Residential Premises: Product Safety and Fire Risk

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Chris Davies

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes the central point to which I am sure all Front-Bench spokespeople will refer when they wind up the debate. I will come on to Whirlpool’s response and the central recommendations of the Faulds Wood report.

Page 7 of the Library debate pack includes an interesting detail that had previously escaped me: if people have used their credit cards to buy faulty equipment, credit card companies could be held liable. The credit card companies may therefore sue manufacturers for faulty goods. I have not heard that point mentioned in any of the debates so far, but if the credit card companies weighed in and threatened to sue Whirlpool, that might be a game-changer. That is not within the scope of this debate, but I mention it as an aside.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an officer of the all-party group on fire safety rescue; our erstwhile chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), is also present. We all know the terrible devastation that a white goods fire can cause, but can the hon. Gentleman put an economic figure on it? It is sure to be a costly figure for the country.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have to confess that I do not have a figure. Most of the evidence that I have seen from the organisations that have briefed us relates more to public safety and the risk to life, but other hon. Members may very well be able to provide a figure. Looking round the Chamber, I think I see all the officers of the all-party group on fire safety rescue, who are all hoping to contribute as the hon. Gentleman has done.

The recommendations of the Faulds Wood review state:

“There is a need for the creation of an official national product safety agency…There should be an official trusted website…There is an urgent need to improve funding, training, resources and procedures for…the enforcement authorities”.

Which? makes the point that trading standards officers have 260 pieces of legislation to enforce, and product safety is therefore not a priority. It further states:

“Local authority trading standards cannot be expected to hold to account multinational companies for product safety incidents of national concern”.

That is surely true. Indeed, it was under pressure from Which? that Peterborough trading standards officers took action against Whirlpool, following the Shepherd’s Bush fire in 2016. Whirlpool updated its safety advice to consumers, warning them to stop using their machines until they are repaired. However, the modification programme it initiated did not have the capacity to deliver. In April, the Minister reported to the House that Whirlpool had resolved 1.5 million of the 3.5 million affected machines, and in October the Government spokesperson in the House of Lords reported that the figure stood at 1.7 million. It would be interesting to hear an update from the Minister today.

There are clearly big issues to address, not only for consumers but for retailers, manufacturers and the Government. As consumers, we need to recognise that completing product warranty forms is in our own interest; I understand that anecdotal evidence suggests that people do not complete them for fear of receiving unwanted sales literature, although personally I think it has more to do with laziness. According to the Library,

“YouGov research showed that just over a third of us currently register our appliances.”

Retailers should be required to register customers’ purchases and personal details for safety recall purposes. Those details must not be used for promotions—although in this age of information sharing and data capture, it is almost impossible for any of us to avoid sales material and promotions.

London fire brigade has a number of simple requests to manufacturers, and these requests are supported generally. They include changing fridge-freezer construction to protect insulation materials from components that could catch fire; better permanent marking of model and serial numbers, so that appliances can be identified after a fire; and using capacitors in fridges and freezers in a way that prevents them from starting fires. Which? also mentions non-flame-retardant backings for fridge-freezers.

Finally, what should the Government do? That is obviously the biggest challenge, especially with a Government who—with respect—are set against any new regulation on business. I have already mentioned the key recommendations of the Faulds Wood report for a national safety agency, an official trusted website and better enforcement; all its other recommendations flow from those. As an aside, all the safety organisations have raised concerns about what will happen after Brexit, not only to our own safety standards and markings, but to information sharing with other countries on advice, failures and recalls. It would be helpful if the Minister could also address that issue in her wind-up.

In conclusion, I am told by the London fire brigade that there have been 14 such fires in my constituency in recent times. I have referred to some of the other regional and national statistics, including those on fatalities. I understand that this is the fifth debate on this subject since March 2015. We have also had two Government reviews and there is an ongoing working group. There have been three major incidents in tower blocks since 2009—Lakanal House, Shepherds Court and Grenfell—all of which had an electrical source of ignition. The Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had a hearing yesterday to explore these issues and I hope it will soon launch a major inquiry. Of course, we still await the Government’s conclusions on their latest review, as I have mentioned.

Meanwhile, the average success rate for an electrical product recall is apparently between 10% and 20%. We all know, including our major safety organisations and the Government, that that is just not good enough, because lives are at risk. What can the Minister do about it?

I look forward to hearing the contributions of fellow Back Benchers and the responses from the Front Benchers. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue.

Animal Welfare

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Chris Davies

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend’s good point reinforces the contribution from the Chair of the Select Committee. I shall say more about licensing in a moment, but it is certainly a key element of the Committee’s report to which we hope the Government will respond positively.

I am always heartened that constituents contact me about a whole range of animal welfare issues because that shows that, while they articulate many concerns, animal welfare matters to them a great deal. Hon. and right hon. Members will receive emails and the occasional letter about the same animal-related issues as I do, including bees, badgers, domestic pets, circus animals, wild animals and dog fighting. It is good to see how much people care, but it is obviously disappointing, and indeed distressing, that these activities and abuses continue.

Along with others, I have backed the campaign instigated by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home that calls for tougher punishments for people who abuse and neglect animals. I was pleased to attend the launch of the campaign here in Westminster, and along with others I pledged my support for increasing sentences for animal abusers. It is unacceptable that people can abuse and neglect animals yet get away with such a small penalty. Battersea’s research shows that England and Wales has the lowest sentences for cruelty across 100 countries and states worldwide. Six months in prison is neither a punishment nor a deterrent when it comes to some of the most serious offences.

Further background information for the debate comes from the EFRA Committee’s third report of this Session. Animal welfare is mentioned in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—I nearly called him my hon. Friend, but we do this so often that it is almost passé. The report makes a number of recommendations, including on a timetable for the 10-yearly review of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point in due course. It also recommends a ban on third-party puppy sales and that local government should be responsible for enforcing the 2006 Act.

The report goes on to discuss the role of the RSPCA, which has historically undertaken the overwhelming majority of animal welfare investigations and prosecutions. The Select Committee recommended:

“the RSPCA should continue its important work investigating animal welfare cases…It should, however, withdraw from acting as a prosecutor of first resort where there are statutory bodies with a duty to carry out this role.”

A number of us said at the time that it was not for the Select Committee to require the RSPCA to withdraw in that way, because it will always have the right to raise private prosecutions in the courts, in the same way as any other citizen does. The real question was about the word “duty” in relation to other bodies, and the report considered which statutory bodies should be responsible in such circumstances.

The vast majority of our Committee’s work is done by consensus, as is the case for most Select Committees. This was one of the few issues that split the Committee. I voted against the majority view, not as a matter of principle but on the practicalities. In my view, and with no disrespect to those who voted for this recommendation, the expectation that the Crown Prosecution Service or local authorities will step in as prosecutors is pure fantasy. However, after rethinking the matter and considering what happens in Scotland—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), who represents the Scottish National party on the Committee, made a number of important points in this regard—I have been persuaded of one thing. If society is serious about animal welfare, it should accept its responsibilities. It is unfair that the RSPCA has to do society’s work, and it is carrying out that duty because the CPS and local authorities are not. We should send a message that society should prosecute through the CPS and the police—we should not have to rely on the RSPCA—but that is not going to happen any time soon. Regardless of what the Committee says, the RSPCA will have to continue its work, because that is the only option—no one else is going to do it.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am happy to give way to my other hon. Friend from the Select Committee.

[Chris Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend from across the divide for giving way. When the Committee took evidence, we found out that the system works particularly well in Scotland. It is not often that I praise how the Scottish National party runs Scottish affairs, but that system works well. Why cannot we do things as well on this side of the border?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

With my classic cockney accent, I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not join the hon. Gentleman in praising the Scottish National party. I think the policy predates the SNP taking over the Scottish Government, but it has continued since. Indeed, the Procurator Fiscal Service carries out that policy, and the CPS should do so here, but my point is that the CPS is not doing it, is not going to do it, and does not have the resources to do it. If it were not for the RSPCA, the work would not get done, so I support its ability to continue. Until such time as the Government give the CPS and local authorities the wherewithal to do the job, it will not get done unless the RSPCA does it.