Public Ownership of Energy Companies

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 608056, relating to public ownership of energy companies. 

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this important and prevailing issue—so prevailing that, within one week of the petition closing, another one, with the same title, was opened. I encourage anyone who supports the call for the Government to take back ownership of strategic energy assets to consider signing the new petition, because the issue is clearly not going away any time soon, and Parliament will undoubtedly be asked to revisit it. The new petition will remain open until 1 March next year.

The petition before us closed on 9 August and attracted over 109,000 signatures, including over 200 from my constituency. Before moving on to the essence of the debate, I thank the signatories to the petition and I particularly thank David Abrahams-Edley for starting it. It is David’s action that brought us here today for what I am sure will be an enlightening discussion. It is worth mentioning that David’s petition was started in February this year, just after Ofcom—Great Britain’s energy regulator—announced there would be a substantial, 54% price cap increase from 1 April. The fact that the petition was started before the announcement of an additional, eye-watering rise of 80% from 1 October shows a foresightedness that appears to have largely escaped the Government. I will say more about that later.

The petitioners call for the Government to

“take back ownership of strategic energy assets”

and

“accept that the Free Market has failed the energy sector”.

They believe that

“it is in the national interest to renationalise our energy assets”

because, even back in February, people were

“having to choose whether to heat or eat.”

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

In August, the Financial Times estimated that if a buyer was not found for Bulb the cost to the public purse could have reached £4 billion by spring next year, although transfer of ownership has now been agreed. Does the hon. Member share my concern that bailing out privately owned companies in this way could have a catastrophic impact on the public finances, whereas nationalising them could be much cheaper?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is reasonable to say that UK Governments of all stripes have overseen the deeply dysfunctional system of privatised energy companies, and we are where we are today. We need to get out of the hole that we are in.

It goes without saying that the situation that people are now facing has worsened considerably. In September, inflation exceeded 10%—its highest rate in 40 years.

It would be helpful if we quickly reminded ourselves what a free market is or is meant to be. Voluntary exchanges take place, accounting for supply and demand, and that is the basis of an economic system without Government intervention, with a key feature being the absence of coerced transactions or conditions on transactions. However, we all know that free market economies do not exist in the real world, because all markets are constrained in one way or another, with Ofgem and the introduction of the price cap being the obvious interventions in the market we are debating, and that is before the current energy crisis triggered even more interventions. So when the opening paragraph of the Government’s response to the petition states:

“Properly regulated markets provide the best outcome for consumers as a driver of efficiency and innovation”,

it raises various questions. Clearly, consumers are not benefiting from the best outcome. Does that therefore signal that the free market has indeed failed the energy sector, as the petitioners believe, or that the energy market is not being properly regulated? Either way, something is not working. Will the Minister tell us what the Government can do to fix it, if he does not agree that nationalisation is the right approach?

It is reported that economists who measure the degree of freedom in markets have found a generally positive relationship between free markets and measures of economic wellbeing. Unfortunately, most people in the UK are not enjoying economic wellbeing—we only have to look at the end of the Government response, which details what is described as the “unprecedented scale” of financial support that the UK Government are providing, to see that. Consequently, although Government intervention in this regard is welcome—indeed, necessary—it also serves as evidence that

“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,

as the petitioners say.

At this point, a bit of background about the Government action in relation to the current energy crisis would be helpful. We likely all remember that the proposed solution of the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) to situation at the time was to reduce every domestic electricity bill by £200 and then recover it over a five-year period. That initial intervention was the

“token gestures of mandatory loans”

mentioned in the petition. In case anyone is confused by the revolving doors at the top of this Government, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) was the Chancellor when David’s petition was started, not the third Prime Minister we have seen this year, as he is today.

Thankfully, that part of the petition was addressed by the then Chancellor, and his so-called loan-not-loan was ditched and replaced by the energy bills support scheme, under which domestic electricity consumers were to receive £400 of support with their energy bills, paid as a grant over six months, starting from the beginning of this month.

Then our second Prime Minister this year, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), announced the two-year energy price guarantee—an intervention in an intervention—which superseded the proposed energy price cap increase of 80% and limited the price that suppliers can charge customers for units of gas from 1 October. That move was of course widely welcomed, not least as the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to be acting

“so people and businesses are supported over the next two years”,

but it was simultaneously criticised for being misleading. A UK Government press release on 8 September stated:

“a typical UK household will pay no more than £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years from 1st October”.

However, the MoneySavingExpert Martin Lewis, who is arguably the most trusted man in Britain, commented:

“I’ve seen a lot of confusion, so let me start by saying there’s NO MAXIMUM ENERGY BILL.”

Not surprisingly, that confusion continues.

Exactly two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), our fourth Chancellor this year—so far—announced that, instead of lasting two years, the energy price guarantee would last only until April next year. In just over five months, many could be placed back on the energy regulator Ofgem’s price cap. According to energy analysts Cornwall Insight, that means another massive hike in bills for millions of people. The current prediction under Ofgem’s existing cap methodology is an increase of 74% more than the energy price guarantee.

I hope everyone here is keeping up with the Government actions taken so far to manage the UK’s energy crisis. Recapping on these recent events demonstrates that the energy crisis could have been handled in a more straightforward way if strategic energy assets were not open to the free market economy but owned by the Government, as the petitioners call for.

In the previously mentioned UK Government press release of 8 September, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk was reported to say:

“Decades of short-term thinking on energy has failed to focus enough on securing supply”.

I am sure that that is a sentiment the petitioners wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, they call for a 25-year strategic plan. However, like me, I do not think they would agree that launching

“a new oil and gas licensing round”

and lifting

“the moratorium on UK shale gas production”

is the way forward. That is regressive and builds on a nonsensical investment allowance that, unbelievably, incentivises investment in fossil fuel extraction instead of a just transition. Investment in energy security should be targeted at renewables, carbon capture and storage, and our net zero future. Have the Government forgotten the commitments they made to the world at COP26 last November? Additionally, the press release was entitled,

“Government announces Energy Price Guarantee for families and businesses while urgently taking action to reform broken energy market.”

If that reference to a broken energy market does not align with the petitioner’s claim that

“the Free Market has failed the energy sector”,

I fail to see what would.

Returning to a question I posed earlier about whether the energy market is being properly regulated, will the Minister explain why the Government’s response states that they continue to believe

“that properly regulated markets…provide the best outcome for consumers and promote market competition as the best driver of efficiency, innovation and value”?

Aside from the fact that market competition has all but disappeared, with the removal of lower-price tariffs from the market, and with around 24 million households out of 28 million on standard variable tariffs at the end of August, I do not think people across the UK believe they are getting value from the energy market, not least because of the punishing standing charges that are levied before even a kilowatt of power is used. Perhaps the Minister can come up with something to change my mind on that.

The Government response also mentions that

“properly regulated markets…incentivise private capital to invest in the energy system”.

My basic understanding of investment is that private capital is invested to make money for the people who have money to invest in the first place. Would it not therefore make more sense if those energy assets were in public ownership, so that the return on investment came back to the public purse, not the coffers of the energy companies? Of course, the temporary energy profits levy gains 25% of profits from oil and gas firms, and it is reported that it will raise £5 billion in its first year. That will help, but does the Minister agree that 100% of profits would help more?

The Government response stated that

“if the Government renationalised energy companies, the British taxpayer would have to compensate directors, shareholders, and creditors to the tune of tens of billions of pounds—money that would be better spent supporting families.”

This is where I return to the Government’s lack of foresightedness. Have they considered that the taxpayer has already been saddled with the burden of paying for the Government’s cost of living support for years to come? Has any assessment been done comparing a one-off payment to directors, shareholders and creditors with the repeated, ongoing costs that have been forced on the taxpayer? Why should the public be paying for energy costs while companies rake in significant increases in profits earned from UK oil and gas extraction?

Earlier this month, the chief executive of Shell said:

“The solution should not be government intervention but protection of those who need protection.”

That was before Shell’s third-quarter profits of $9.5 billion were reported just last week—eye-watering profits for the super-rich, compared with eye-watering bills for those who can least afford them. The Government are making the rich richer at the expense of low-income and middle-income households. Can they take immediate and prudent action to protect those most impacted by this energy crisis, now and in the future?

I am reminded of a famous George Bernard Shaw quote:

“Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time.”

Can the Minister convince me, as well as David and the other petitioners, that the Government’s refusal to nationalise the country’s strategic energy assets is not, in fact, an ideological blind spot? A nationalised energy sector would have the potential to deliver an integrated approach, guiding the country away from its dependency on unstable fossil fuels, thereby tackling climate change while, at the same time, protecting consumers. Are this Government capable of using some foresight?

I feel I have barely scratched the surface of the issues surrounding today’s petition, but I look forward to hearing the contributions of the other speakers. I particularly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

I am incredibly grateful to the Members who came along today, and I express my thanks to them on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I hope that the petitioners and those watching feel that we have at least opened the debate on this area. I think we have a long way to go before we satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

The Minister spoke about exciting opportunities, but with families in my constituency and throughout the country perhaps facing a choice between starving to death and freezing to death this winter, that is not exciting—that is terrifying. The energy market is broken beyond repair and it needs urgent action. We are not out of this crisis yet, but we still have no clarification from the Government as to their future plans for energy support past April next year. That is what the public want to know. The Government need to relook at those issues to find a solution that works in the long-term for everyone in this country, not just the well-to-do, the millionaires and the profiteers. We need action that helps people on the ground now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 608056, relating to public ownership of energy companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

11. Whether his Department plans to take steps to support (a) domestic and (b) non-domestic energy customers after March 2023.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

15. Whether his Department plans to take steps to support (a) domestic and (b) non-domestic energy customers after March 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me offer the reassurance that, if not for the United Kingdom, there would not be this level of support for businesses and individuals in Scotland. Scotland simply would not be able to afford it. It is the strength of the United Kingdom that allows this all-encompassing support to be provided. That is what the Government are doing. The package is one of the most generous that any country in the world has introduced. We are supporting people through the winter, and we will ensure there is focused support for the least well off in future winters.

[Martyn Day]

Just four days ago, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce issued the findings of its latest business survey and, to no surprise, energy costs were the main concern. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce stated:

“The signs of an economic bounce back don’t look promising as more and more firms are telling us that they have been forced to cancel contracts, projects or plans to expand, due to soaring costs and difficulty in hiring people.”

How exactly does having no certainty on energy costs beyond March help those businesses?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I assume it is orderly to say that I think the hon. Gentleman lives in a fantasy land. Energy prices varied before this Government came in and will vary in future. What His Majesty’s Government have done is provide enormous support for businesses. I say it again: just think how much worse off businesses would be if they were dependent on an entirely Scottish Administration with no money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of increases in the energy price cap on living standards.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We talk in Cabinet about the cost of living and the price cap all the time. The hon. Member will know that decisions on the level of the price cap are for Ofgem, but it is something we are constantly talking about in Cabinet.

[Martyn Day]

MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis has asked a great question over social media:

“The energy price cap’s predicted to rise 64% in Oct taking a typical bill to £3,244/yr; & rise again in Jan to £500/yr more than when May’s help package was announced. What’ll u do to avoid this & when?”

How would the Secretary of State answer that question?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Member will know that the various parts are moving in the Government, but I am sure there will be the customary statement or Budget in November from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure there will be some interesting measures there to deal with that particular question.

Covid-19: Requirements for Employees to be Vaccinated

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they should wear a face covering when not speaking in the debate. That is what the House of Commons Commission would like Members to comply with. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House authorities to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the estate, and to give Members and staff space when they are seated and entering and leaving the Chamber. I call Martyn Day to move the motion.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 599841, relating to requirements for employees to be vaccinated against covid-19.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. This might be one of the more interesting debates to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic. It has implications for health and business, and there are serious ethical questions.

The concept of mandatory vaccination is not new. Historically, children were required to be vaccinated against smallpox in the mid-19th century by the Vaccination Act 1853, which made it compulsory. Now, following on from mandatory vaccination for care home staff in England by 11 November, frontline health and social care workers in England will need to be fully vaccinated by 1 April, which means that they will need to have their first jag by 3 February.

Several countries have taken harsh stances on requiring vaccinations, such as Italy, which is requiring all over-50s in the workforce to be vaccinated. Given these recent developments, this is not some theoretical or abstract debate; it has considerable real-world implications for us here and now.

The petition was started by Ryan Karter. It has already gathered more than 175,000 signatures, and it still has several months to run until it closes on 1 May. The Government responded on 25 November, and I will comment on the response in due course. I am grateful to the creator and all those who have signed it, as the scale and speed with which it is being signed is a clear measure of the public interest in the issue.

The petition states:

“Make it illegal for any employer to mandate vaccination for its employees.”

At its heart is support for the principle of informed consent. In speaking to Ryan prior to this debate, he made me aware of several reasons he had for starting it, not least of which was the concern that mandatory vaccination for frontline health and social care workers will lead to a loss of workers, increase the pressures of staff shortages, and be unfair and disrespectful to essential workers. That is a theme I will expand on later.

Ryan also has concerns over vaccine safety, the evidence of their efficacy, and the failure of current policy to account for natural immunity to covid. The petition goes on:

“All British people should have the right to bodily autonomy and must never be coerced into receiving a medical intervention they may not want.”

That does not seem a particularly radical position to advocate, especially as the principle of consent is an important part of medical ethics and international human rights law. It is highlighted on the NHS website, which states:

“Consent to treatment means a person must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or examination.”

It adds,

“This must be done on the basis of an explanation by a clinician”,

and,

“Consent from a patient is needed regardless of the procedure”.

That is a position I find comforting and reassuring.

What do the UK Government say? In responding to the petition, the Government make a number of points. On the efficacy of vaccination, the response states:

“The vaccines are the best defence against Covid-19 and uptake of the Covid-19 vaccination has been very high across the UK. Vaccination reduces the likelihood of infection and therefore helps break chains of transmission.”

I assure the Minister that in that aspect he has my full support and agreement, and the weekly publishing of the covid-19 vaccine surveillance report evidences that fact. However, it should be noted that the reports state:

“Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant is substantially lower than against the Delta variant, with rapid waning. However, protection against hospitalisation remains high, particularly after 3 doses.”

The Government’s response to the petition states:

“Government has identified limited high risk settings where there is strong public health rationale for making vaccination a condition of deployment. The Government has recently announced that health and social care services will need to ensure that workers who have direct face to face contact with service users have been fully vaccinated against Covid-19, following consultation.”

It should be mentioned that within the NHS there is an existing, long-standing precedent requiring vaccination against hepatitis B for those undertaking exposure-prone procedures due to the potential health risk involved. Having said that, the expansion of this position to cover covid-19 is on a very different scale.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. Does he recognise that the requirement to have a hepatitis vaccination is only in the public heath green book? It is not mandatory in statute.

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Member for making that very good point. As I say, it is on a very different scale. It also takes no account of the fact that vaccines do not prevent viral transmission or infection.

The Government’s response puts the position in England out of step with the other UK nations. It is probably the most contentious part of today’s debate, and it is where I find myself very strongly in agreement with the petitioners. By contrast, the Scottish Government have pursued an “educate and encourage” strategy in their vaccine roll-out—a strategy that has resulted in a higher vaccine uptake to date. In Scotland, the covid vaccine is entirely voluntary, and the Scottish Government have no plans to change this position for healthcare staff or anyone else. The Scottish approach advises companies to bring staff along with them and to encourage vaccination rather than require it.

I mentioned earlier the deadline of 3 February for NHS workers in England to have their first vaccination in England in order to become fully vaccinated by 1 April. This is imminent, and I believe there is an impending staffing crisis.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The biggest issue facing the NHS has to be the backlog of operations and appointments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sacking 100,000 NHS workers can only make that worse—certainly not better?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Member has read my mind. She makes a well-put point, which I was just about to come on to. I have a slightly different figure, but the principle is the same: it cannot help the situation.

In November, a Department of Health and Social Care impact assessment found that as many as 73,000 NHS staff in England could lose their job as a result. I do not think we will split hairs over a few thousand; we will not know the exact number until we find out how many people have had their first dose by 3 February. These Government policy job losses would come on top of the long-standing staff shortages experienced by the health service. Some estimates put the figure at 99,000 current vacancies in NHS England. If we do the maths using the figures I have just quoted, we could be looking at 172,000 vacancies in England come April. That position is not going to help the NHS provide care at this time of great pressure. It presents a very real threat—one which may put patients at risk and place further pressure on a significantly depleted workforce.

There are growing calls for this policy to be, at the very least, delayed. Pat Cullen, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, has said:

“We are calling on the Government to recognise this risk and delay a move which by its own calculations looks to backfire… To dismiss valued nursing staff during this crisis would be an act of self-sabotage.”

His reference to self-sabotage is very well put. Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, has said:

“We are in the middle of an NHS staffing crisis, borne not only from covid absences, but also long-term problems that need long-term solutions. Now is not the right time to introduce more bureaucracy.”

The BMJ has highlighted that recruitment agencies are concerned about the effect of the policy on their ability to place staff, as well as the additional bureaucratic burdens of processing documentation, which is likely to take around 45 minutes per locum. I hope that the UK Government will listen to those concerns and the petitioners, look at the example of the devolved nations and think again, before they do serious damage to workforce levels and capacity in the NHS.

On requirements by other employers for staff to be vaccinated, the Government’s response states that

“an employer who proposes to introduce a requirement for staff to be vaccinated will need to consider the existing legal framework, including the law on employment, equalities and data protection. Whether or not it is justifiable to make COVID-19 vaccination a condition of deployment will depend on the particular context and circumstances.”

Some UK businesses have declared that all employees must be vaccinated or face a review of their contracts. The legality of that has been disputed by employment lawyers and trade unions, although, of course, it may be legal if it is written into contracts. For most of the UK, power over employment law is reserved to Westminster; only in Northern Ireland is it devolved. Decisions over companies’ requirements rest with those businesses.

On legal protections for workers, the Government response states:

“In addition to contractual and common law protections, there are relevant statutory frameworks, such as the Equality Act 2010, which provides protection against unlawful discrimination. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides various general protections, including against unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. In addition, collecting, storing and using information about workers’ vaccination status will engage the law on data protection. Employers will need to ensure that they have acted in accordance with their legal obligations when making decisions on requiring a COVID-19 vaccination.”

That sounds like a potential minefield of complexity if ever there was one.

Last April, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

“Employers are right to want to protect their staff and their customers, particularly in contexts where people are at risk, such as care homes. However, requirements must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and make provision for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.”

From an employment law and non-discrimination perspective, the safest route is to encourage vaccination, not to mandate it.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I note that there are so many points that could be made in this debate but limited time to make them. I have only scratched the surface while setting the scene, and I look forward to hearing what other right hon. and hon. Members have to say. I reiterate my main point that an “educate and encourage” strategy would be a better approach and that there is still time for the Government to change tack on mandatory covid vaccination for England’s NHS workers.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I am not going to set a time limit. If Members stick to no more than six minutes, they will have ample time to get everything in and it will allow everyone to have a free-flowing debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

Thank you very much, Mr Paisley. It has been a great pleasure to take part in today’s debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank everyone who came along to take part. We had a well informed, educated debate. The Minister said something in his summing up that I fully agree with: we need everyone to get vaccinated, but I hope that we can make that a choice for them, and can comply with the principle of informed consent.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) pointed out, if Argyll and Bute can reach the figure of 99.8% of people being vaccinated through a policy of education and engagement, that can be done without mandating. If we mandate, we risk what has been described as a serious act of self-sabotage. There are few policy decisions where we can look over the dyke and can see what is coming, but if we lose anywhere from 70,000 to 100,000 staff from NHS England, it will create a workforce crisis that could have been avoided. I hope that the Minister takes that message back to the Government.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Day, and I thank the Minister for taking five interventions, making the debate go so well, and giving everyone the opportunity to raise valuable points.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 599841, relating to requirements for employees to be vaccinated against covid-19.

Animal Testing

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please leave other Members and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 581641 and 590216, relating to animal testing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The first petition, which calls for all animal testing in the UK to be banned, has attracted 236,000 signatures. The second, which calls for a phasing-out of animal experiments, has attracted more than 83,000 signatures and remains open.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the late Sir David Amess. I am sure that everyone here will agree that it is particularly pertinent to remember him for, and praise his efforts in, fighting for animal rights. Indeed, on his last day in the Commons Chamber, he asked the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on World Animal Day. It is also relevant to note that he was a signatory to early-day motion 175, which, among other things, called on the Government to stop funding animal experimentation, which has been proven to be a failed practice, and to increase funding for state-of-the-art human-based research. I have no doubt that he would have been here to support the petitions, and it would be a fitting eulogy if the Government were to act on them.

The number of people who signed petition 581641 reflects how important the matter is to so many people. That is not surprising when we consider that every two minutes in the UK, a dog, cat, rabbit, rat, monkey, goat, sheep, mouse or fish is subject to animal testing, conducted on them against their sentience and welfare rights. Animal testing is a significant industry in the UK, where 3.4 million procedures took place in 2019. Let us not forget that animal tests have a 90% failure rate.

The UK Government responded to both petitions on 4 August, and, perhaps predictably, both responses used a very similar standard text. I hope that by opening the debate with a focus on the Government’s response to the first petition, I will also address some of the concerns raised in e-petition 590216. Before analysing the Government’s response, however, I will say a few words on how the petition came about.

Sarah Austin, who is here today, is a member of the collaborative partnership Merseyside Animal Rights. Sarah believes that the animal model for human medical research is outdated, and she is certainly not alone: her petition attracted signatures from the length and breadth of our countries, including 681 from my constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. Indeed, there are a fair number of Scottish signatures, which is to be expected. Although animal welfare is a devolved area that the Scottish Government take seriously, animal cosmetics and scientific procedures are reserved to the UK Government.

Sarah’s work exemplifies how a single locally run voluntary group can influence like-minded people all around our nations. Without so many signatures, the debate would not be happening. It also shows how animal rights philosophy has advanced since the 18th century, when the English philosopher and legal theorist Jeremy Bentham wrote “An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation”, posing,

“the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”

That is an early endorsement of the idea that the interests of animals are a moral and legal consideration.

Just last month, during the debate on real fur sales, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), set out how the UK Government have

“introduced landmark legislation in this Session that will recognise animals as sentient beings in UK law”

and that they are

“establishing an expert committee to ensure that animal sentience is considered as part of policy making.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 320WH.]

That is a clear acknowledgment from the Government that animals can experience feelings and sensations. That is progress, but will it take another 240 years to acknowledge that animals, as sentient beings, deserve the same consideration as humans, and have the right not to suffer at our hands? We can exhibit social evolution sooner rather than later by taking steps now to ban animal testing across Britain. Will we be judged to have missed an opportunity in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is currently being scrutinised in the other place, or do the Government have the courage to step into the 21st century and urgently consider enshrining in law other viable options for scientific research that do not involve animal suffering?

We should be aware that it is not a new concept. In 2004 The BMJ published the article, “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” That called for urgent clarification on clinical relevance of animal experiments, yet here we are 17 years later debating the issue. Some 10 years on, the same journal published, “How predictive and productive is animal research?”, which argued that,

“our ability to predict human responses from animal models will be limited by interspecies differences in molecular and metabolic pathways.”

The BMJ is not alone in highlighting medical failures of animal testing. In 2004, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported:

“Change is needed. Thirty years of experience with subcutaneous xenografts, human tumours implanted under the skin of the mouse, have satisfied few because so many drugs that cure cancer in these mice fail to help humans.”

With these few examples in mind, allow me now to discuss the Government’s response in some detail. They state that scientific research using animals is vital in understanding how biological systems work in health and disease. I have already touched on how there is a long-standing and growing body of evidence showing that non-animal methods of scientific research are superior. I am aware that the charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—PETA—recently produced literature highlighting other available methods for research into brain diseases and disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. These include neuroimaging techniques, which can be done non-invasively in diverse groups of patients and healthy volunteers, and can be coupled with tissue and cell sampling, micro-dosing, epidemiological analysis and other human-centred research methods. It is simply logical that human-based studies provide human-relevant data as well as sparing animals from immeasurable suffering.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy response said that the Government were overseeing the development of the three Rs technique, referring to replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in research and its delivery of robust regulation. I can think of many words to describe regulation that allows factory-farmed puppies to be daily force-fed chemicals directly into their stomachs for up to 90 days with no pain relief or anaesthetic, but robust certainly is not one of them. I have not seen any evidence that the use of animals in research is being replaced, reduced or refined. The Minister might cite the top line in the publication of the most recent Government statistics, which states that in 2020 there was a decrease of 15% in scientific procedures carried out on living animals from the previous year. In case we forget, the report reminds us that the national lockdowns affected activity at research establishments last year.

Alarmingly, there was also an increase in the number of regulatory practices involving cats, dogs and horses in 2020 compared with 2019. According to the BEIS response, the Government

“believes scientific research using animals plays a vital part in our understanding of how biological systems work in health and disease.”

The response further states:

“The use of animals in science supports the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies… Many products which would be unsafe or ineffective in humans are detected through animal testing thus avoiding harm to humans.”

Unfortunately, however, there is growing scientific criticism of those statements. Let me bring one quote from another peer-reviewed journal to the Minister’s attention, which was published two years ago. A ScienceDirect article asserts that:

“Human subjects have been harmed in the clinical testing of drugs that were deemed safe by animal studies.”

That is a very sobering thought. Given the evidence for viable options that are now available, the Government response is certainly ambiguous when it states that,

“animals must only be used where there is no alternative.”

They say that, in addition to “robust regulation”, the Government achieve this through

“support/funding for non-animal alternatives.”

I and, I am sure, others here today would be most grateful if the Minister gave us the detail of how funding for “non-animal alternatives” has been increased and how that correlates to a decrease in animal experimentation. And when I say “detail”, I do not mean the headline figures that are mentioned in the Government response. I mean: tell us the minutiae of the funding that has been targeted towards human-based research.

My final question on the Government response is directed at where it says:

“Under UK law no animal testing may be conducted if there is a non-animal alternative available.”

As the limited examples that I have cited today show, non-animal alternatives are available, so my question is this: are animal testing establishments breaking the law? The elephant in the room is of course:

“In the UK, no animal testing may be conducted expect for a permissible purpose enshrined in law.”

In short, the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act needs to change. That is the nub of this petition, of the petition that is still open and of early-day motion 175, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) tabled.

If this Government really are

“committed to supporting, funding, and accelerating cutting edge technologies that allow animal use to be replaced or avoided”,

as they say in their response, let them put their money where their mouth is and enact that commitment. At the same time, they should remove animal experimentation as an “alternative” in scientific procedures, and simultaneously expedite effective cures and treatments for humans. I certainly hope the Government will take on board the petitioners’ request to ban all animal experimentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, which scheduled today’s debate, I thank all Members for their attendance and their contributions. It has been a very well-informed debate and an extremely consensual one, and I am grateful for the tone in which the Minister responded. I am sure that I speak for the other Members present when I say that if there is anything we can do to assist him in accelerating the quiet revolution, we will be happy to do so, because with 3.4 million procedures taking place, that revolution needs to be turbo-charged. I remain of the view that animal testing should be banned, because it is cruel and ineffective.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 581641 and 590216, relating to animal testing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a phenomenal champion of science and technology in space. I am delighted to say that the Government are very shortly to publish our national space strategy, into which we put a huge amount of work. In addition to the £1.4 billion that we spend on defence space activities in our innovation strategy, we are looking to make sure that we boost the wider science and technology applications of our £16.4 billion space sector.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T5. I was privileged to meet the international legend Doddie Weir before leading a debate on the petition he created on motor neurone disease in support of the targeted £50 million expenditure. I have certainly been convinced by his arguments, and we have heard cross-party support here today. Will the Secretary of State now commit to support this spending review bid?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. In relation to this question, I pointed out that UKRI spent £15.9 million in the last fiscal year. The UKRI portion of our Department’s spend is being negotiated in the course of the spending review. I would be very happy to follow the guidance of the hon. Gentleman and make sure that we properly fund research into motor neurone disease.

Fuel Poverty

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), especially given his track record on this very important issue. Today is the first opportunity we have had to debate this subject since my fuel poverty and energy price caps debate in November last year. We all know that despite fuel poverty being a devolved issue, two of its three key drivers—energy prices and income—are reserved. We also know that just as living in a fuel-poor household impacts on many aspects of everyday life, there are numerous factors that impact on the drivers. That is one reason that I often raise fuel poverty in the House, most recently presenting an Energy Pricing Bill to urge us to have legislation to close the loophole that allows energy suppliers to exclude existing customers from their cheapest available tariffs.

The Library briefing highlights that the “poorest households pay disproportionately” towards the energy company obligation scheme and that this UK Government policy is considered “regressive” by the Environmental Audit Committee. I would argue that the loophole allowing existing energy customers to subsidise new energy customers is also regressive. While I am under little illusion about the chances of my Bill progressing, I hope that the Government will consider and take on these points.

I will not repeat much of the serious aspects of fuel poverty that I covered less than eight months ago, except to reiterate that we cannot underestimate the implications of living in a fuel-poor household and we must do everything to end the dilemma of whether a person heats their home or feeds their family, because that causes physical and mental distress and ill health. It is these health implications that I want to highlight today. However, it appears that it is not a priority for this Government given the announcement on the phase-out of the £20 universal credit uplift, potentially pushing half a million people below the poverty line just in time for the winter.

Through being forced to make heat or eat choices, people in fuel poverty have a poor diet if they want a warm home, and that causes and exacerbates physical and mental health issues as well as slowing recovery from existing conditions. Yet if those in fuel poverty choose to eat well they run other risks: living in a cold house increases their chance of suffering from heart attack, stroke or respiratory illness. The Committee on Fuel Poverty has already documented the correlation between cold homes and excess winter deaths and the World Health Organisation estimates that 30% of excess winter deaths are directly attributable to living in cold housing. It can be argued that there is a strong case for giving GPs the ability to prescribe heat.

I urge those who have not yet done so to read “No place like home”, the all-party group on terminal illness inquiry into housing and fuel poverty at the end of life. It is stark reading, but crucially it highlights the vicious cycle of fuel poverty and terminal illness. Additionally, the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel, an adviser to the Scottish Government on tackling fuel poverty, highlights asthma, chest, breathing and mental health problems and slowed physical growth and cognitive development all as conditions that affect children living in a cold home. Elderly and vulnerable people living in cold houses also experience an increased risk of circulatory and respiratory disease, exacerbation of arthritis, an increased risk of falls and injury, social isolation, and poor mental health including anxiety and depression. In reality, fuel poverty disproportionately affects the most vulnerable in our society.

The effects of fuel poverty also further strain our overstretched NHS, which has borne the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic has also shone a light on the pockets of poverty that exist within our communities. Its economic impact is taking its toll and combined with increased fuel bills as people spend even more time at home can lead to even more people struggling.

Eliminating fuel poverty is an important part of tackling poverty in general and therefore reducing inequalities in our society. The Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel is working with Members and organisations to provide information that can help us better understand the connections between fuel poverty and health, and it has welcomed the support the Scottish Government have given to those in fuel poverty and poverty generally throughout the covid-19 pandemic.

I could say much more about what is happening in Scotland and what is wrong with the support we get from Westminster, but I am mindful of the time and that other Members want to speak. I am sure we will return to this debate over the months ahead. I look forward to the Minister’s summing up and hope that the Government will consider some of the points raised in my speech and Bill.

Fuel Poverty and Energy Price Caps

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fuel poverty and energy price caps.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Rees. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting my application, for two reasons. First, the issues to be discussed are important ones that affect millions of households across the United Kingdom. Secondly, despite the statutory requirement to debate fuel poverty annually, it was not met last year. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) for agreeing to co-sponsor today’s debate so that it could go ahead if I had not been able to attend in person. I certainly echo the Minister’s closing remarks in the previous debate in December 2018 in so far as I also hope that a cross-party consensus can be reached to eradicate fuel poverty, which, unfortunately, continues to be a scourge across the whole of the UK.

Fuel poverty and energy efficiency are of course devolved matters, yet it is recognised that fuel poverty is impacted not only by a home’s energy efficiency, but by household income and the cost of energy. That therefore leaves the devolved nations exposed to Westminster policies when trying to tackle fuel poverty. We are fighting it with one hand tied behind our backs. As a devolved policy area, fuel poverty is defined and measured differently in different parts of the UK. For that reason, it cannot be directly compared because of the differences in methodology.

In Scotland last year, with unanimous cross-party support, the Scottish Parliament passed the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019, which sets statutory targets for reducing fuel poverty, introduces a new definition that aligns fuel poverty more closely with relative income poverty, and requires Scottish Ministers to produce a comprehensive strategy to show how they intend to meet the targets. The final fuel poverty strategy was due to be published in September, but, like many other important issues, the covid-19 outbreak has delayed it and it is now expected next year.

The targets set for the 2019 Act are that by 2040 no more than 5% of households should be in fuel poverty, no more than 1% of households should be in extreme fuel poverty, and the median fuel poverty gap of households in fuel poverty is to be no more than £250 in 2015 prices before adding inflation. Each of those 2040 targets must be achieved not only in Scotland as a whole, but within each of the 32 local authority areas to ensure that no part of the country is left behind in tackling the root causes of fuel poverty. In my opinion, and I am sure others here will agree, not even one home ought to be caught in the misery of fuel poverty. One home is one too many, but if we can achieve those targets it will at least be a step in the right direction.

The 2019 Act also established a new two-part definition whereby it is determined that a household is fuel poor if, after housing costs have been deducted, more than 10% of net income is required to pay for reasonable fuel needs, and, after further adjustments are made to deduct childcare costs and any benefits received for disability or care need, the remaining income is insufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living, defined as 90% of the UK minimum income standard, which is the minimum amount required to meet material needs and participate in society. A household is considered to be in extreme fuel poverty if, after housing costs have been deducted, more than 20% of net income is required to pay for reasonable fuel needs.

No doubt there are nuances in how other devolved nations refine their own definitions, but we all use the 10% criteria. A household in Wales is described as fuel poor if it needs to spend more than 10% of its net income on energy costs while in Northern Ireland a household is considered fuel poor if it needs to spend in excess of 10% of its household income on all fuel use. The UK Government, however, moved away from using the 10% benchmark in 2013 when they adopted the low-income, high-cost approach. This categorises a household as fuel poor if the cost of keeping the home at a reasonable temperature is above the national median level and if it were to spend that amount, its residual income would be below the official poverty line.

On the other devolved issue of energy efficiency, it is worth mentioning that energy efficiency does not only go a long way to keeping household bills down; it also helps devolved nations play their part in tackling the global climate crisis, but that is a debate for another day. Indeed, the Scottish Government have classified energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority and they have been praised by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for doing so. In its report “Energy efficiency: building towards net zero” it recognised:

“Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England”.

The same report also recommended that the UK Government

“follows the example of the devolved nations by supplementing ECO with central Government funding for fuel poverty.”

For the sake of clarity, I should make it clear that ECO is the energy company obligation.

I expected Members from the other devolved nations to share their experiences, but given covid-19 lockdowns and other business in the House, Members from other parts of the UK are not present. Therefore, I will highlight some of the achievements of the Scottish Government in this regard. They have spent four times as much as the UK Government on household energy efficiency—the highest average annual per capita investment in the UK. In the periods from 2013-14 up to 2018-19, their total investment in domestic energy efficiency was £636 million. The schemes helped more than 150,000 households throughout Scotland to benefit from energy efficiency measures and, by the end of 2021, they will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 through energy efficiency programmes to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat. Over the lifetime of the measures installed, Scottish households will cumulatively have saved more than £854 million on fuel bills.

Furthermore, for the next Parliament, the Scottish Government will invest nearly £1.6 billion in transforming our buildings to ensure that emissions from heating are eliminated by 2040 and to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. This uplifts heat and energy efficiency spend from £112 million in 2019-20 to £398 million per annum in 2025-26 and will include an additional £55 million to support the scale-up of energy efficiency programmes.

Our progress in this area is encouraging. However, continuing to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland’s buildings—both domestic and non-domestic—and over time decarbonising the heat supply to those buildings, providing warmer homes and better outcomes for our consumers, remains a major challenge. It is a challenge that we are determined to meet. That is why on 16 December, despite the challenges posed by covid-19, the Scottish Government provided a further £16 million investment to improve energy efficiency in fuel-poor households. The money will be used to improve insulation and install energy-efficient heating systems, including those using renewable technology, thereby contributing to Scotland’s net zero targets and helping to meet a key programme for Government commitment. This new investment will help to improve the lives of fuel-poor people in Scotland by enabling them to live in warm, comfortable homes and pay less on their fuel bills by living in a greener and more sustainable way. Importantly, in the current, climate, it is expected to help to secure up to 200 jobs.

Yet we have not lost sight of the fact that energy remains unaffordable for far too many in Scotland, creating hardship for individuals and families. Energy prices and market failures play an obvious part in that, but the building stock in parts of Scotland is old and, all too often, profoundly wasteful in energy. However, as I have said, fuel poverty is driven by more than energy efficiency and, collectively, we need to do more, because thousands of people die from it every year. As winter approaches, we have a responsibility to be mindful that temperature-related excess winter mortality remains strongly evident. We must also take heed of the growing body of evidence that shows links between indoor temperatures and excess winter mortality.

The reason that I applied for a debate on energy price caps is because it is a UK Government fuel poverty policy that relates to energy costs—one of the reserved key drivers of fuel poverty that the devolved nations have no control over. Moreover, like the energy company obligation, this UK Government policy is not the panacea for fuel poverty that was anticipated. Indeed, even Citizens Advice, an organisation that welcomed it as some semblance of protection for households on default tariffs, simultaneously warned that customers could still get a better deal by switching supplier or investing in energy efficiency.

It was evident—in fact, it was pointed out in the last fuel poverty debate, which took place nearly two years ago, before the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 came into force on 1 January 2019—that the energy price caps would be set at a sustainably higher level than the cheapest available tariffs. Therefore, the intention behind the price caps—to protect consumers in England, Wales and Scotland who were on default tariffs—was questionable from the get-go. Additionally, research carried out in 2018 by the consumer group Which? found that the energy price cap would not help customers who were on some of the priciest deals on the market. For example, 30% of customers who were on fixed tariffs, rather than default tariffs, were not able to benefit.

There is also the issue of some energy customers having access only to certain tariffs due to having a prepayment meter. The Competition and Markets Authority’s report recommended the first price cap for customers on prepayment meters because they had fewer options, which resulted in less competition and a higher likelihood of being overcharged. Ofgem introduced that recommendation as a temporary cap in April 2017.

Furthermore, there are customers across the country who are subjected to unaffordable tie-in tariffs because of the type of heating system and meter that are installed in their home. Indeed, I presented a public petition earlier this year on behalf of Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages, a group made up of some of my constituents, whose experience of the THERMAflow wet electric heating system and its related ScottishPower’s Economy 2000 tie-in tariff is not only fuel poverty, but food poverty and physical and mental health issues.

I pay tribute to the work done by the Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages group, and I recognise the significant investment that Falkirk Council has made in agreeing to install a new mains gas system in 86% of the affected properties. That is a great example of partnership working, and it shows what can be achieved. I am looking forward to seeing continued progress with the project and to learning what renewable technologies will be engaged for properties where gas installation is not available. Falkirk Councillor Laura Murtagh, who has also been working on the replacement of wet electric heating systems in her area, says:

“These residents are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty due to the double whammy of high heating tariffs and inefficient systems, which cause eye-wateringly high bills for residents, who are often in a position to least afford this.”

Councillor Murtagh has been assisting residents in her ward with energy-efficiency measures for some time. However, the rise in the tariff, which was introduced last year by ScottishPower, highlighted the breadth and depth of the issue and galvanised council officials to work at pace over the past year to find solutions for the affected areas. Hopefully, I will hear about progress being made in these areas over the coming months.

Having no access to mains gas affects another group of households, who I understand are generally unable to benefit from the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018, as they have little choice in their heating source, pay more for their fuel and are thereby more at risk of fuel poverty. We must not underestimate the economic and social implications of living in a fuel-poor household, and we must do everything in our power to end the dilemma of whether people heat their home or feed their family, because being in that situation causes distress and ill health, both physical and mental.

Earlier this year, the SNP called for a package of measures to help households get through the crisis, and I urge the UK Government to heed the calls and to look urgently at introducing an emergency coronavirus energy grant to support households struggling to pay their energy bills, and to prevent them from accruing unmanageable debts. For example, I saw evidence from one of my constituents, who lives in accommodation within the boundaries of Falkirk’s forgotten villages and uses the THERMAflow heating system, that they pay an average of £170 per month for their home energy. Members will not be surprised to hear that after their housing costs were paid, they were not left with £1,700 of net income to make that energy affordable. That was not the worst that this area of my constituency experienced, nor are high energy costs unique to those using the THERMAflow system. I have heard about bills far in excess of that being received in those remote villages.

Other constituents, who live in a three-bedroom semi with the THERMAflow wet electric heating system and the domestic Economy 2000 meter tariff, had an average monthly energy bill of £270. When they raised an inquiry, they were advised by a ScottishPower representative that THERMAflow wet heating systems can be notoriously expensive to run. That had not been brought to their attention before installation, nor were they given any guidance about how to effectively use the system after it was installed.

ScottishPower is not linked to THERMAflow systems in any way and my reference to it is as the local provider. There are currently 60 or so alternative energy suppliers in the UK who could offer a cheaper tariff but do not. There is no cost-benefit for constituents to switch, which is why we need Government action on energy policy.

It is unacceptable that constituents could not access the cheapest payment method, just because they do not pay by direct debit, in common with many others across the country. Such draconian measures target the least advantaged and most vulnerable in our society. Energy companies must end that discrimination voluntarily or legislation should be introduced to ensure that they do.

Another constituent, who paid ScottishPower for their electricity by direct debit, contacted me in distress in June this year after receiving an outstanding statement for over £1,500, despite making the regular requested payments. That constituent is a vulnerable pensioner who lives alone in accommodation that does not have the THERMAflow system. In fact, their home has no central heating at all. All the distress was down to billing errors because a new meter had to be installed when my constituent did not want to be a victim of an expensive pay-as-you-go tariff.

That is a prime example of someone trying to be prudent, yet still being caught out by a system that lets people down. Fortunately, that constituent was lucky to have the support of their family, who stepped in and found the best available option was to change supplier. That is a bad enough situation, but it begs the question of how a pensioner living alone on a fixed income copes with such a dilemma if they do not have support from their family or others. It exemplifies what I mentioned earlier, about energy price caps being set at a level substantially higher than the cheapest available tariff and proves customers can get a better deal by switching.

It is relevant to point out that ScottishPower is the energy provider in the cases I have talked about and that these are just a few of my constituents who have approached me since the start of the year. These cases do not cover all the constituents who have experienced problems with unaffordable energy costs, because there simply is not time to cover them all. Even with as few speakers we have today, I would be here until next week going through the cases. I am fairly certain that not everyone has come forward for help since I was first elected five years ago.

To summarise, it is deeply regrettable that the UK Government have not met their statutory requirement to debate fuel poverty annually. Additionally, the situations I have highlighted indicate that the energy price cap is not having the desired effect. Indeed, in his statement to Parliament on 20 October, the Business Secretary said that when the price cap on standard variable and default energy tariffs ends there will be

“more to do to ensure consumers will not face unfair prices”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 38WS.]

Although extending the price cap to next year may provide some protection for some customers, that does not go far enough. It is just more of the same. Instead, I urge the Government to prioritise the faster switching initiatives and consumer engagement schemes that the Secretary of State referred to in his statement, and to replace the price cap with a scheme that will ensure all customers are protected from the energy inefficiency and high tariffs imposed by energy providers, which target the least wealthy in our society.

UK Internal Market: White Paper

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When companies are looking to invest in the United Kingdom, the fact that we will continue with a seamless UK internal market will give them significant confidence.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

The 70 so-called new powers for Scotland are in areas that are already devolved. They include matters such as food safety, public procurement and environmental standards, all of which are at the very core of devolution. With Scottish Parliament elections scheduled for next year, does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a democratic abomination for Scots to have to vote for parties whose policies could only be enacted subject to the provisions of the latest UK race-to-the-bottom trade deal?

[Alok Sharma]

I really do suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets out and talks more to businesses in his constituency. I think that they will tell him that having a unified coherent UK internal market is good news for them and good news for their workers.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Ombudsman Scheme

Martyn Day Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

In a half-hour debate, the hon. Lady or Gentleman in charge may give way to interventions as they please, but any speeches must be cleared with the owner of the debate, the Minister and the Chair.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Ombudsman Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank hon. Members for attending. I thank the House of Commons digital engagement team for its contributions to this debate, in which I want to highlight a failing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and to call for its unambiguous enforceability in the future.

I have previously raised the 2015 Act on behalf of my constituents in a public petition more than two years ago, highlighting that it does not do enough to protect consumers against rogue traders who do not comply with the terms of the Act. To recap, the changes made by the Act give consumers the right to reject goods within 30 days and to receive a refund when the goods received are not as described or faulty. However, there is nothing built into the legislation to enforce the right to reject. Moreover, consumers cannot act against companies that do not participate in the consumer ombudsman scheme. Therefore, if the company does not co-operate, the only recourse for the consumer is to undertake the laborious and protractive process of raising legal action, either in a small claims court in England or via what is known as a simple procedure in Scotland, which is essentially the same process.

The petition I presented in December 2017 urged the UK Government to review the 2015 Act to ensure better protection for consumers. It also asked for a review of the terms of the Act, to make membership of a professional body compulsory for traders, thereby giving consumers the ability to pursue a complaint with the consumer ombudsman. In response the Government stated that

“if a consumer has a complaint and is not satisfied with the company’s response to it, they can go to an ombudsman or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 6P.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call Margaret Ferrier to make an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should not be fiddly, disguised excuses for speeches. The Chair takes a rather dim view of it.

[Martyn Day]

I agree with the course of action suggested by my hon. Friend. It would benefit consumers and traders.

As I have pointed out, membership of an ombudsman scheme is voluntary, and a company can refuse to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process. Even though it may be in the best interest of consumers and companies to deal with problems quickly, effectively and amicably, I am sure no one will be surprised that unco-operative companies prefer to be obstructive, to prevent a quick, effective and amicable resolution. That was the experience of a constituent of mine with one such company, which I will come to shortly.

The Government response conceded that

“there is no mandatory requirement to use ADR although it is available for any dispute should the business decide they want to use it.”

This debate and my prior petition are about the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so it does not compute that businesses can decide whether they want to use an alternative dispute resolution while customers’ wishes are overlooked. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how that relates to consumer rights. The production of the consumer Green Paper—a positive outcome of my petition—was meant to

“closely examine markets especially those which are not working fairly for consumers.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 6P.]

The example I will give is a good case of that. As my constituent’s experience will show, there are markets that are not working fairly for consumers. Despite the Green Paper, no amendments have been made to the 2015 Act to address the situation.

Among other things, the Green Paper consulted on two matters directly related to my constituent’s case: how to improve the system of alternative dispute resolution, and how to support local and national enforcers to work together to protects consumers. I draw Members’ attention to “Creating a successful enforcement system for UK consumers”, a policy report published a year ago by Which? Among other things, it directly addresses those two relevant matters. It proposes seven changes to create a regime that will protect consumers effectively, because the current system is, unfortunately, too weak.

The report proposes:

“A robust and accessible ADR system is vital for people who have been unable to resolve their complaint directly with the business concerned.”

It further states:

“Key to a successful system is… fair and enforceable decisions by ADR bodies”.

I fully endorse and agree with those points. The report goes on to address the proposed obligation for an ombudsman scheme to be compulsory, stating that

“an obligation on sectors (particularly where significant or essential purchases are involved)”

should be “part of a scheme”.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the landscape of ombudsman schemes is very confusing, and that a single access portal would help the consumer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

I fully agree. I hope the Minister will address that.

The Green Paper consultation closed on 4 July 2018, some 19 months ago. Despite the Which? report being published 12 months ago, the UK Government’s website advises me that the feedback is still being analysed. I ask the Minister: when is the analysis of the “Modernising consumer markets” Green Paper expected to be completed?

That brings me on to my constituent’s situation, which exemplifies the ambiguity of the 2015 Act and the failure to enforce it. In March 2017, my constituent Mrs Johnston and her husband purchased a new leather living room suite from R&J Leather (Scotland) Ltd, which is based in Uddingston. The suite duly arrived on Friday 30 June 2017 while Mr and Mrs Johnston were at work. A third party was at home to accept the delivery. However, when my constituents came home, it was evident that the type of leather used was not as agreed and the workmanship was unsatisfactory. Therefore, it fell far from meeting their expectations after making such an expensive purchase.

The very next morning, Mr and Mrs Johnston visited the showroom where they had purchased the suite, to say that they rejected it. They were asked to intimate their rejection to R&J Leather’s head office, which they did by telephone and email, including pictures of the faults. Subsequently, on 3 July R&J Leather telephoned my constituents to say that a driver would be sent to their home. My constituents believed this meant the suite would be removed. It did not. Instead, the employees of R&J Leather had been sent to correct another fault—a defective mechanism in the suite—so they left the home without uplifting the suite, fully knowing it had been rejected, while Mr and Mrs Johnston were on the telephone to their employer’s head office.

Mr and Mrs Johnston wrote again to R&J Leather on 6 July intimating rejection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and seeking an uplift of the suite and a refund of payment. R&J Leather rejected this letter on seven separate occasions. Frustrated by the lack of response, Mr and Mrs Johnston sought my intervention on 17 July. I sent a recorded delivery letter and two emails to R&J Leather but received no acknowledgement. My constituents sent another recorded delivery letter to R&J Leather on 22 August, offering alternative dispute resolution. Again, the company declined to accept.

My constituents were, therefore, left with no alternative but to raise a court action. R&J Leather did not defend the claim. The sheriff court made an order for payment in Mrs Johnston’s favour on 14 December 2017, some six months after the suite was delivered.

It would be understandable to think that that was the end of a stressful process, but that was not the case. Mr and Mrs Johnston still had possession of the defective suite, which was unused and restricted the use of another room in their home. Mrs Johnston had asked the court to order R&J Leather to remove the suite, but the order made was purely for her to receive a refund of her moneys. Believing that the matter had now ended in her favour, Mrs Johnston gave away the offending suite, so that her home could be restored to its normal living capacity, which I think was a perfectly reasonable position to adopt.

R&J Leather proceeded to lodge an application to recall the order. The order was duly recalled and led to a court hearing that took place over two days spanning June and July 2018. The decision held in favour of the Johnstons. R&J Leather then appealed against the order for payment, based on the point that my constituents no longer had the suite and therefore could not return it. As a result, the company questioned whether Mrs Johnston was entitled to a refund for rejection of the goods.

The subsequent sheriff appeal court hearing took place on 14 December 2018. R&J Leather’s legal representation argued that, based on a proper construction of subsections (5) and (8) of section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the buyer was obliged to make the rejected goods available to the seller without limit of time, and that that applies irrespective of any intervening developments or actions of the seller. In other words, it was argued that R&J Leather was not obliged to make a refund if the suite was not available for return.

My constituents argued that they had done everything that they were required to do in exercising their right of rejection and had given R&J Leather many opportunities to uplift the suite. The sheriff appeal court decision refused R&J Leather’s appeal and held in favour of the Johnstons. The ruling stated that having properly exercised their right of rejection, my constituents were entitled to the original order granted by the sheriff, and that that right was not undermined by the unavailability of the suite.

Interestingly, when reaching that decision, the sheriff appeal court made several observations. The first was that the argument that there is an unqualified duty, without limit of time, to retain the goods has a superficial attraction, given the wording of the Act, but such an interpretation has the potential to lead to both unfairness and absurdity. Secondly, when a consumer exercises a right to reject faulty goods, there is no duty for them to return the goods to the seller; all the consumer needs to do is make the goods available to the seller. This imposes an onus on the seller to come and collect the goods. Thirdly, the duty to make the goods available cannot be construed as being without limit of time or unqualified. In considering the nature and extent of the duty to retain goods that have been rejected, the court is entitled to take account of several factors, including the timescale within which rejection was intimated; the nature of the goods; the practicality of providing storage; the nature, extent and frequency of communications sent by the buyer to the seller; any response, or lack of response, by the seller; the length of time for which goods were retained; and whether proceedings have been raised. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sheriff appeal court judgment remarked that R&J Leather had

“only themselves to blame for their inability to recover the item”.

Even after that court ruling, Mrs Johnston still had to pay for the services of a sheriff officer to obtain a warrant before the money was eventually refunded on 15 February 2019, which was nearly two years after the original purchase was made. No one should have to go through such a long, drawn-out process, which in this case involved spending four separate days in court and the associated stress and expense that that experience involved, and neither should anyone have to go to such lengths to exercise what are their basic consumer rights.

Furthermore, besides the direct financial implications for the consumer and the business involved, this single case used significant public funds—in the form of court facilities, time and staff—over four days. Those costs would not have been required if the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was clear about the consequences of non-compliance.

This single case that I have highlighted shows undeniably that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not do enough to protect consumers against rogue traders who do not comply with or seek to obscure the terms of the Act. My constituents were lucky, in so far as they had the intellectual and financial resources to see this matter through to a conclusion that forced R&J Leather to abide by the law. I suspect that many other people would have given up long before then, or would not have had the time available to spend days in court or the money to pursue the action. However, the Johnstons were still out of pocket, due to loss of work and other expenses, such as for the engagement of the sheriff officers. Can the Minister tell me what would happen to other consumers who do not have such assets?

If businesses were obligated to join an ombudsman scheme, the process would be simplified for both consumers and businesses. If that obligation was brought into force, an independent assessment could be made, which could rule in favour of either the consumer or the business, without the stress and the expense that my constituents had to endure to get what they were legally entitled to.

Such cases are brought every day throughout the UK, and the court costs must be astronomical. I do not know what the numbers are, but I dread to think. Yet a simple change to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with an obligation for a business to participate in an ombudsman scheme, would substantially mitigate the need to bring such cases to court.

Of course, it is fortunate for other consumers that Johnston and Johnston v. R&J Leather (Scotland) Limited [2019] SAC (Civ) 1 is now a case in law and will set a precedent to help other Scottish consumers who find themselves dealing with an uncooperative company. However, my point is that people should not have to go to court in the first place.

I am a Scottish MP and this debate centres on my constituent’s Scottish legal case, which has no binding effect on English claims. However, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies throughout the UK, and given that the ultimate decision was made by the Sheriff Appeal Court, this ruling has the potential to be highly persuasive to county court judges in England and Wales, where similar issues are regularly raised.

To summarise, I find it deeply regrettable that the situation that I have highlighted, and the other situations that I have recently been made aware of through the efforts of Parliament’s digital engagement team, clearly indicate that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is not working fairly for consumers in some markets. Based on the case that I have discussed, I hope that the Minister will agree that the Act needs to be reviewed, due to its legislation being ambiguous and, I believe, unenforceable.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we proceed, I apologise to Ms Gibson for incorrectly identifying you when I called you for an intervention earlier.