident last year, residents took to Facebook in the early hours to express their frustrations. One resident who lived close to where the fireworks were being set off commented:

“Me and my son were up till 2am, he was so scared, we slept on the living room floor.”

I have been trying to find a resolution to this problem and have been in regular contact with the local police and the council’s environmental health department. It is clear that because of the nature of fireworks, it is difficult to take enforcement action after the event, when the evidence will literally have gone up in smoke in seconds. So I hope that the Minister will reflect on all the ways in which we can close down the irresponsible and antisocial use of fireworks at the point of sale.

If I may, I will highlight some points in relation to the Government’s response to the petition. As we have heard from other hon. Members, the current limit of 120 dB is still quite high. By some estimates, that is comparable to a rock band, a police siren or, as we have heard, a chainsaw or jet engine. The RSPCA believes that the maximum noise level should be reduced to 96 dB, and has raised concerns about the impact of such loud noises on animals. As we have heard, there are reports of horses dying from the shock of sudden explosions, so there are strong animal welfare arguments for reconsidering decibel limits, as others have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).

The Government’s proposed solution for tackling the emotional distress caused by fireworks is problematic. The Department says:

“The Government is aware of concerns about the distress noisy fireworks can cause…Therefore, the Government urges those using fireworks to be considerate to their neighbours and give sufficient notice…to those who are vulnerable”.

The list includes

“older people, children, those with mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder”.

I am glad that Ministers acknowledge that those with PTSD, for example, can be distressed by fireworks, but if they really think that people setting off explosions at 1 am that carry for four miles will be diligent enough to notify an entire constituency in advance, I am afraid that I do not share their optimism.

I started this speech by reliving my own fond memories of fireworks as a child; we all remember the odd mix of horror and excitement on realising that a firework had leaned precariously in our direction, leaving everyone rushing to get inside to watch that particular firework from the safety of the kitchen window. This is not about being anti-fireworks—the display by the Thames at new year was absolutely spectacular, as was the bonfire and display organised by West Yorkshire fire and rescue at its Birkenshaw headquarters—but about proper regulation. It is about ensuring that fireworks are not used in the middle of the night in residential areas, it is about ensuring that the noise does not carry for four miles and it is certainly about ensuring that fireworks are not put in drainpipes and fired at emergency service workers. The existing laws are not preventing any of those things, so I hope that the Minister might take this opportunity to reflect on what changes to those laws might bring about the changes in behaviour that we would all like to see.

Living Wage

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I too start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for the leadership and tenacity she has shown on this issue and for securing this debate with the support of the Backbench Business Committee.

Although I have been surprised at and saddened by at the variety of ways workers in receipt of the living wage have had other terms, conditions and benefits revoked or reduced, I will focus today on those who are potentially not even receiving the living wage at all—workers under the age of 25. In June, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on age discrimination and the national living wage. The Government have failed to respond to some of the points raised by myself and others in that debate, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue again.

The decision to deny the Government’s so-called living wage to under-25s means that from 1 April this year, many workers under the age of 25 will have discovered that their pay packet is substantially less than that of their older colleagues. As things currently stand, those between the ages of 21 and 24 are paid 50p less per hour than the living wage. The margin is greater again for those between 18 and 21, who are paid £1.90 less an hour; those under the age of 18 are paid just £3.87 an hour, which is £3.33 less per hour than the new living wage.

I am sure that the Minister will accept that many young workers, who were already demoralised at being left behind, felt that salt had been rubbed in their wounds by the comments of the then Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—now the Minister for Digital and Culture—at last year’s Conservative party conference. Outlining the rationale for the decision to pay under-25s less, he said:

“Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average.”

As someone who was doing three part-time jobs at the age of 17 while studying for my A-levels, I can sympathise with those workers under 25 who find that sweeping generalisation grossly unfair.

We hear that young people are not as productive, so how are the Government measuring productivity? I asked in a written question for their figures on the productivity of young workers. I was told that they had absolutely no evidence to support the claim. In his answer, the then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), told me that

“there are no official statistics estimating the productivity of workers by their age.”

So we know that the Government cannot give evidence to support the reasoning of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk. I accept that those embarking on a new role often require training and support from their employers and perhaps therefore initially represent a reduced return on investment for an employer, but that could be said of any employee, of any age, taking on a new role or returning to the workplace. Up and down the country there are countless examples of young people who give it their all and are a huge asset to their firms, yet now face the demoralising prospect of unequal pay.

Recently, it feels as though the Government have moved on from the productivity argument and are instead arguing that the ability to pay under-25s less will incentivise firms to hire young workers. Indeed, when I asked the former Leader of the House for a debate on this issue at business questions, he replied:

“I…think it is important to do everything that we can to incentivise employers to take on young people.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1564.]

We all want to see youth unemployment addressed, yet organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses, have pointed out that the Government’s approach could see employers wandering into legally precarious territory. An employer that actively seeks to recruit under-25s to cut wage costs will almost certainly fall foul of age discrimination legislation. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds; section 5 of the Act recognises age as one of those characteristics. It is direct discrimination if, because of a protected characteristic, one person is treated less favourably than another. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that to recruit workers on the basis of their age would constitute direct age discrimination.

In evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the Federation of Small Businesses said that

“our survey data suggests that some businesses may focus their recruitment on the under 25s. However by doing this they run the risk of potentially breaching age discrimination legislation, which should lead many employers to re-evaluate this stance.”

Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention on the threshold for 25-year-olds as a financial incentive, and respond to the advice of the FSB? If, as a result of the Equality Act, the threshold for under-25s is not permitted to serve any purpose in boosting youth employment rates, why have a lower rate at all?

Having campaigned on the issue, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) earlier this week to meet a number of young workers who were brought together by the GMB trade union—I thank them for their work on the campaign. Those young workers told their stories, including a testimony from a 20-year-old retail worker called Rebecca, who said:

“Earning less than older workers stops me from socialising with friends, studying part time to get a better job and I can’t afford to have driving lessons or even think about owning a car. I’m frustrated at the fact that I am expected to live on so little, whereas if I was older I would automatically be paid more.”

I hope the Minister reflects on Rebecca’s story and many others, and rewards under-25s for their hard work by extending the living wage.