Rural Areas in Scotland: Additional Delivery Charges

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to participate in it, although I wish it were not necessary, because it has a pressing relevance not just to people in the north-east, but to my constituents—particularly those who have the great pleasure of living on the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. Like a million other consumers across Scotland, they face the challenges of coping with unfair delivery surcharges and late deliveries, or are even excluded from delivery services altogether when shopping online.

We must be under no illusion, because this is more than an inconvenience; it has a genuinely negative impact on rural businesses as well as consumers. Citizens Advice research tells us that the UK parcels market has grown by more than 50% since 2010, and much of that growth has been driven by parcels sent to consumers who shop online. The Scottish Parliament information centre has costed additional parcel delivery surcharges for Scottish consumers, in comparison with the rest of the UK, at approximately £38 million per year, which is completely unacceptable. A shocking £11.4 million of that is spent by consumers over the Christmas period, simply because of where they live.

Despite a fair delivery charges campaign, the figures are rising, and at a time when more and more of us are shopping online, for a variety of reasons. That is self-evidently and necessarily the case for those who live in rural areas. Some of us pay what can only be described as a postcode tax, which is often imposed randomly by some retailers, although not all. Such charges are discriminatory and hit consumers and rural businesses in fragile areas very hard indeed. The problem is deeply concerning for my constituents and other rural constituents. The penalising of the delivery of goods bought online and the consumer exclusion are such that 10.9% of retailers exclude some Scottish islands from a delivery service altogether.

The statement of principles on parcel deliveries has had little effect on the problem. The UK statement of principles is designed to assist retailers in their policies on the delivery of goods purchased over the internet by individual consumers. It sets out best practice principles for how retailers can ensure that their delivery services meet the needs of consumers. The UK-wide statement of principles builds on the Scottish guidelines that were launched in November 2013. The principles have arisen following agreement between representatives of the UK and Scottish Governments, online retailers, parcel delivery operators and consumer organisations. The logic is that having companies follow the course of actions outlined in the principles is helpful in ensuring that the UK parcels delivery market works in the interests of consumers and businesses. However, the last time I checked—perhaps the Minister has more recent figures—only four out of 449 businesses had even heard of the principles.

There is no doubt that the UK Government need to use the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to support education for businesses about the requirements under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. There also needs to be support for education for consumers about the information that they should be provided with and the minimum standards defined in the regulations. The principles were designed to secure a better, fairer deal for consumers in our rural areas, but not enough work has been done to increase delivery operator and retailer buy-in to the principles with a plan of action to promote the scheme.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Government’s road equivalent tariff ferry fare structure should have helped to reduce the costs of delivering goods to islands such as Arran and Cumbrae, but I am afraid that the reductions seem not to have been passed on to consumers. More work must be undertaken with delivery operators for our rural and island consumers across Scotland. We need to ensure that customers on islands and in rural areas can access a full range of delivery options to their local post office, local shop or any other place that is convenient to them and may reduce costs.

The Scottish Government have done all they can about the issue with the very limited powers they have, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pointed out, but not a great deal has changed in reality. The Scottish Government have unveiled the “Fairer Deliveries For All” plan to protect rural consumers and businesses and empower online shoppers to recognise and act on unfair and misleading delivery costs. The Scottish Government’s work on a voluntary code is also important, but the real power to put the matter right lies with the UK Government, who need to act. Our rural consumers and businesses need them to use their powers to regulate and do the right thing, so that they can access a fair deal.

I want a better deal for my island constituents on Arran and Cumbrae, and for rural constituents across Scotland and the UK. That is why I support a people’s delivery guarantee to pull together all aspects of delivery charges and guarantees, and to ensure that consumers are getting the fair deal that they deserve—not being misled by claims that delivery will be free, only to be told during or after purchase that that is not the case. The Minister may tell us that the Advertising Standards Authority launched a crackdown last year on misleading claims about rural delivery charges to consumers, but that has not really delivered the change that rural communities need.

[Douglas Ross]

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and her point that more could be done, but I have given concrete examples of the ASA taking action. We should at least recognise that companies are now receiving enforcement notices, which was not happening in recent months and years.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Advertising Standards Authority has been launching initiatives to crack down on such practices, but my point is that the kind of real change that he and I hope for has not come about.

A million consumers in rural Scotland face punitive surcharges. That has to stop. There needs to be better and greater dialogue between the UK Government and the delivery operators. The UK Government can and should regulate charges. Concrete and decisive action is needed to ensure that consumers in large areas of Scotland do not face higher delivery charges or even have their orders refused.

I first spoke out on this issue four years ago, weeks after first being elected as an MP, and in that time I have seen the Scottish Government do what they can to improve a bad situation over which they have no real power. This Parliament and this Government have the power to deliver the fairness and the inclusion that is needed. I urge the Minister to use her good offices to deliver change at long last. For the most part, self-regulation has failed. I really hope that we will not still be debating this injustice four years from now. We know what the issue is and we know that it can be remedied, so I hope that we can stop endlessly debating it and instead act. It really is time that my constituents on Arran and Cumbrae, and rural consumers right across Scotland and the UK, are no longer disadvantaged by this postcode tax.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the shared prosperity fund.

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

The Prime Minister recently appointed me as a joint Minister in this Department and in my existing role in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That shows the Government’s commitment to drive forward the northern powerhouse, which has always been a partnership between local government, national Government, the industrial strategy and business. In this role I will continue to hold regular meetings to discuss EU exit, and the UK shared prosperity fund will remain a priority in that.

[Mr Speaker]

This shows that the Minister is a very busy man with many commitments and a very full diary.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Prime Minister told me in December 2018 that a consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund would take place by the end of that year. The silence on progress with this fund to replace the EU structural fund, worth €2.4 billion a year, is deafening and the lack of detail and communication is shameful given that these funds are designed to help all communities prosper. Will the Secretary of State tell us once and for all, when this fund will be designed and implemented? Will it match current levels or is this important fund going to be yet another casualty of Brexit?

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Government have set forward our ambition to deliver a UK shared prosperity fund that creates wealth, growth and jobs in all parts of our United Kingdom. We have been clear that we will respect the devolution settlement, and we have been absolutely clear that we will consult the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments before we start the consultation on that. But the hon. Lady does not have to wait until then, because there have been meetings between officials and over 500 stakeholders at 25 official events across the country, and I am sure the hon. Lady will look forward to taking part in future events.

Consumer Protection

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

This statutory instrument is not particularly controversial. Strengthening the law to protect consumers is always a good thing, particularly in product safety.

I remember participating in a few debates about the need for and the purpose of an office for product safety, which has now been set up, with the task of making regulation work, so that it protects people and enables businesses to understand their obligations. The need for that was particularly brought home to us following the dangers posed to consumers by the faulty Whirlpool tumble dryers, and the faulty Hotpoint fridge that apparently led to the Grenfell tragedy.

The need for greater scrutiny of product safety has required much sharper focus since the start of the UK’s preparations for departure from the EU, as Brexit raises a huge question mark over the future of the domestic product safety regime. In addition, there is no denying the uncertainty and costs for businesses as they try to plan ahead. We all share concerns that there could be genuine risks for consumers that the levels of product safety enjoyed as an EU member may well be under threat.

The provisions of the statutory instrument to give greater powers to the Secretary of State, under the auspices of the OPSS, to investigate claims about unsafe consumer products in the context of a national incident, are very important, as are those that would require the OPSS to work more closely with trading standards, offering additional protection to consumers alongside current arrangements.

The aim here, that an effective enforcement regime requires the UK to arrange and ensure that the relevant enforcement agencies have and use the necessary powers to take appropriate measures on product safety, is laudable. However, I would impress upon the Minister that in the wider context of product safety a poor deal or no deal from the EU has the potential to put our product safety system in real jeopardy. I wonder, given the strengthening of the OPSS’s role, what additional funding it will be allocated to fulfil its role properly. Given that it will work more closely with trading standards than at present, will that mean additional funding for trading standards across the UK, given that they are already extremely hard-pressed in the face of evolving and creative threats to consumers and their safety? Can the Minister guarantee that the necessary funding for the OPSS, which will be required to carry out its new responsibilities, will be forthcoming?

What preparation has the OPSS done to ensure that it is indeed ready to assume the increased responsibility? We can all agree that consumer safety matters, but we also know that regulating it and monitoring it must be properly paid for, so I would be interested to hear what responses the Minister has to that.

I end by commending to the Minister the Scottish Government’s new consumer protection Bill, and the new Consumer Scotland body, which will champion consumer rights and protections, which she may wish to examine to see what can be learned from Scotland—as I am sure the Scottish Government will examine with interest the provisions before the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The Government took a great step when they formed the OPSS in January 2018. The OPSS was given additional funding of £12 million a year to build national capacity for product safety. The expertise—the scientific-based research— that it will be able to undertake will aid and assist local trading standards in carrying out their own functions. This is very much a working-together situation. We have committed £190,000 to behavioural insights to date and invested £498,000 on social science research. Over the next three years, £4 million will be spent on upgrading the scientific facilities in Teddington, and £750,000 of support has been provided in 2018-19 for testing and training trading standards, and there is another £500,000 funding for trading standards to carry out product safety testing, and that will increase next year. We have also trained more than 250 trading standards authorities, which included training 800 people. Such training enables local trading standards to have free access to the technical British standards, which really equips them and supports them in identifying compliance issues.

Let me move on now to the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). She was very concerned about funding, and as I have tried to outline, the OPSS will take a strategic role in supporting local trading standards. The statutory instrument ensures that we have a clear enforcement strategy, which gives the OPSS and the Secretary of State the powers that they need.

[Patricia Gibson]

Forgive me if the Minister has said this already and I have missed it, but given that the powers of the OPSS are to be strengthened, will there be an increase in personnel to support trading standards, and will the OPSS itself receive additional money—apart from the £12 million that it received when it was set up?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The OPSS is ready. It is taking on not extra work, but an extra power, which it is quite ready to take on. I have already outlined what it has done in the case of Whirlpool.

I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and she is a great campaigner in this area. She will know that work is ongoing with regard to secondary ticketing. That matter is not related to this SI, but I am more than happy to speak with her directly outside the Chamber to give her some more assurances if that is what she wants.

I almost forgot the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I am grateful to him for raising those issues. We are looking at strengthening consumer protection, full stop. Perhaps we could meet. I have not spoken to him about this issue, but I am more than happy to meet him, so that we can investigate the matter further with the OPSS if necessary.

Without this order, we will not be maximising the potential of the new regulator. The British public would ultimately have less protection from unsafe and non-compliant products. Law-abiding businesses would have less protection in maintaining and growing their businesses and the UK economy, and that is not what this Government want. We are committed to making the UK product safety systems the best in the world, and ensuring that our regulators have the right tools to protect our people is a further step to achieving that goal Therefore, I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Post Office Network

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing it. We all understand the value and importance of having post offices in our communities. More than 2 million small businesses—62%—use them at least once a month. In rural areas, they are vital; 36% of rural businesses use post offices weekly. One in four of all businesses are registered in rural areas and contribute well over £200 billion to our economy. Citizens Advice has been clear that eight in 10 small businesses in remote rural areas will lose money if local post offices close.

We all remember around 2008 when post offices were gradually being run down under the Labour Government of the day and when the services our local post offices could provide were wrested away from them, paving the way for mass closures. Long before I was elected in 2015, in 2008, I remember going round the doors in my constituency asking people to sign a petition to save their local post offices. I and other party activists did that in Skelmorlie, Glengarnock and Kilwinning. Naively, we thought we could make a difference. It turned out the Post Office’s so-called consultations were not much more than a sham. To make it worse, our then local Labour MP voted on five separate occasions under the Blair Government to close post offices across the UK and then immediately afterwards put out press releases to the local papers lamenting the closure of our local post offices. Sometimes it is not hard to see why people become cynical about politics.

Some post offices are now being closed by stealth. By that, I mean that postmasters are either retiring or shutting up shop because it has become so difficult to make a living out of the business, important though that business is for our communities. Postmasters in my constituency tell me that they were earning minimum wage. We know from recent announcements that as of October 2019—although I do not know why it is taking so long—our sub-postmasters will receive better remuneration from the Post Office for the key services that they provide for the public. The question is whether that improved payment is enough for the long-term sustainability of the service, and we will have to reserve judgment on that.

Postmasters tell us that they hand count thousands of pounds daily. That money is accepted, checked, double-checked, bagged, remmed out and sent away, for much less money than the banks charge their customers. The gap is large, which means that either banks or the post office are making a lot of money on the back of postmasters. That does not seem fair to me.

Our postmasters are taking on a greater role in our communities as banks abandon our towns. Post offices are an important amenity in our communities and offer a lifeline on everything from pensions to benefits and, increasingly, day-to-day banking services. In so many towns, our post offices are the last place where face-to-face services are still available.

We all understand how important it is that banks properly remunerate postmasters for the services they provide to major banks, which turn over huge profits, and I am pleased that there will be a near-threefold increase on current rates. However, some postmasters in my constituency say this simply does not go far enough, which causes me a lot of concern. Indeed, we are all keen to see if the details of this offer are sufficient to protect our postmasters and, importantly, the network’s sustainability as a whole. I have been lobbying the Government and the Post Office chief executive about this for two years, so I am delighted that we have at last made some progress, but the devil will be in the detail.

I have spoken out about the threat to our post office network in four different debates since I was first elected in 2015—we seem to have them once a year. It is an issue that I campaigned on with Scottish National party activists in my community long before I was elected, and I will continue to do so until our postmasters get the fair deal that they deserve. Our post offices are too important to be left to flounder at the mercy of banks that are apparently too big to fail, and of successive UK Governments who have consistently failed to recognise the importance of post offices to our communities.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to put on record what a very good campaign the Scottish National party and others have run on behalf of the banks that are closing, and the importance of post offices in filling that gap. Over time, their campaign has outlined and highlighted the issue of banks closing at a fast rate, which means that the importance of post offices is increasing. It is so important.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation and very much welcome it.

[Carol Monaghan]

My hon. Friend talks about the importance of post offices to our communities. In fact, we talk about them as a public service. Does she share my concerns about hearing talk of profit or loss? Public services cost money and must be invested in. We should not consider profit when we are talking about a vital community lifeline.

[Patricia Gibson]

When we talk about profits in relation to public services, there is always the danger that we understand the value of a pound, but not the value of something that cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

The failure to recognise the value of post offices to our communities can be seen in the fact that 74 Crown post offices have been franchised in WHSmith stores. There are reports that franchising is being done without proper consultation with existing post offices, which means that the competition risks further destabilising the network. There must be strategic consideration of franchising. In addition, it is deeply concerning that the Post Office appears to have admitted that there is no contingency plan in the event of the collapse of WHSmith, which has continued to decline over the past 14 years. There is no contingency plan should WHSmith collapse. What does that say about the strategic planning to protect our post offices? I suggest it says rather a lot.

The UK Government seem to have a pattern of abdicating responsibility for this matter, insisting that it is a matter for the Post Office. That paved the way for the Government to insist latterly that they could do nothing about the banks, which we owned as taxpayers, fleeing our towns. There is a pattern emerging here. At the heart of this debate must be the recognition that the post office network has a vital role in the day-to-day lives of many of our constituents—older people generally, and often the most vulnerable in society. The SNP believes that the Post Office must be more than a commercial entity and must serve a distinct social purpose. The Government must commit to a programme that ensures there are no post office closures, and urgently renew their funding of the network to safeguard its future.

Post Office branches are hugely important to older people. The services offered are a lifeline. People pay bills, access their benefits and get advice. Older people and those on low incomes make greater use of cash and banking services and bill payment services, and vulnerable groups and remote rural residents use post offices for informal community services, such as support and information—they are touchstones of our communities.

It is not good enough for the Post Office to have been managed into decline in the way it has been. For too long our post offices have been undermined and undervalued, and our postmasters underpaid. As a result, some of our most valued post offices are being closed by stripping away their sustainability and then earmarking them for closure. Now, in a new era, we need them more than ever. The neglect and indifference have to stop. It is time to pay our postmasters properly and to stand up for them. It is time to stop the rot and see our postmasters for what they are: community champions who are often not missed until they are gone, struggling on to survive in a hostile business environment where making a living of any kind is increasingly challenging. That needs to be recognised and saluted.

The Minister said in a recent Adjournment debate that her Government support postmasters, and that this is evidenced by a pledge in their election manifesto. I hope she is listening and will discuss with her colleagues in Government what more she can do to show their support than just having a line in a manifesto. We need a positive and concrete set of actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If the hon. Gentleman would allow me the courtesy of getting to the content of my speech, that would be really useful. I am still at the start. We made a commitment in our 2017 manifesto and are committed to safeguarding the network. The Post Office is publicly owned and it is a commercial business operating in competitive markets. The Government set the strategic direction for the Post Office to maintain a national network, accessible to all, and to do so in a more sustainable way for the taxpayer. We allow the company the commercial freedom to deliver that strategy as an independent business.

I must point out some of the language and words used in the debate, such as “managed decline” and “undermining the network”, and the idea that it is ideological of the Tories to run down post office branches. As the Minister responsible for post offices, I find that incorrect and inaccurate. I do not regard Government investment of £2 billion over eight years as a so-called managed decline or undermining of the network, and I do not regard the establishment of 450 new locations since 2017 as managed decline or an undermining of the network. As hon. Members have outlined, at the end of March there were 11,547 branches. That number is as stable as it has been in many decades, so I refute those claims.

[Patricia Gibson]

I hear the Minister’s objection to the term managed decline, and that is fine. We are allowed to disagree with each other in this Chamber; we have that privilege. However, there is no plan in place in the—I think not unlikely—event that WHSmith completely collapses. It has declined over 14 years. Would she care to take that up?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, but I highlight that WHSmith has been successfully running post office franchises since 2006. We are now in 2019, and the reality is that, in any franchising service and any business, work is always going on behind the scenes in regard to the management of the network. There is a massive network of 11,500 outlets throughout the country. As the Minister responsible, I will, quite rightly, challenge the Post Office on any issues I am told about. I am committed to maintaining that network.

I have highlighted that so early in my speech because ever since I have had this role I have been clear at the Dispatch Box and in any debate that I will talk to any MP about issues they have in their constituency about post office branches. I will also talk to anyone about the Post Office and take those issues forward to challenge it. I will also defend the Post Office when required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am always happy to look at the details and where we can improve services if that is possible. I must point out that the post office network is long established and well loved. We love the people who work in our post office network: the sub-postmasters and the workers—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might heckle, but we do. The Government definitely do, and rightly so.

I have outlined this afternoon my personal commitment to the post office network, as we did in our manifesto, to see where we can improve it and where we can all work together to secure the future sustainability of a strong network throughout the country. There are challenges ahead, just as there are within retail. They are not insurmountable, but the challenge for us is to work with all of our stakeholders to tackle those and secure the network for the future.

The facts clearly show that the Post Office has made substantial progress over the past decade. The inhibiting cultural legacy of being a lesser partner to Royal Mail, with high public sector costs, has almost disappeared. As a business, Post Office Ltd is increasingly profitable and takes action to consolidate and defend its position in the market. Between 2010 and 2018, we backed the Post Office with nearly £2 billion to maintain and invest in a national network that had 11,547 post offices at the end of March. That extensive network gives the Post Office a unique reach among service providers. The Post Office currently meets and exceeds all the Government’s accessibility targets at a national level.

[Patricia Gibson]

I appreciate the amount of investment that the Minister is talking about; it is clearly a lot of money, although people might want a debate about whether it is enough. In spite of that investment, does the Minister understand the concerns raised today? In Scotland 22% of the entire post office network has closed over the past 15 years. Surely she, like me, laments that figure because of the scale of loss it represents.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady is right to raise those concerns. She is also right that we are concerned about any particular closures that may happen, as is Post Office Ltd. That is why Post Office Ltd works hard—it always works hard—where there are unforeseen closures to make sure that those branches reopen. Since I have been in post there have been a number of examples where I and local MPs have worked with the post office network and local communities to make sure that new facilities are opened.

Where there have been closures, I would always encourage people to raise them with Ministers and to work with Post Office Ltd to make sure that we can sustain the network. The hon. Lady is right to have concerns, but she is wrong to say that the intention is not to renew those branches and not make sure that the network is stable in Scotland. There is a commitment and a desire to achieve that.

Government investment has also enabled the modernisation of over 7,500 branches, added more than 200,000 opening hours per week and established the Post Office as the largest network trading on Sundays. In terms of services provided, the Post Office’s agreement with the high street banks enables personal and business banking in all branches, ensuring that every community has appropriate access to cash and supporting consumers, businesses and local economies in the face of bank branch closures, particularly in rural and urban deprived areas. I encourage the House to look closely and objectively at these facts; they show unequivocally that the network is at its most stable and is much more sustainable today than in 2010.

We are not complacent. Post Office Ltd has to keep exploring new business opportunities to ensure a thriving national network for the benefit of communities, businesses and postmasters up and down the country. One of the most important and visible aspects of the Post Office strategy is its franchising programme. I accept that some communities have a strong emotional attachment to Crown post offices and naturally there will be concerns when proposals come forward to franchise their local branches, but our high streets are facing unprecedented challenges and the Post Office is not immune to them. Just like any other high street business, it needs to respond to these pressures and adapt to changing customer needs.

Franchising has reduced the taxpayer funding that the Post Office requires from Government, while maintaining—and, in some instances, improving—customer service levels. In fact, the report by Citizens Advice in 2017 indicated that franchised branches are performing in line with or better than traditional branches. I reassure hon. Members that, as part of its ongoing monitoring role, Citizens Advice will continue to track the impact of post office changes on consumers and on customer satisfaction in respect of post offices. Citizens Advice also has a formal advisory role in reviewing changes to Crown post offices across Great Britain that are relocated and franchised.

Serving rural communities is at the very heart of the Post Office’s social purpose. There are over 6,100 post offices in rural areas and virtually everyone living in such areas is within 3 miles of one of those branches. Last year, a study by Citizens Advice found that seven out of 10 rural consumers buy essential items at post offices and almost 3 million rural shoppers—that is, 31% of rural residents—visit a post office on a weekly basis, compared to 21% of people living in urban areas. The importance of post offices to rural areas is illustrated by the fact that almost half have community status. They are the last shops in the village, as hon. Members have outlined. Rural post office branches, whether main, local or traditional, can offer the same products and services as urban ones of the same category.

The Post Office recognises the unique challenge of running a community branch and supports those postmasters differently from those in the rest of the network. They receive fixed remuneration, as well as variable remuneration, to reflect their special situation. In addition, the Post Office delivered almost £10 million of investment via the Community Fund between 2014 and 2018. That enabled community branches to invest in their associated retail business. The Post Office has now launched a smaller community branch development scheme that will benefit an anticipated 700 branches. Let me be clear: this Government and the Post Office will continue to support rural post offices.

Some hon. Members raised concerns about the rates of remuneration paid to postmasters, especially for banking services; I, too, have been and continue to be concerned about that issue. While the contractual relationship between Post Office Ltd and postmasters is an operational responsibility for the company, I care deeply about the issue and I am determined to make sure that running a post office remains an attractive business proposition.

We offer post offices several ways of doing that, including the development of services for the future. My challenge to people thinking of taking on a franchise or a post office is to make sure that they deliver the services demanded by consumers and therefore enable post offices to continue to be relevant in today’s market, given the way consumers use services now compared to the past.

I have committed to meeting interested parties, including the Post Office Ltd and the National Federation of SubPostmasters, more regularly so we can ensure that particular issues, case studies and direct concerns are discussed and challenged on a more frequent basis, and we can all work together. Everybody in this room and all our stakeholders want to see the Post Office thrive and develop in the future. Some Members may regard me as having a different ideological view: there may be different ways of getting there, but the outcomes should remain the same.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that particular point. I have made it clear that we need to get into a situation whereby we can enter into close co-operation on consumer enforcement. What happens on geo-blocking will depend on whether we leave the European Union with a deal, but we are here today to talk about a no-deal SI.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has disappointed me by saying that he will not support the SI this afternoon. As I have outlined today, the very act of leaving the European Union without a deal would make the EU regulation redundant. It would be perverse for us to keep a regulation that would put UK traders at a disadvantage compared with EU traders.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Minister is talking about not disadvantaging UK consumers, which is a very laudable aim; that is what we all want. Does that mean that she will align with the European Union when it brings in a standard minimum expiration period of five years for gift cards?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I remind the hon. Lady that we are already going above and beyond what the European Union is doing on many consumer protection matters. The UK is working on further protections. We will always be mindful of what is coming from the European Union, and we will always be minded to go further. I will ensure that UK consumers are protected as far as possible, and I will be looking into strengthening many measures in the near future.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is being very generous with her time. Can I take from what she has just said that she is indeed going to bring in a five-year statutory expiration time for all gift cards? I have been urging her to do so and I have not quite had a yes. Has she given me a yes today?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady will know that we are discussing an SI related to geo-blocking, not gift cards, but I am happy to talk to her about gift cards and to make her aware when we decide to move forward with any changes or improvements in that area. I assure her that I am absolutely committed to protecting consumers in this country, and this Government will be working hard to ensure that we do that whether or not we get a deal.

This statutory instrument simply recognises the practical effect of a no-deal exit from the EU, and it is important for ensuring that UK traders are not unfairly subjected to any rules. I am therefore disappointed with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for saying that he will not support the draft regulations this afternoon. Failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights, which would effectively be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect of non-revocation would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefits to UK customers. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I totally agree. It is simply not viable to be a sub-postmaster at the moment.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend made an excellent point about the fact that our post offices are being expected to pick up the slack because the banks have abandoned our high streets. Does he agree that this is putting postmasters in crisis, because the remuneration is so poor that, on average, many earn below the minimum wage?

[Gavin Newlands]

It is as if my hon. Friend, who is sitting next to me, had read my speech, because I am about to come to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)]

The spring statement was indeed a statement for research, innovation and science. Looking at just one of those investments, there is £60 million to keep the Joint European Torus facility going, and there are hundreds of jobs and tens of PhDs at that facility. I am delighted that the Chancellor made that commitment as we move forward to 2.4% of GDP being spent on research and development by 2027.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

T8. Can the Secretary of State explain whether he personally thinks the Prime Minister’s exit deal will make the UK better off than remaining in the EU would?

[Greg Clark]

Substantial analysis has shown that, of all the options available, the Prime Minister’s deal is the one that provides the best economic future, and I hope the hon. Lady will support it.

Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Pensions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the pensions of Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers.

This is an opportunity to set out the case for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s pension age to be set at 60. That is not just a common-sense position but an urgent issue of national security. I am sure we can all agree that the effectiveness of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is essential for maintaining the UK’s nuclear security.

The job with which the CNC is charged must be clearly understood as part of any discussion about the retirement age of its officers. In partnership with the civil nuclear industry, national security agencies and regulatory bodies, the CNC deters any attacker whose intent is the theft or sabotage of nuclear material, whether static or in transit. It defends such material and will recover it should it be seized. Such dangerous work means that all CNC officers are heavily armed and are required to meet demanding levels of physical fitness. In addition, they are employed as armed officers alongside other UK armed police, as we have seen in recent operations following terror attacks. They play a crucial role in keeping us—the public—safe, and theirs is one of the most dangerous professions to enter.

The prospect of a retirement age of 67, rising to 68, is causing real concern to CNC officers. The chief constable of the CNC has warned that the change to the retirement age would render the service “unsustainable” and is undoubtedly creating “insurmountable” difficulties for CNC officers and the mission they seek to fulfil. Indeed, that unrealistic retirement age is already damaging recruitment. Police Oracle reports that turnover among CNC personnel has deteriorated, rising to 12%. The Civil Nuclear Police Federation says that the force is 142 authorised firearms officers under strength and has seen 79 unscheduled leavers since April 2018, with 32 signalling their intention to quit recently and recruitment numbers decreasing by half. Alarmingly, one in every eight CNC officers is leaving for another force or heading for civvy street.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the CNC’s size means that if an officer were injured or unable to carry the equipment it would be practically impossible, or certainly very difficult, to redeploy that officer within the force? That has to be considered as a factor in arguing that the default pension age should be 60.

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. That is a very important point. When any of these officers suffers an injury in the line of duty, the service has a duty of care to look after them until they are fit to return to duty. They will not necessarily be on sick leave the whole time, but it is difficult to redeploy them because of the nature of the work they undertake.

It is not difficult to see why the number of CNC officers has been eroding. CNC officers have been categorised as public sector workers for the purpose of their pension, meaning that full benefits kick in only at age 67 or 68, whereas conventional Home Office police officers are able to retire at 60. Does the Minister think that disparity fair, given that CNC officers are expected to carry five different weapons and 30 kg of heavy equipment at the age of 65-plus, as they are charged with protecting UK nuclear assets and act as a vital armed reserve force? If these officers’ retirement age is not given parity with the rest of the police service, there can be little doubt that it will continue to damage the recruitment and retention of CNC officers.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady from the bottom of my heart on bringing this debate forward. Although I represent the far north of Scotland, this issue is every bit as big to my constituents who serve in the force at Dounreay. I recognise the contribution they make, which she outlined, in assisting Police Scotland in its endeavours. Surely, the loss of skills as people leave the force represents a misuse of money. A lot of money is spent training these officers up, so it seems to me that public money is poured down the drain if they leave altogether and go to civvy street.

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. That is a very important point, which I need not add to. I am sure the Minister is listening. That loss of skills is extremely concerning.

The damage to the recruitment and retention of CNC officers can only compromise, perhaps dangerously, the effectiveness of the force, and it could have extremely serious consequences for public safety. In addition, if we expect such exacting standards of CNC officers, while demanding that they wait until 68 to retire, of course there will be a temptation for ageing officers who know their job could be under threat to mask health conditions that may undermine their performance.

We all know that most public sector workers are now expected to work for longer. However, there are exceptions for certain classes of worker, and it seems obvious that CNC officers should be included in those exceptions. Perhaps the Minister can explain why conventional police officers will continue to retire at 60 but CNC officers will not. What is the logic for that? Despite that fact, CNC officers must meet much higher standards of physical fitness to keep their jobs. Conventional police officers perform firearms duties as an optional part of their duties and can relinquish them as they get older. Every single CNC officer is required to be fully trained in firearms, and they cannot relinquish firearms duties as they get older; they are an inherent part of their duties. In addition, the requirement for CNC officers to retain a very high standard of fitness until the age of 67 or 68 discriminates against women, since only an elite standard of fitness is expected to be sufficient for those aged over 60 to continue their duties.

The vast majority of public servants will be able to draw down a full pension. Should a public service employee choose to retire early, they will have 6% of their pension deducted for each year they retire early. The problem for CNC officers is that they are not choosing to retire early; they are being forced out because of physical inability to maintain obligatory standards of physical fitness and weaponry skills. CNC officers are likely to have their careers terminated as they approach the higher retirement age, and they will see their pensions reduced, perhaps by up to 25% to 30%, as a result. That considerable financial penalty is proving a major career disincentive. In such a situation, how can the CNC stem the decline in recruitment and retention?

I hope the Minister does not respond by telling us that we are all living longer and that keeping the CNC retirement age at 60 would set a dangerous precedent. The CNC is asking only for the same provisions that are in place for conventional Home Office police officers.

Let us turn our attention to costs. Perhaps the Minister will find it reassuring to learn that the CNC has done its own cost modelling, which shows that the gross cost of a retirement age of 60 versus the current plans would be only £4.4 million per year from 2023 to 2030 and £5.2 million a year in the long run. In the short run, those costs would be more than offset by extra case management costs, early retirement and compensation costs, so keeping the retirement age at 60 would produce a net saving of £4.3 million a year. In the long run, once compensation costs were paid, the net saving would be around £1.9 million per year.

Make no mistake, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation has accepted the potential for increased employee contributions to cover increases in costs. That means there is no real financial obstacle to correcting the unfairness between police services created by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and securing the UK’s nuclear safety.

I say to the Minister that increasingly this fine service has been rendered ineffective, due to the dithering and delay from his Government’s unwillingness to resolve the issue.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that with the addition of the £40 million CNC training facility at Sellafield, where we have the biggest CNC employment base, and with the nuclear future we are looking forward to, it is more important than ever that we ensure we have a CNC fit for the future?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I applaud the new training facility that the hon. Lady mentions, but I am sure that many CNC officers would see an irony in investing in training when there is a serious recruitment and retention crisis. There has to be more joined-up thinking.

We know that potential recruits are looking elsewhere and serving officers are voting with their feet. If the UK Government are not willing to listen to CNC officers and continue to deny the truth that everyone in this Chamber can see, perhaps the Minister will explain why his Government have set a pension age for this service which he and they know full well cannot be realistically reached by those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. Does he accept that if this service continues to be eroded as it has been in recent years—the Government were warned that it would be three years ago and the truth of that is becoming clearer every single day—it will be for his Government to explain its decisions if there is a situation where nuclear security in the UK is compromised? The service will continue to erode unless action is taken.

As this service is eroded, every single CNC officer’s job becomes more unsafe and more dangerous. As the Minister’s Government dither and delay, the welfare, wellbeing and morale of our 1,250 CNC officers is being undermined. That is simply unacceptable. In today’s context, nobody needs to be reminded of the increased importance of the role these officers play in keeping us safe.

CNC officers do not want the Minister to stand up and pay them compliments about their bravery and the value of their work. They do not want platitudes; they want action, commitment and parity with conventional officers. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that there is sympathy on the Government Benches for CNC officers. It is time to get this matter sorted. It has already dragged on for far too long and every day is doing more damage to the service.

If the Government do not see, or will not pay attention to, the evidence that is staring them in the face, they should not be surprised if we see serious and catastrophic consequences for national security. The CNC will undoubtedly struggle increasingly to fulfil its important mission of protecting the UK’s civil nuclear sites at home or in transit, and to supplement the resources of armed conventional officers as a part of the strategic armed policing reserve and Operation Temperer.

I urge the Minister to be mindful of the fact that this debate is not just about pensions. It is not about pounds and pence. Ultimately, it is about whether or not his Government think nuclear security, public safety and national security are worth paying for and valuing, and how much he and his Government believe they matter. I know that those things matter to everyone in the Chamber and to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, in which the nuclear site of Hunterston sits. We all know it matters. What are his Government willing to do, in the face of a mountain of evidence, to show that they too believe that the work, health, wellbeing, careers, and, ultimately, the safety of our CNC officers matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I utterly accept that point. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for mixing up Hartlepool and Liverpool; I do not know why I did it. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not too offended. Perhaps it is because I come from Leeds, which is between the two. I got mixed up.

I am not going to say how important the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is to the nuclear industry, because everybody knows that. One of my early visits, and one of the most significant I have had in this job, was to Sellafield, where I saw the training centre. I did not just have a tour; I also saw how heavy the kit is, I spoke to a lot of officers and I heard about the training regimes they undertake. I do not think I could walk around all day and be fully mobile with the kit they have to wear and carry. I fully accept the level of fitness that is required. Chief Constable Mike Griffiths, who is about to leave the force, explained it clearly to me. He transformed the CNC so that it has become the modern force it is today.

The CNC is moving to the new pension scheme on 1 April next year. I have been keen to hear evidence and representations on the effect of the higher pension age on the effectiveness of the force. We engage with the CNC and the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, which I met last year, and I am well aware of their views. As soon as those views were brought to my attention, I contacted the Treasury and others in Government to try to resolve the issue. The least I could do was hear their representations—that is my job, as I am doing today—but I fully accept the importance of getting the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

I have contacted the Cabinet Office, because it administers the civil service pension scheme. The Treasury is responsible for public pensions policy and I have set out the arguments to officials there. It is easy to regard the Government as one collective group—that is perfectly reasonable and I understand that—but it is my job to support the causes within my Department within Government, and this issue is a top priority.

My officials have been working with the constabulary to gather additional evidence of the impact on national security, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, of the higher pension age. I have also facilitated a meeting this week between special advisers from No. 10 and the constabulary, in which these matters were discussed. I am trying to bring all these things together to resolve the problem.

However, like most things in life, the problem is more complex than it would appear on the surface. We know, as I have said, that the tests and weapons are very important; I do not think anyone who visits or sees pictures of them could deny that. On the question of why CNC officers are not treated as police officers in the normal way, a judicial review in 2016 determined that they are employees of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, so they come under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and are not defined as police officers for the purposes of the Public Service Pensions Act. That is the legal position.

Fitness standards were rolled out, as the hon. Lady said, in 2015-16, and authorised firearms officers must meet College of Policing mandated standards.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has set out his understanding of the challenging and important job that CNC officers do. I put it to him that perhaps the reason for the dither and delay across Government is because there appears to be, as I know from questions I have asked on the Floor of the House, a real lack of understanding at the heart of Government of what these officers are required to do, the challenges they face and the importance of the role they play.

[Richard Harrington]

I must respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, if only because I have tried it myself. I have been there and seen that, so my understanding is not just based on representations. I hope she accepts that I understand this; there may be others who do not, but it is my job to make sure that they do. I accept that—it is my responsibility and my job.

The capabilities are very complex. The two tests of fitness and firearms capability determine whether an officer is deployable. It is the officer’s capability, rather than age, that is the determining factor, and I think that must be the right approach. Being in the age range of those who would be in such a position, as I was explaining to the hon. Lady before the debate started, I admit that, although some people are vastly fitter than I am, I would find it very difficult myself at my age of 61. I know it is harder for older officers to attain the fitness standards, but the College of Policing independently determines the standard that authorised firearms officers must achieve to do their job effectively and safely. That is a matter of national security and I accept that it cannot be compromised.

The Public Service Pensions Act legislated to introduce the link between scheme normal pension age and state pension age for most public service pension schemes, to ensure that the cost over the long term remains sustainable. I will not go further into that, because the hon. Lady marked my card that I might, and she does not want platitudes about people getting older. She is quite right, so I will not say it, but we must accept the fact that, in the end, all public service schemes have to be funded and public service employees have to work for longer.

In certain areas—prison officers are another case—there are not a lot of back-office jobs that people who are older can do. In the police force generally, there are plenty of those functions; I do not just mean some back-office clerical function, because there are many things that are less active but still fully contribute to the objectives of a particular police force. I accept that nuclear is one sector where that is less possible, because there just are not many similar functions.

The equality analysis accepted that it is harder for older female officers to attain such high fitness standards. A pension scheme has to be fair to females too, because they have a flatter career trajectory for that reason. The proposed pension scheme, alpha, is a career average earnings scheme rather than a final salary scheme. Changed contribution rates under this scheme will help employees with shallower career trajectories, which historically means women rather than men, although, obviously, male officers in the same position will also benefit.

I will also highlight the ill-health retirement provisions. We recognise that CNC officers have a higher rate of musculoskeletal disorders from carrying the heavy kit. The ill-health retirement provisions in their current pension scheme are quite strict and allow an ill-health retirement only where the officer is not capable of any other work. Consequently, officers who gain an ill-health retirement are not allowed to do any work after their exit from the force.

The alpha scheme, however, gives its members choice and recognises that it is desirable for people to continue working if they are able. It affords a lower tier of benefit to those who are unable to continue working in their role or a comparable one, so an officer could leave the CNC with an ill-health pension but still gain employment elsewhere to supplement their income and have a full working life in a more suitable job.

I am very aware of the current retention issues affecting the constabulary. I have been informed that there have been an unusually high number of resignations—in the last month alone there were 26—and that 19 officers are moving across to the Ministry of Defence Police. I do not think that the evidence presented is strong enough to draw a direct link between the current retention issues facing the CNC and the move to a different pension scheme, since many of the officers resigning are moving to a force that has the same pension scheme that the Civil Nuclear Police Federation is resisting.

I also do not consider the current retention issues facing the CNC to be a national security crisis. The CNC has assured us that it can operate with its current force strength, albeit officers are being asked to do overtime. If that changes, I will reappraise my position, but the CNC is still policing our nuclear sites to its required regulatory strength and our nuclear estate remains secure. I am grateful for the explanation and arguments that the hon. Lady and other colleagues have given today.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but can I ask him to explain something? I know that a lot of CNC officers do not understand this, and I do not either: why has a retirement age for CNC officers been set that, realistically, they cannot reach?

[Richard Harrington]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise that realistically those officers cannot reach it. I accept that some of them cannot, but obviously some people can and some cannot; I mentioned myself, but many people are far fitter than me in doing that job and other dangerous jobs in society.

The hon. Lady told me—I know this is not your fault, Mr Stringer—that she had applied for this debate quite some months beforehand. I am glad we have had the debate, but if that happens in the future, she is welcome to contact me directly to discuss issues such as this. That would perhaps not be in such a public forum, but if she finds the system frustrating and she cannot get a debate, she is welcome to contact me.

In summary, I have met everyone concerned in this matter. I am pushing colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, and I would like to see it resolved as soon as I possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

Unpaid Work Trials

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of unpaid work trials at the outset of employment.

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone; it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Hon. Members will know of my longstanding interest in this issue, having introduced a private Member’s Bill on it after the 2017 election: the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. Unfortunately, and I hate to start on a sour note, my Bill was talked out by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), when he was in post. I am an optimist, however, and I am optimistic that the new Minister will drive us in a different direction, see the gravity of the problem, and bring forward the necessary legislation to prevent that exploitation from continuing.

There are many people—not just in this House, but outside it as well—whom I should thank for their input during my preparations for that Bill and for this debate, and during my long campaigning on the issue, but I will single out one campaign for mention: Unite’s “Better Than Zero” campaign. It has been at the forefront of not only challenging the use of unpaid work trials, but putting forward a credible alternative to exploitative work practices, with a particular focus on the hospitality sector. I encourage all hon. Members to support that campaign, particularly its hospitality charter.

I will outline exactly what is going on and why it is a problem that needs fixing. Unpaid work trials—the period between applying for a job and being given the formal job offer—are at the heart of what I want the Government to fix. I want them to fix the fact that that part of employment law is entirely unregulated, although I am sure the Minister will dispute that when she gets to her feet. There is a deficiency in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, for which, in fairness, I do not blame Labour. Nobody saw it as an issue then and has not for the last 20 years, but it is a deficiency that needs to be fixed.

During my research for this debate and the preparations for my private Member’s Bill, many hundreds of people got in touch to give me their personal experiences of what it is like to take part in an unpaid trial shift. I myself did it when I was younger, as, I am sure, did many other hon. Members. Unpaid trials range from perhaps a couple of hours in a coffee shop or a hotel, for example, right up to the extreme end, with the most extreme that I have come across being a 40-hour working week, where people tried out for a job that they would not be paid for and had no guarantee of securing permanently.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done to bring this important issue to the public’s attention. More than half of people know someone who has experienced an unpaid work trial or have done one themselves. Does he agree that that shows the scale of the problem and the abuse of workers that is taking place?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Indeed. Although there are no Government or trade union statistics on that, it is a problem that everyone knows exists, because we have either done it ourselves or know somebody who has.

Not only do people work—as in the case that I mentioned—for up to 40 hours without pay when trying out for a job, but we have the vicious situation of people being offered work trials for jobs that do not even exist. That can take the form of a job being advertised so a business can get itself through a busy period such as Christmas, or the wedding season in the spring time if the employer is a hotel. It can also be used to cover staff sicknesses. People are being taken advantage of when they are asked to come in and try out for jobs that there is absolutely no chance of them getting, because all the employer wants to do is cover shortages in their own rota.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), not just on securing this debate but on the legislation he introduced under the private Member’s Bill process. It is an area of deep regret that that legislation has not been pursued. It highlights the absolute folly of the private Member’s Bill system in this place, but that is a debate for another day.

I rise to make similar points to those already made. We need action on this today. I think, “Okay, fine, great, guidelines,” but the reality is that we need this enshrined in law. In the time I have been in this House, I have already seen a number of areas of employment legislation and employment practice that do not do justice to our constituents, quite frankly. Some of it is about unpaid work trials, which I reckon will be even more of a thing after Brexit. The hospitality sector largely relies on EU nationals. When the drawbridge is brought up as a result of the Immigration Bill, the chances are that the hospitality sector is going to rely more on people in the local population working in those jobs. I would be very concerned if hotels and restaurants decided that they were going to deploy unpaid work trials.

[Patricia Gibson]

The UK Government have said that they are of the view that unpaid work trials are permissible in legitimate recruitment processes. Does he agree with me that the problem is that nobody is monitoring what is permissible and what is legitimate?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; that is something the Minister should consider. When we say that this place just does not deliver for workers’ rights, we look at the absolute lack of any action on zero-hours contracts. We look at, for example, the age discrimination in the national living wage, which is not applicable to those under 25. Those are areas where the Government have been told time and time again that Parliament wants action, but they sit back and say, “Oh well, we’ll do guidelines, or we’ll do consultations.” I certainly welcome consultations, but at this stage we need to see legislation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has made the point that, even though the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is on the statute books, only 14 employers have been found in breach of the legislation since it came into force. I do not think that is helpful at all.

The point I would make, which people would expect to come from a Scottish Nationalist Member of Parliament, is that if Westminster is not willing to take action on better employment conditions, then surely it should look at devolving that legislation to the Scottish Parliament, where we have a track record of taking action. Take, for example, the business pledge, whereby companies make commitments to say that they are investing in youth, do not have zero-hours contracts and do not discriminate based on someone’s age. There is clearly action in Scotland that can and will be taken to provide better employment conditions for people.

I regret that a number of parties in this Parliament blocked the devolution of employment legislation. If hon. Members are going to stand up in this Chamber today and say that they want better employment rights for people, that is fine—I would like to see better employment rights for people across the UK—but I do not want to come to another debate and make this point again and be stonewalled by the Government. If the Government are not willing to do it, then the Scottish Government will.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate and on his persistent and tenacious work in championing this long-standing issue. It is important, because in many ways his background is reflected in the priorities he brings to this House. I was thinking about the backgrounds of many MPs, and perhaps that is something we need to consider. Is this matter on their radar at all? Do they have even a basic understanding of how this sector operates? Have they ever had exposure to it? Have they ever understood how these exploitative employment practices work?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I share that background of having worked in similar environments. I reflect on my first job when I was at school: I went to work in a pizzeria in Glasgow called La Vita, which hon. Members might have heard of. There is one in George Square, one in Byres Road and one in Bishopbriggs Cross. I was hired on a zero-hours contract, but I also had to do an unpaid trial shift when I started there with my friend Ryan. I remember we were competing against each other for the same job, but they ended up taking us both on.

Often, we would go in during the week and work for maybe an hour, and then be sent home with a free pizza when we were expecting to work five or six hours. It was okay for me, because I was still living at home at the time, so it was pocket money, but I shudder to think about the people I worked alongside, who relied on that as income to live on and often to take care of children. While I was somewhat insulated from the full effects of that exploitative practice, I none the less realised that it was unfair and discriminatory. We also had our tips taken from us—a practice that was subsequently made illegal. That just shows that, even though we are operating at the margins, things that happened then to me and others are actually illegal now.

We are still dealing with the effects of casualised employment, zero-hours contracts and unpaid trial shifts, which remain to be tackled. I wonder why that is not a priority for this Government and why it is not a priority for more Members of this House, who might otherwise have been here. I think it is simply that they are not aware of it.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it does not seem to be a priority for this Government—unless, of course, the Minister is able to enlighten us and tell us what her Government might do. Does he agree, given that we all understand it is not a priority for this Government, that that is a powerful argument for devolving this power to the Scottish Government?

[Mr Sweeney]

As a Labour Member of Parliament, my analysis is primarily driven by class. I have just as much interest in securing the employment rights of someone who lives in Liverpool as of someone in Glasgow. That is where I operate. I am saying that I want us to have unity of purpose for worker’s rights across the UK, and that is why I believe in the trade union movement and the labour movement. We can have respect for ideological difference on this, but that is my analysis, and it is as simple as that.

I want to increase trade union density, because there has historically been a significant casualisation and a low trade union density in the hospitality sector in this country. That is why the “Better Than Zero” campaign has been particularly effective in mobilising workers and making them aware of their power. I also commend the GMB for the excellent, ground-breaking agreement it achieved with Hermes, the courier firm, just yesterday, which secured holiday pay, guaranteed rates and collective negotiation under the GMB, with full recognition for those workers. That is a lesson for the rest of the gig economy and the hospitality sector that we can really achieve improvements, and a demonstration of a trade union working innovatively. What could we do for workers’ rights across the UK with the real force of law and legislation behind them? I feel that would be a real game-changer for our economy; it would improve average wages and improve the resilience of our economy, and that is the way we ought to proceed.

I have experienced exploitative employment practices, as have other Members of this House. It is time that this House woke up to the reality facing millions of young people and casualised workers across the UK.

Draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 General Committees

On resuming—

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My remarks on this statutory instrument will be very brief. The SI repeals the consumer protection co-operation regulation in full to ensure that there are no unilateral obligations or rights conferred on or between EU member states and/or the UK after Brexit, in the event of a no deal.

Is it the Government’s policy to ensure that, as far as possible, UK consumers are no worse off after Brexit than before? However, it is also the case that there are no substantial policy changes proposed for UK consumer law in the event of no deal, and after Brexit. My concern is that there are absolutely no guarantees that UK consumer law will continue to evolve and develop to ensure that UK consumers are not disadvantaged and left, over time, with fewer protections relative to their European counterparts. That must be a cause of concern to us all.

Furthermore, I am well aware that the Minister simply cannot guarantee that our rights will not diverge from Europe’s over time, because that is not in the gift of the Minister. That is why this is a matter of concern. We are being asked blindly to step into the unknown. That is the nature of Brexit, deal or no deal, whether we like it or not, regardless of how we voted.

Given the circumstances today, may I throw out for the Minister’s consideration a matter I have written to her about? I thought this might be a timely moment to bring it up. She will be aware there are many areas of concern for the future, but one example that concerns me is that the EU is now set to move on standardising the expiry dates on all gift cards at five years, instead of the mishmash of confusion that we have now.

The Minister will perhaps remember that I have made inquiries. I found that the UK Government are reluctant to examine this matter carefully, despite the fact that the industry is worth billions of pounds in the UK and that the measure would cost the UK Government nothing to implement. This is one simple area where UK consumers will be left behind when such provision is adopted across the EU post-Brexit. I know that the Minister suspects that that may not happen in Europe, but I can assure her that there are definitely moves afoot for it to happen. As the CPC regulation makes clear, it is the “collective interests of consumers” that we need to be protecting.

The reality is that Brexit, with or without a deal, can only—perhaps in moments of self-reflection, the Minister will see this—reduce the UK’s influence and that of UK enforcement bodies. I do not think that is a matter of dispute. She said in her opening remarks that co-operation will continue. I of course very much hope, for the sake of consumers, that that will be the case. No one wants to see a diminution of consumer protection. No one voted for that in the referendum. Whatever they voted for, they were not voting for fewer protections as consumers. However, concerns remain, because the UK will lose the influence that it has in the area of consumer protection, and of course in other areas, as we ironically will be forced to look inwards, instead of outwards, if we are engulfed by the chaos of no deal.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. As a responsible Government, we continue to prepare proportionately for all scenarios, including the scenario that we leave the EU without a deal. That is what this statutory instrument ensures: it revokes provision in the CPC regulation and the injunctions directive that will not be reciprocated by the EU in a no-deal situation.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the particular issue that she has raised. It is not in the scope of these regulations, but, as she knows, I am more than happy to communicate with her outside this statutory instrument Committee. Importantly, the instrument ensures that, after EU exit, UK enforcers retain powers to continue protecting UK consumers in the case of infringement of UK consumer law. That includes EU-derived consumer law.

[Patricia Gibson]

What does the Minister think will be the effect on the UK’s influence in European markets, for example? After Brexit, does she think that the UK’s influence on consumer protection will increase or decrease?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The statutory instrument before us talks about UK enforcement, and that, through our UK enforcement agencies, which are already registered under EU law, will be retained under UK law. As always, this Government and our enforcement agencies are committed to the protection of consumers in this country and will do whatever they can, in the event of no deal, to ensure that the relationships with our European neighbours will be maintained as far as possible, but obviously a lot of that will rest with the EU and how it wants to deal with us after EU exit.